How playing against humans will be different... - Page 5

WarpStorm · October 29, 2002, 15:47

It is too easy. Just choose it from the menu. The city is instantly gone with no repercussions (unless it was filled with foreigners). The problem Uber is talking about is that in MP people will do it just to be a PITA.

Buster13 · October 29, 2002, 15:48

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
How do you mean? Is their a way to disband cities other then starving and building a worker or is that what you're talking about? Forgive my ignorance.

I don't see any problem with abandoning cities though, if you know an undefeatable army is coming it would be a valid strategy obviously used to good effect in the real world, as long as it is done with some strategic value and not just to be a pain in the ass.

For game play purposes it's pretty tough, but it isn't without real world precedent. Sometimes people are either taken by surprise or just refuse to surrender and the invaders get to take advantage of the spoils of war, but other times you are fighting for position, not the actual city(like a chokepoint). If you are defending against an extra-continental invader, it would make sense, since from his perspective, it's not the city that's important, it's the foothold on another continent. In this case, abandoning a city before someone gets an airbase and a place to unload troops off transports would be a strategic advantage...so I guess it depends on the situation. It's not like you aren't hurting the abandoner...and wouldn't you rather build a settler than deal with starving off a native population or otherwise making them happy?

Buster13 · October 29, 2002, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
It is too easy. Just choose it from the menu. The city is instantly gone with no repercussions (unless it was filled with foreigners). The problem Uber is talking about is that in MP people will do it just to be a PITA.

You are right, though Warp. People will use this capability flagrantly, I imagine. I guess it jusr depends on who you play with. Perhaps this will be one of those things that will carry from game to game...

gsmoove23 · October 29, 2002, 16:47

It is a little weird that you don't take any hit for abandoning a city but its tough to say when people are abusing it. If you're up against an opponent who you can expect no quarter and no fair peace from, or someone who will extract a heavy payment from you only to return with his armies in 10 turns then obviously he can expect no quarter from you. It is perfectly valid to make certain he doesn't profit from cities you've worked on.

I think the people who will be most upset by it are the people who abuse warfare and go to battle just for the sake of it. I will be less willing to destroy my own cities if I'm up against a sane opponent who I can come to some sort of understanding with. In fact it works both ways. If the attacker sees cities disappear before his advance then he will be more ruthless with his opponent, while he might be more easily sated if he has some nice juicy cities as war trophies. The more I think about it the more I like it.

aahz_capone · October 30, 2002, 09:26

Quote:

Originally posted by gsmoove23

I think the people who will be most upset by it are the people who abuse warfare and go to battle just for the sake of it. I will be less willing to destroy my own cities if I'm up against a sane opponent who I can come to some sort of understanding with. In fact it works both ways. If the attacker sees cities disappear before his advance then he will be more ruthless with his opponent, while he might be more easily sated if he has some nice juicy cities as war trophies. The more I think about it the more I like it.

Damned rogue states going to war just for the hell of it...

I wonder if when the MP player stats and characteristics go online you will have some playersd after a few games declared "rogue civs". It wouldn't surprise me.

gsmoove23 · October 30, 2002, 18:15

rogue civs wouldn't bother me, just another way to play the game, but us builders gotta stick together

Robber Baron · October 30, 2002, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
abandoning cities is ghetto. i think it's the worst addition to civ as of yet.

I totally disagree. Look, if you were being invaded RL, and your city was about to fall, the tactical thing to do would be to remove everything portable, and burn the rest to the ground. Spike your guns if you can't wheel them to safety. Dismantle your factories and ship them deeper into the interior of your (surviving) country (as the Russians did in WWII when invaded by the Nazis).

What do you expect, that I'll just leave everything standing and invite you in? No way. I'll sell off the most valuable improvement, and raze the rest. In other words, I'll abandon the city. Leaving you with "ghetto" rather than standing buildings.

Strakorfsky · October 30, 2002, 22:48

in MP, defence will be king

who in their right mind would archer ruh in MP?

the human would make a wall...

who would horse rush you, walls, spearman, catpults would stagnate any horseman rush

knights would be screwed because peeps know to get knights of their own to counter attack a knight rush, unlike a computer a.i.

calvary could probably do damage, because it would be a while befor people could get riflemen, but even then, a counter calvary attack would insue, killing they barely defendable calvary.

lol, tanks wqill be very interesting, FINALY GAMES WILL GO INTO THE INDUSTRIAL AND MODERN AGE, AND GERMANY WILL BE A GOD!!! but if not, it will still be fun to watch peeps kill each other's city with tank hoards.

and mech's will make modern age tank attacks nearly s***, fortified inside a metro, they are titans of defence.

and air stratagy will be very interesting in that air battle willactually playa role in deciding the fate of nations, unlike playing against an a.i.

like said, defence will be god in MP, attacking cities will be for fools only

i'm thinking that unlimited city expansion will be the main stratagy on it, shoot, just make a large production basis and start pumnping units, same old stuff from civ2 , just a little different

well anyways, ima get ptw, and see how cheap people can really get

yea, harrasing workers will really dominate if rules are not made for it, workers carry your whole civ, just take them away and your slowed.

punkbass2000 · October 30, 2002, 22:51

Hmm, I tend to think archer rushes would be very effectyive against all but scientific civs.

Strakorfsky · October 30, 2002, 22:54

lol, people are really gonna abuse the "raze city" option in MP....

like the romans did against rebelish impires in africa, burn the city! they did nto want to deal with the peasants revolting, so like any respectable gentlemen (of course, for their time, most dictators inslaved the population and theys till rvolvted) they simple got rid of that troublesom little city.

people are gonna hurt builders monopoly on culture by not giving a city a chance to revolt, there-by hurting their chancing of keeping a city.
i will only smile when those builders are gonna be surrounded by blood thirsty mongrels who don't care about diplomacy, most likely me

Strakorfsky · October 30, 2002, 22:55

why so?

Strakorfsky · October 30, 2002, 22:58

archer rushes are the easiest rush to stop, walls and spears, about 5 and a wall can shot down a rush of ten

horse rushes will eb the same, walls and spears, and hoplites can shut down almost any type of early rush

even the swords rush will probably not work, considering that msot people will have their own swords by that time, to just atatck the enemy sword while their outside the city.

oh yea, its gonna be funny seeing if peeps make treaties to allow people to use their roads. i dought anyone will because most peeps would line a s*** load of troops and go deep into an enemy with ther own roads.

punkbass2000 · October 30, 2002, 23:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
archer rushes are the easiest rush to stop, walls and spears, about 5 and a wall can shot down a rush of ten

Yeah, but are you gonna waste time building that every game because somebody might rush you? And if you're not scientifc, it will probably take you forty turns just to be able to begin building spearmen.

Strakorfsky · October 30, 2002, 23:03

whats wrong with abandoning cities?

the russians abandoned moscow when napoleanwent for it, and he came back with a spanking by the russian winter

african militia tribes abandon villages so their enemy wont take their weapons
its a perfectly good alternative to an enemy who insist on going to war with him, just make him mad so he'll make a stupid decsion on attack a city

its call PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE, its your best weapon against humans who actually invade people

Strakorfsky · October 30, 2002, 23:06

heh, that is a possibility punkbass....

but consider this...

the human is smart then to just think static defence
at least i wouldn't

juts make some archers of your own, and attack, most player ussualy fit their archers with one or two spears

and about 4 archers can ussualy get them, leaving the rest left for spanking in counter attacks

Strakorfsky · October 30, 2002, 23:11

yea...

wasting time making walls is foolish, just keep a few pop's or money ready to rusha wall if a rush is coming yuor way

thats what I do ussualy on monarch and emporyou can ussualy get a two turn warning befor an attack is coming because of the culture, even more if your culture is advanced to level two or three

and be liek the ai, pop rush that city for walls, and extra spears if needed.

call in reserves from other cities, via your road network which you SHOULD have

dont be afraid to sacrifice defence of your back cities to defende your important city undrer a rush threat

i also believe in giving terretory to gain a few turn advantage

so many ways to defende from early rush, anways, you need nto be a science civ, just fiund goody huts for advances, sheesh, expansionist will rule MP

-proletarian- · October 30, 2002, 23:22

How playing against humans will be different.....

the turns will take half an hour each due to colossal LAG.