how our first adventure went

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Hydey
I am having trouble understanding the 5 minutes per turn with 2 cities and 3 exploring units.

Easy, 1 minute each...

[-Jrabbit]

Just a quick note that I highly approve of the Terry Pratchett/Discworld reference in Cyrion's sig.



Oh, and OT, La Fayette, while my MP playing experience is limited, I'd say your list of important differences is pretty accurate.

To quote Ming (the one who whups me): EXPAND AND BUILD!

[rah]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
We played emperor and it gives an unequal start if only one civ has 2 Settlers. But I don't consider an unequal start as a defect. It is more fun.

IF you play deity, everyone gets 2 settlers. In games less than deity, it is tradition that if a player starts with more settlers than the other players, he disbands one.

Did you guys restart untill the host didn't have any starting techs?

[Ming]

Well... with the time is was taking your for the early turns, restarting until you got a fair start would have been worth the wait

[DrSpike]

Agreed. Spending many hours playing a long continued game where the outcome is decided first turn by the number of settlers one player has seems absurd to me.

[Ming]

One advantage of Deity

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by cobra
Mostly wins the guy who finds the other first, if they are on different continents

If this is true (success in Civ2 is contracted to the ability to find the opponent fast) then Civ2 isn't a good game, the balance between attack and defense is set badly.
But although I think Elephants are little bit too strong or too early accesible, I have a feeling that it is possible to win by defending (if the map don't consist from Grass and Plains only).
And attack is hard if civs are distant or in another continent IMHO.

[atawa]

You forgot 'The' Ming

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by rah
Did you guys restart untill the host didn't have any starting techs?

Yes. But we didn't disband that Settler. But if we would do it, one of us would have an advantage of a river.
I think if you want really an equal start then you have to go to cheat mode and for example to give some gold to the weaker side.
What about an auction? Players would see pictures of starting positions (without coordinates) and...
I will give you 20 gold for that start on whales... I give 25! ...I give 40!

Originally posted by DrSpike
Spending many hours playing a long continued game where the outcome is decided first turn by the number of settlers one player has seems absurd to me.

I think huts may affect the outcome more strongly than 2 settlers... (We played without huts.)

Originally posted by Ming
One advantage of Deity

Only advantage of Deity . You needn't to type shift-D in the beginning.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by atawa
Not all my city's are growing or building something,

I understand. You assign workers as Elvises so that you needn't care about the city and so that you can play 3min/turn.

Originally posted by cobra
MP looses much of ist fun, if you can wash your car between two turns.

For me thinking is fun. A game loses its fun if I play unthinkingly.

Originally posted by rah
But I expect, with a little experience, you will quicken but you have lots of work to do.

You are right, I have little experience (also in SP). But with maximal experience I would get from 20 min to 15 min and I would play better.
I think it is not only about experience, I like to think. And there are things to think about .
Don't forget that quality of a 20min player is probably very different in comparison with quality of you 1min players .

[SlowThinker]

atawa, what is the ming?

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Maybe it's crystal clear from the save, but I don't have Civ with me. How did the end of the game come about?

It is not clear from the save. The game finished 500AD.

LF built Lighthouse for a too high price (before caravans were available). This weakened his economic force a little. I had almost twice cities than him, although his cities were larger. Then he built HG one turn before me, then I built Mike 1 turn before LF, then I added Sun Tzu.
LF sunk many my Triremes but was surprised that some my Tiremes won.

Anyway the map was very interesting - with many strategic (choke) points. La Fayette held an isthmus between mine and his part of the main continent, but he wasn't watchful and I took him by surprise.

BTW both players made serious mistakes because of playing too fast. No joking.

[atawa]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

I understand. You assign workers as Elvises so that you needn't care about the city and so that you can play 3min/turn.

I seldom use elvises, quite a waste of resources

[Ming]

Micro managing takes so little time... it can be done quickly and usually between turns, even in a duel. With some experience you will realize that as well... There is NO need to sacrafice ANYTHING while still playing quickly.

[Alexander's Horse]

er no - you can't micro between turns in a duel.

[Alexander's Horse]

well you can, but you might miss something important. You need to watch enemy moves.

[La Fayette]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
How did the end of the game come about?
Carolus

I had LH and thought I would master the seas, but I had not enough triremes to patrol everywhere efficiently.
SlowThinker managed to land a strong army close to Philadelphia and that was the end of it.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Don't forget that quality of a 20min player is probably very different in comparison with quality of you 1min players

I awaited a stronger and more outraged resistance...

Originally posted by Ming
Micro managing takes so little time... it can be done quickly and usually between turns, even in a duel. With some experience you will realize that as well... There is NO need to sacrafice ANYTHING while still playing quickly.

At least Ming disagrees...
Seriously, there must be a difference between 2min and 20min. It is different if you have two ways of development and choose one of them after 5min analysis or you choose one by intuition (and so haphazardly in many cases) in 2 seconds.
Also production of 30 cities cannot be co-ordinated effectively within 3min.

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
well you can, but you might miss something important. You need to watch enemy moves.

This is a problem if you allow things like 'sell improvements when opponent moves'. This makes Civ2 a real-time game. In our game we forbid all micromanagement inspired by opponent's moves.
I put a very small window "watch enemy moves" between world map and status window and micromanaged contentedly in LF's turns.

[rah]

On Micro managing. Yes if you have all day, you can be perfect. If you take no time, you don't do any. The true skill of the better players, is doing 90% of it in a very quick time. There is a balance. Find the balance point.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

I awaited a stronger and more outraged resistance...

We are fortunately too mature to be baited.

[rah]

And there is such a thing as OVER THINKING.
Paralysis by analysis.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by DrSpike
We are fortunately too mature to be baited.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by SlowThinker

If this is true (success in Civ2 is contracted to the ability to find the opponent fast) then Civ2 isn't a good game, the balance between attack and defense is set badly.
But although I think Elephants are little bit too strong or too early accesible, I have a feeling that it is possible to win by defending (if the map don't consist from Grass and Plains only).
And attack is hard if civs are distant or in another continent IMHO.

The one who is found first mostly changes his strategy. He thinks, he is too weak to defend effectively and builts more defensive units as needed. He thinks,"where would I attack" and prepares himself for such attacks, even if there was just a trireme with a poor old horse on it, unable to kill a phalanx.
Growing and exploring gets rather slow, cause next place to build a city has to be saved with a phalanx and an extra unit to explore the ground around.
It´s not an unballanced game, it´s the fear to loose which makes the difference.
That´s my experience from douzens of MP-games.

Of course, there will come attacks and then the defender is too week

[rah]

Yes, there is nothing better then projecting offensive abilities when they don't really exist. Showing an archer or chariot near your opponent early can totally mess with their brain. Every extra phalanx they build will eat into their ability to expand as fast as you.

If you follow it up with a massive attack in as little as 1 out of every 10 games, you can keep them paranoid for months.

[La Fayette]

Originally posted by rah
you can keep them paranoid for months.

Shall I go on playing MP then ?

[Ming]

Yes... MP beats SP every time. The computer is stupid and now it's just a matter of When you win, not if.

Not the case in MP.

After a lot of practice, you will learn that most of the decisions are easy to make quickly and right. Yeah, you might forget to move a "single" worker... but in most cases, I maximize my cities food/trade/production depending on need without wasting much time.

[deity]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
er no - you can't micro between turns in a duel.

couldn't agree more Horsie.. but I will try

[rah]

Yep, in a duel, during the first 20 turns, I'll do things like buy ups during my turn since the turns are going to fast and a mistake that early is bigger than later. But after that I'll do it during the other players turn and even though I'll sometimes get burned in the middle of a buyup or switching a worker, no biggie. It's worth it to keep the game moving.

RAH

[Makeo]

many times i've ended up with a settler rather than the caravan i wanted.

[DrSpike]

Or dips if you are even slower.

I think in duels it can work if the players cooperate. Microing on the others' turn is so beneficial to keeping turn time down...........everything must be done to encourage it.