I can't believe this..

[DrSpike]

In amongst his usual bs Eyes makes several good points. If the MP version doesn't make some changes then MP will not last long. Having said that the variable combat results by themselves don't seem to me to be the worst offender. I envisage a MP game more akin to RTS games than civ2MP, with the emphasis on rush and counterrush. There will be some flexibility with regard to choosing the balance between teching, rushing, and expanding, and therein will lie the appeal (or not) of the game.

Whether this style of game will work without the micro of RTS I don't know. I don't think hardcore TBS fans are going to be blown away, but we can live in hope.

[N. Machiavelli]

I believe that the pattern of how the games are played will be determined on whether or not there will be a central ranking system or ladder. I fear that, like in RTS games, a ranking system would promote the wrong kind of 'society' so to speak. If folks are more concerned with numbers, rather than simply competative games, most games are going to be a matter of who can raise the most number of offensive units the quickest. This is further enhanced by the fact that TBS games are notoriously long (though a good thing IMHO), and most will not have the patience to bother playing for an hour or so and not past the middle middle-ages.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
zack: what values do you use for the different experience levels?

I usually play the standard values, though I have experimented with higher values. I find the standard values to be quite playable. I would seek out someone with more experience with mods.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i'm a bit suspicious about MP too. but if i understood it right, sid meier and firaxis have developed a totally new style of multiplayer. some mix between turn-based and realtime. so expect that it'll either die after just a few months or it might even start an absolutely new style of strategy-games, like civ1 once did.

I agree. Everyone should be somewhat suspicious of Civ MP, I think. It will be close to a miracle if they can make it work right. The randomness factor that HappySunShine is concerned about may be just one of many problems MP will encounter.

[Jon Shafer]

Standard values are good as long as you recognize that there will always be some random-ness to battles. For those who scream and cry when their Swordsmen lose to Warriors on grasslands, better knock up the HP a bit. I turned it up simply because I like longer battles and it does seem to make things a bit more realistic.

[Cookie Monster]

Just some random thoughts on MP.

I agree with one of the earlier posters that starting location will be even more critical in MP than in SP. Starting location definately outweighs the randomness combat "glitch" in Civ3 IMO. A poor starting location next to a couple of better off neighbors spells instant death. OTOH, a poor starting location devoid of serious threats may be turned into glorious victory ala Aeson's feats of wonder at deity. You have to b33 1337 to pull that off though.

Different thought; It would be the tradegy of the century if PTW boils down to a RTS style rush rush rush kill kill kill fest. My expectations are extremely low. Initially I vowed not to purchase PTW until fellow 'Poly'ers gave it a go and gave us truthfull feedback. Then I allowed myself to get caught up in all the hype from E3. I figured I'll get PTW because it won't be like before. Now, with the fear of RTS rushing in the clouds, I am thinking hold off again. In the end I'm sure I will make the purchase the day PTW comes out. After all, after a year of patches, Civ3 is a pretty good game.

One last thing...............stacked combat ala CtP series roxxxored! I like it............Perhaps why so many bash CtP's stacked combat is because they feel it is too easy to win battles. Have those critics engaged in MP? I think their opinions would change.......

[HappySunShine]

MP always has and always will be a rush to kill the other person. The only people who don't play that way are the rookies that play on large maps, deity, etc. to slow the expansion and overall game down. It would be really cool if they incorporated RTS style rushes into Civ3. I think that's the best thing that could ever happen to civ3. Even in civ2 there were rushes. I was best known for my horserush and it I made it the standard of play. The explorer rush and knight rush were all great rushes. But in civ3...I don't see any rushes that can be done. The techs come too slow and defense is so damn easy on civ3. They really really need to put in double movement or they'll unbalance the game with the double production and single moves. They will be truly be incompetent if they just leave it at accelerated production without accelerated moves. 2x2x was always the most common form of MP. So many things can go wrong with MP and I don't have confidence in Firaxis/infogrames to keep them from happening.

[N. Machiavelli]

You have got to be kidding me HappySunShine. Both your 'rush is god' attitude and your delusions that you are the greatest player/inventor of moves in the cosmos. I guess in a month or two, we'll find out 'eh?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
MP always has and always will be a rush to kill the other person. The only people who don't play that way are the rookies that play on large maps, deity, etc. to slow the expansion and overall game down. It would be really cool if they incorporated RTS style rushes into Civ3. I think that's the best thing that could ever happen to civ3. Even in civ2 there were rushes. I was best known for my horserush and it I made it the standard of play. The explorer rush and knight rush were all great rushes. But in civ3...I don't see any rushes that can be done. The techs come too slow and defense is so damn easy on civ3. They really really need to put in double movement or they'll unbalance the game with the double production and single moves. They will be truly be incompetent if they just leave it at accelerated production without accelerated moves. 2x2x was always the most common form of MP. So many things can go wrong with MP and I don't have confidence in Firaxis/infogrames to keep them from happening.

well, there's the chariot/horseman rush , the warrior rush, the archer rush
and my favorite: the swordman-rush.
iron working is a quickly reached tech (AI first goes from bronze working, buy it, build loads of warriors, get iron, build barracks, upgrade... and take city by city ;-) ... it even works against the greeks, allthough the swordsmen-loss is a lot higher

[dunk]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Maybe you should shut the **** up dunk. My real name is EyesOfNight. I was the best civ2 MP player ever. I spent 2 years at number 1 on the ladder and I have written more MP strategies than anyone. I've been playing this game for over a decade and civ3 isn't what you would call a challenging game. But that's beside the point. Only newbies worry about the AI anyways, I'm worried about the combat model as it applies to MP. So why don't you sit back and keep your stupid rookie assessments to yourself? Got it? Anyone else want to act stupid like dunk?

Good for you. I'm so glad you were a good Civ II player. CLAP CLAP. But there are good Civ III players here. Go take a look at their strategies in the "Strategy" forum and practice on them. They work.

Did I ever say that you sucked? No. I said you needed to get better. AT CIV III. Please note that there are three I's there. And I said to stop whining.

Plenty of people have had to adjust strategies for this game from Civ II. I find combat far from completely random. But there is a random element to it. It makes you be prepared.

I think MP is going to require some very tactful planning and great execution to become a top player. Why? Because there is a random element to the game. Things like formations and timing will be more important than superior units. There's a risk involved wiht every battle.

Please don't hurt me with your grand Civ II MP skills.

[HappySunShine]

Did I ever say that you sucked? No. I said you needed to get better. AT CIV III. Please note that there are three I's there. And I said to stop whining.

Shut the **** up fanboy. I have yet to even lose a city to the AI so I guess you really have no idea what you're talking about. I have read most the strategies in the civ3 forum and they are a joke. The only person that seems to have any competence in there is Velociryx.

"well, there's the chariot/horseman rush , the warrior rush, the archer rush
and my favorite: the swordman-rush.
iron working is a quickly reached tech (AI first goes from bronze working, buy it, build loads of warriors, get iron, build barracks, upgrade... and take city by city ;-) ... it even works against the greeks, allthough the swordsmen-loss is a lot higher"

The idea of a rush is to hit very very early. Rushing in civ2 started in 3500BC. A warrior rush is completely stupid. That would never ever work against a human. The chariot/horseman rush is the same as it was in civ2...just way slower. And again, the idea of a rush is to harass and slow the opponent down while picking off the weaker cities as you gain a tech and city lead. That means you need to have few losses in order to execute it correctly. There are rushes in civ3, just alot slower and with the random combat results alot harder to execute. You can never really say for certain what will work and what won't until MP actually comes out. But I have my reservations and doubts. Here is the other reason 1x moves are bad for rushes:

With a movement rate of 1 for warriors, it takes a longer time to get to the enemy. So you're building warriors first BEFORE your settlers, the enemy is building settlers and as he sees you coming with warriors can simply buy or build a few before you ever get there. That also means that you have to stand by the city before you attack. It's very easy to counter attack 1 move units. That's why rushes are always best done with 2 move units like chariots/horsemen or knights. Now the warrior and swordsmen rush may work against the AI, but you have to remember that in MP you're playing against a human that is 1000 times better than the AI. As for horsemen, there is really no point in even attacking cities with horsemen, it's better to capture workers, pillage, and harass the enemy. The difference in civ3 though is that you aren't really hurting the enemy by forcing him to throw down a few spearmen since settlers take a size 3 city to build that means you need to build something while the city is growing. In civ2 however they only took 1 so if you forced an opponent to defend too much he lost expansion time as well as production since the rusher doesn't have to defend any of his cities and can do nothing but produce settlers. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly takes a very key aspect of rushing away.

So in conclusion, yes there are rushes in civ3, but they are much weaker and slower.

[player1]

Originally posted by HappySunShine
I have yet to even lose a city to the AI so I guess you really have no idea what you're talking about. I have read most the strategies in the civ3 forum and they are a joke. The only person that seems to have any competence in there is Velociryx.

Hmm,
You know that this is insulting to some people.

[Zachriel]

I believe that many weaker players (gulp) will succumb to early rushes. The weak will be the prey for the strong.

(Even without an early rush, there are ample opportunities for strategic gameplay.)

[Ming]

There are some really valid points being made in this thread. I hate to see them being buried by personal attacks. So keep up the great discussion, and leave the personal insults SOMEWHERE ELSE!

[Jon Shafer]

But Ming, he's the best Civ 2 player in the world.

Okay, okay, I just had to throw that in.

N.. no, Ming, don't do it! Noooo!

HappySunShine, I'll just say that your support of the rush tactic is absurd for a strategy game. If rush strategies fail miserably in MP I'll be overjoyed. That's one of the reasons I don't play many RTS MP games.

[Sheik]

You could use the combat calculator found at:

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3combatcalc.html

This will tell you the most likely outcome and will tell you how freak your results may have been.

[kring]

Thank you Ming.

[Velociryx]

When this thread began to degenerate into name calling, I intentionally stayed away from it. I was tempted to reply when my name appeared in the discussion, but decided against it. I have no desire to participate in any sort of flame war, but I *do* have something to say with regards to strategy.

Players who rely extensively or exclusively on rushing to win their games are essentially a "one trick pony." That's not opinion, btw...that's simply the way it is.

"The-Rush" has got to be the MOST linear style of wargaming that ever was. Strategic? Not a chance. Tactical? Absolutely. The rush is PURE tactics and not one whit of strategy. It's main, most compelling strength?

It works.

Absolutely no denying that. But to equate rushing with strategic brilliance is....I....there simply are no words for that. Suffice it to say though, that the notion is incorrect. Rush tactics have as much to do with strategy as dryer lint has to do with Moon rocks.

Players who excel at rush tactics can rack up HUGE numbers of wins against players who aren't so good at the tactical nuiances of rushing. This has nothing to do with strategic brilliance either. What it means is that the player in question is really good at rushing.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

That Civ3 is less prone to linear Rush tactics is, IMO, a very good thing. I do not believe it was intended, nor the result of any masterful planning by the game's designers, but it is nonetheless, a good thing.

There's a difference between Nathan Bedford Forrest's (strategic) axiom of "getting there the furstest with the mostest" and the Rush game's desire to build an attack force with all possible speed and go hurt someone.

Rushing boils the game down to two elements: Cities = Factories (for the purpose of producing more factories and troops), and the troops themselves, to go ding the other guy's factories. That's all.

That's.....dull, in my opinion.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Well, if you care to think about it the rush is gone. Civ3 will be more power based. IMHO. Even if you have double movement you still have the inability to use enemy roads and rails. Counterattacks in friendly territory will have a big edge in mobility. Catapults and cannon are weak and slow. Not good for offensive use against cities, better used on defense against attacker in the open.

And then the unlimited railroad movement essentially triples the defenders firepower. It may take a double team to take out a good player.

Also, in certain parts of the game defense is better than offense, like in real history. Limits the rush opportunities. This game will be won with mass not velocity.

[DrSpike]

Vel.

But the discussion was for MP, and a lot of the time MP is a test of rushing skills. I regard civ2MP 2x2x king as a rushers game, the closest TBS gets to RTS. I do not regard 1x1x deity as a rushers game. Your distinction between strategy and tactics is spot on; I have always felt those who want more tactics should play settings like 2x2x king and those who want more strategy settings like 1x1x deity..........but I know some players disagree........and before this degenerates into a civ2MP debate lets get back on track.

I stated earlier I think civ3MP will be a more tactically orientated rush style game, akin to civ2MP 2x2x king or RTS games. I do not see why civ3 is not set up for rushing.......as far as I can see the fact that 10 warriors beats most expansion/teching strats means that rushing may be the only way to go. Whether this is a bad thing or not I'm not sure, perhaps we will end up with a deeper RTS style game. However, I don't think many TBS fans are going to be happy.

[Capt Dizle]

Well, you are gonna have to bring vet warriors or you will lose 2 or 3 warriors for each defender you kill. And worse if the defender has spearmen.

[Jon Shafer]

Warrior rushes will be hard. Archer rushes will have to be lucky. Horsemen and Swordsmen rushes will have to be big.

Not the best circumstances for rushes, but they will be possible.

[Velociryx]

"...but a lot of time, MP is a test of rushing skills."

***

The above statement is certainly true more often than it isn't (in most any MP game, RTS, TBS...doesn't matter).

And it brings up an interesting set of questions in my mind.

1) Is this what we want in an MP gaming experience? Does this sort of MP game give us deep and complex and satisfying game play, or is it just a good time killer?

2) How important is the measure of one's success at MP, given that it's mostly a test of rushing skill? Can you predict with any degree of accuracy how sharp a strategic mind someone has by looking at their rush-born win record in MP?

3) Assuming the answer to #1 is a resounding NO! It's not really what we want in an MP gaming experience, how then can we change the nature/structure and dynamics of the game in such a way that it IS a bit more....well......strategic!

THAT, in my mind, is the question we should be asking where MP is concerned....

-=Vel=-

PS: Very good points re: bombard units and defensive advantages....I wonder though....:: pondering:: Don't know...time will tell, and it'll be interesting to see!

-V.

[Jon Shafer]

Best way to eliminate rushes is to make the beginning of the game very defense oriented. Make units have a higher defense than attack. Make attack units more expensive. By the time you could have a 6 or 8 Archer rush now, you'd only have 4 or 5 Archers, while Spearmen's attack rating would be 3 instead of 2. That would make any early rushes too perilous to ever be successful.

[DrSpike]

1) Yes and no. I like relatively slower 1x deity civ2MP games played over several sessions, but to be honest it is really frustrating trying to continue games a lot of the time. Hence I also play Warcraft3 MP, a very different fast paced game. Less strategy than civ2 by a long shot, but still a lot of skill.

2) Your win/loss record shows how good you are at MP, which may or may not be strategically deep depending on the game.

3) I don't think you can without creating other potential problems. Deep games are generally long, and suffer from the drawbacks mentioned in 1).

[Cookie Monster]

Vel I agree with you on the notion that rushes are extremely boring. When I play any civ type game against a human I revel in the fact that it will be a meeting of the minds. Who's brainpower and cunning will prevail. When someone sinks into the mindlessly robotic gyration of rushing then I lose interest fast. Granted I am not good at defending against rushes but perhaps now is the time for all who care to discuss ANTI RUSH strategies.

There must be ways to defeat rushes using the existing game engine i.e. no modding or editing. If someone is gonna spend all their energy popping out units and flooding your land with them than what can be down to prevent this?

How can we convince people to play nice? I for one don't want any part of a game that degenerates into mindless rushing. It's not my bag baby!

[Jon Shafer]

I think the most effective counter-rush strategy will have to be strong human alliances and the ability to use them early. Say some idiot decides to do an Archer rush in 2500 BC on someone. If that someone has a strong alliance with another someone nearby, then go ahead, let them rush. An assault from my ally on the other side of you will cripple you for the rest of the game, or destroy you outright.

The problem with that is that you might not always have a strong ally nearby to help out.

[Velociryx]

The below is simply one person's opinion. Might not be for everyone....

In my mind, what'd be REALLY great to see in MP is a game that had a staggering array of choices available to the player that led to really quite different styles of play. In the ancient age, for example, wouldn't it be cool if you could pick from among any of these "basic approaches" to start the game: (basic approach = a set of tech research beelines or the acquisition of other in-game abilities that accomplish a specific goal)

* Pure offense - kept in so the rushers won't feel totally alienated, and because there IS some historical prescedent for it....Mongols and Huns, to name but two. No bonuses or penalties for building infrastructure, LOTS of powerful offensive weapons, minimal defense.

* Engineering brilliance - a string of tech beelines/in game abilities that allow you to build city improvements at a discount. Medium defense (engineers can whip up all sorts of traps, contraptions and surprises to help with defense), little offense.

* Technological brilliance - strong research game in general, but correspondingly weaker in several, if not every other area, this branch has techs that give free techs, wonders that help research, and all sorts of stuff, but it requires mercantilism and trading with others to make this ability pay off in terms of being able to defend yourself properly.

* Stalwart defense - Defenders every bit (and more) ferocious than their offensive counterparts. This is Ghengis Khan's worst nightmare, times three.

* Mobility - lousy attack and defense, but fast.

These, of course, could be mixed and matched in any number of combinations for even greater variance (and the above is just a very short list....there are TONS of other things we could add to this, but you get the idea).

Numerous equally viable ways of playing the game.

What path to persue?

THAT would be a bada$$ strategy game....

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Vel I agree with you on the notion that rushes are extremely boring. When I play any civ type game against a human I revel in the fact that it will be a meeting of the minds. Who's brainpower and cunning will prevail. When someone sinks into the mindlessly robotic gyration of rushing then I lose interest fast. Granted I am not good at defending against rushes but perhaps now is the time for all who care to discuss ANTI RUSH strategies.

There must be ways to defeat rushes using the existing game engine i.e. no modding or editing. If someone is gonna spend all their energy popping out units and flooding your land with them than what can be down to prevent this?

How can we convince people to play nice? I for one don't want any part of a game that degenerates into mindless rushing. It's not my bag baby!

I agree with that. I'm not interested in any MP clickfests that simulate a poor MP RTS game. I want a game with strategy and cunning and treachery ( all that the AI doesnt possess). I think it will be a matter of finding the right people to play against, those who play the style of game you like.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I agree with that. I'm not interested in any MP clickfests that simulate a poor MP RTS game. I want a game with strategy and cunning and treachery ( all that the AI doesnt possess). I think it will be a matter of finding the right people to play against, those who play the style of game you like.

You're right. Maybe as the day draws near to the release of PTW a thread can be started that will list the names of players who are interested in serious gaming only. No rushing. That way one could play against these people at times that are mutually agreed upon.