How playing against humans will be different...

[Sir Og]

I think that in MP games a lot of people will play without civ specific abilities.
This way people won't argue over who gets to be the egyptians, persians, americans or whatever.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Sir Og
I think that in MP games a lot of people will play without civ specific abilities.
This way people won't argue over who gets to be the egyptians, persians, americans or whatever.

I think random civ will be more common.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by statusperfect


I think random civ will be more common.

With random civs some players will start with better civs than others. The only way to eliminate that would be to play without civ specific abilities.
At least I think that in MP playing without civ specific abilities will be a lot more common than in SP.

[alva]

Me thinks there are enough civs to go around, There 's at least 5 or 6 (perceived to be) best civs.

And civ abilities are one of the strong points in civ3 IMO.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Sir Og
With random civs some players will start with better civs than others. The only way to eliminate that would be to play without civ specific abilities.
At least I think that in MP playing without civ specific abilities will be a lot more common than in SP.

I will not play a game without civ abilities. I like the flavor of the civs and I'll even play with one of the 'weak' civs. I will mainly play random pick. (But then again I'm the guy who says that expansionistic civs are strong).

[Slax]

I assume there will be three ways for human players to lose:
1. Fighting to the bitter end.
2. Deciding they can't win, and playing poorly to get out of the game.
3. Deciding they can't win, and leaving the game abruptly.

Players using method #3 will take a reputation hit and may find it harder to get into other games. Players using method #2 will be harder to detect. Players using method #1 should be applauded when the game is dissected.

[Buster13]

Originally posted by Slax
I assume there will be three ways for human players to lose:
1. Fighting to the bitter end.
2. Deciding they can't win, and playing poorly to get out of the game.
3. Deciding they can't win, and leaving the game abruptly.

Players using method #3 will take a reputation hit and may find it harder to get into other games. Players using method #2 will be harder to detect. Players using method #1 should be applauded when the game is dissected.

One could only hope that players will hold people responsible for being babies and getting out early. Still, though...you can't say you've never restarted a game for a bad starting position, on being right next to a couple enemy civs right off of the bat. I think this will be the greatest challenge for us to overcome. ..learning how to play from ANY starting position effectively.

I hope the people who subscribe to #1 get applauded. I think it would be admirable to see, especially some of these better players on this site.

[statusperfect]

You can win from ANY starting location. It's all about manipulation. You scratch my back and i put a dagger in yours.

[sun_tzu_159]

I will play my favourite civ chinese by preference with civ specific abilities on.

From the new civs I will be trying Vikings and Celts first, these will have early advantage with UU which are very strong.

There must be a facility so that all human players can agree that they all have OK starting positions before the game is started properly, i.e. a poll, all = yes, game started, any human player = no, reposition those players.

Does this game play 8Human + 8AI, 16 civs on huge map? I will have my 2.8GHz processor on broadband connection to cope with this!!!

It is indeed a pain to run a huge empire and keeping one or two AI sweet - especially in research stakes and resources supply could tip the balance to the clever diplomat player. I do not think it will be easy to do this, other human players may hand AI's advantage as they are persuaded to stay at the side of one human player or another.

It will be interesting to see what the quicker and better AI can do at Deity level. All human players may take a nasty shock before working out new strategies.

Human player will be able to perform the sustained attack by sea. AI is poor at this - its attempts do not deliver enough units at a time to one spot.

Will there be two AI teaming against one human. This could especially happen in the early game before humans have contacted each other.

Is there a chat/taunt facility in the game other than the diplo screens or will there be extra messages you could send such as 'I am attacking xxxx next turn, theres nothing you can do about it'.

Regards
SunTzu

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by sun_tzu_159
Does this game play 8Human + 8AI, 16 civs on huge map? I will have my 2.8GHz processor on broadband connection to cope with this!!!

8 players total in MP according to Mike B.

Is there a chat/taunt facility in the game other than the diplo screens or will there be extra messages you could send such as 'I am attacking xxxx next turn, theres nothing you can do about it'.

Full chat including voice according to the last chat.

[BillChin]

I am late to this thread. Here are a few:

1) Early warmongering is less useful in MP. Human players can set up their early empires so that cities burn when captured by having pop one (pop rush or build workers) and no culture. I see few humans giving techs, cities or gold in a peace treaty. A player that is losing is more likely to gift all their remaining cities to a rival than suffer this humiliation. This may be done by inviting in another nation to claim their cities rather than give them to a player who attacked. Perhaps some kind or rules of fair trade are needed for this.
A human player is going to have an entirely different response to an early war than an AI. This may be a major adjustment for players used to attacking early and often.

2) Culture is a lot less important. Cultural victories and culture pushes are probably off the table. In pure MP, trading for luxuries one-for-one, will be more common, so skipping temples and cathedrals may be common. This might be deadly in single player, but I see it as a strong option in MP for non-religious civs.

3) Diplomacy, alliances and resources are a lot more important. Negotiations demand a lot more subtlety.

4) Researching is a lot more attractive in pure MP. Without AI players with insane research rates to bully techs from, a confrontational game makes doing actual research a more attractive option. Scientific and early libraries, and Commercial for the gold and corruption bonus become more attractive.

5) Some kind of map leveler utility that insures that all players get some kind of decent starting terrain may be in high demand.
- Bill

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by BillChin
I am late to this thread. Here are a few:

1) Early warmongering is less useful in MP.

Haven't played much MP have you? I see the early rush wiping out about half the players in any given game. Who cares if the city burns if it's an opponents city?

2) Culture is a lot less important

While I don't think there will be many cultural victories in MP, culture is very important for holding your conquests and expanding your holdings.

[alva]

I will not play a game without civ abilities. I like the flavor of the civs and I'll even play with one of the 'weak' civs. I will mainly play random pick. (But then again I'm the guy who says that expansionistic civs are strong).

IF playing on the right map, your absolutely right IMO

You can win from ANY starting location. It's all about manipulation. You scratch my back and i put a dagger in yours.

Doesn't matter to much in SP, but starting in desert or jungle will set you back alot in MP. Up to the point of never recovering

2) Culture is a lot less important. Cultural victories and culture pushes are probably off the table. In pure MP, trading for luxuries one-for-one, will be more common, so skipping temples and cathedrals may be common. This might be deadly in single player, but I see it as a strong option in MP for non-religious civs.

Culture will still be a good thing, borders will still play an important role in MP. Knowing your enemy is about to stab you in the back just turn sooner might make a big difference

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by alva848
Doesn't matter to much in SP, but starting in desert or jungle will set you back alot in MP. Up to the point of never recovering

I have never started in desert/jungle in a 1.29 game. I don't believe people will start in such places with PtW. With ANY starting location i meant ANY staring location possible within the elimits of the game. (As far as i know the completely ****ed-up locations are a pre-patch thingy.)

[aahz_capone]

I don't think culture will be useless in MP, as it is extremely important in holding borders, combating cutltural flip and getting those "just not close enough" resources. ( I hate wasting workers on colonies).

Here's a interesting conundrum:

If a human player obtains a city during peacetime from his neighbouring human via cultural flip, will said neighbour declare war?

According to the rules of war (and civ3) this is not sufficient to wage war, but I don't think many humans will care, and either demand it back in diplomacy (making a nice hostage situation) or just invade outirght.

I myself will accept a flip, seeing it as a message that my culture stinks. However, anyone trying propoganda will find their civilized head on a civilized spike.