 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
Frankly I'm just suprised that two teams would want to get together for a joint victory. It strikes me as a real meh way of ending a game that stretched over two years.
I'm especially suprised that ND would go for it, as they easily could have won by themselves at a few different points in the late game. I expected them to have more of a killer instinct. Gow, I'm not so suprised, as it would have been quite a feat for them to win the game singlehandedly with the yellow menace due south.
You are right, MZ, that GS would never consider a joint victory. Call it pride or ego, but we were in this to win or lose for ourselves. And lose we did, fair and square. Victory alliance or war alliance, the difference matters not for the outcome of GS. Our fate was sealed after the destruction of Legoland left 3 powers. Our mistake was assuming that the remaining powers had the same goal: to win. We thought that we could prove to unbalance the power on Bob, one way or another, and then move on from there. We never even considered a joint victory scenario against us. Our downfall, to assume that each team wanted victory for themselves  We were outsmarted in that regard, I guess.
Hats off to the victors, it was a fun 2.5 years
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
Personally, I've got to agree with my team mates. First of all, it doesn't matter for us, we lost, and we knew we had a huge chance of losing right after the Bobian war. But losing to a shared victory is an anti-climax, as not everyone is playing the same game.
Compare it to the Lego war: even if Lego was conquered by 2 teams, these teams were allied but not in any special way connected. We were defending against GoW at the time, in case ofthem trespassing we could have delivered a serious blow to them. Our territory was not empty, our defenses were not converted into offenses. At the time, we kind of knew that GoW didn't have the same problem with ND, which was strange. You can say the shared victory treaty only came later, but it was certainly apparant then that it wasn't a normal friendship between two nations. Compare that to the GoW-GS alliance, which didn't even had a treaty in place to divide the spoils of war (wasn't necessary, we felt, there weren't going to be any spoils), nor how to proceed whenever the war finished - one way or another.
So is this a fitting end to the game? No, not in my eyes. But, I think the nature of Civ3 mp is such, that it is not possible to play a decent modern era game with nukes. These are too inbalancing in itself, so it doesn't matter whether there is no winner in this game, only losers (Lux, Lego, RP, GS, and Vox too as we had to save them from extinction) and survivors (ND and GoW). Even if ND and GoW wouldn't have used a combination of a shared victory and nukes to win, the end would have been anticlimatic. Nukes alone will do that.
But at least we could have had a chance at surviving instead of losing if there were only nukes, and no locked alliances. Now, there was no chance, the moment that treaty was signed the game was over, and you could have declared the same kind of victory. From our side, it would have felt the same.
So, for me, I've got to congratulate the 2 survivors. But in the same breath I want to express my gratitude for all involved. This was a fantastic game, and even if the end could never have been the resounding victory this epic adventure deserved, it was a real treat to be part of it. Part of that was the strategy and tactics involved, but most of it comes from interacting with both my team mates, and others... thanks everyone! 
Oh, and bring on the CIV mp demogame, I certainly want to be a part of that.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
Bongo, do you really think that GoW would have given you nukes if they were going to fight you later on? And don't say that you could even have agreed to a 20 turn NAP, followed by a conventional war. Sure, this is possible, but it too changes the victory conditions. You disadvantage the other teams.
2 vs 1 is not a fair fight in most cases, but at least there is some notion of fair play even if the outcome is near certain. But, with different victory conditions, this was never a fair fight. Lego has the full right to say that the way their war ended was cheesy, but at least it was a fair fight.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset with ND or GoW. And seeing the number of Stormians commenting over the last day on the same issue, you might get the feeling that it was a general, deep feeling that we felt betrayed. This is not the case. I don't need a place to vent, I just want to state my opinion. And that opinion is that there are no winners in this game, as the endgame was rigged. Does it matter to us? Not really... there was only a very small chance we could have made the final stage of the game so I don't feel cheated out of a victory. And I guess this is the same for the other Stormians, or comments and debate here would have been very heated and intense. But, you cheated yourself out of a decent victory.
Again, I don't see a way in which this could have ended decently, nukes in mp are simply not a good design feature. But at least they are in the game, and everyone knows what to expect.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bongo
|
 |
TRBNGR
Sep 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
Bongo, do you really think that GoW would have given you nukes if they were going to fight you later on?
|
I it had been part of the treaty that's exactly what they would have done. Nukes were also important in taking out you guys.
quote:
And don't say that you could even have agreed to a 20 turn NAP, followed by a conventional war.
|
I saw that kind of deal in one of the ironciver qualifier games, I don't see why we couldn't do the same here.
Oh, who said anyting about a conventional war btw  Seriously, we could have agreed to whatever kind of rules we wanted. Only fight with Paratroopers? Very silly but doable 
quote:
Sure, this is possible, but it too changes the victory conditions. You disadvantage the other teams.
|
So true, then again, most agreements between two team put other teams at an advantage. It's kind of why you make them in the first place.
quote:
Again, I don't see a way in which this could have ended decently, nukes in mp are simply not a good design feature. But at least they are in the game, and everyone knows what to expect...
|
As we all have learnt now, nukes are only one of many things that are not implemented very well even though they are equal to all. Railroads, combat settlers and the ridiculous advantage to stacking(pre-nukes  ) are other concepts I hope work better in civ4
|
|
| |
|
|
|
zerialienguru
|
|
Oldenburg, Germany
Apr 2003
time: 06:18
|
|
I think its useless to discuss the "what if"-situation.
If GoW and ND had no alliance, both teams had other ways to play the game. You should know that we give GoW each turn a lot of gold (about 600) for their researching, without this gold, GoW could not reasearch space flight so fast. There are to many "what if"-cases to analyse the last ~80 turns i think.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:18
|
|
Like I mentioned before, I totally respect each individual's take on the end of this game. Nevertheless there are three things that honestly bug me.
1) I seriously percieve (note the use of the word perceive, that means I could well be wrong) a sense of sore loserism among some people. As if to say "well, we lost, but at least we'll try and tarnish the other team's victory so we don't feel so bad". Of course, no-one will admit to this which means this is purely my often-flawed sense of perception. If you all want to label the victory as cheesy, I'm perfectly ok with that but outright denying it or refusing to accept it seems in very bad taste considering those complaining are (coincidence?) from the teams that lost.
2) I find it somewhat hypocritical that certain people are complainig that ND and GoW "set the rules" for everyone else. First of all, we set no rules until the instant we won and those rules were entirely legit. Once we did win we were in our very right to decide just how this game was to end for the simple fact that there was no-one left (or no-one willing) to challange this. Had GoW or ND been defeated, our "rules" would've meant squat and the rules to apply would be the ones that the other victor or victors set. I say this is hypocritical because the same people who complain about us "setting the rules" are likewise setting their own rules regarding what is an acceptable victory in their eyes or not. So I get it, it's ok for you to decide on what an "acceptable" victory is, but it's not ok for us (who being the victors are in far more right to do so) to do the same. That's called double standards and with all due respects, I find it highly deplorable. 
3) Despite the many "what if" possibilities had things be different, there is one outcome which I doubt would have changed: GS and Lego would still have lost. The only difference being how and when that would've happened and also the fact that one of us, GoW or ND, would've joined you. Part of the reason that I sense this sore loserism on some people's part is that despite this plain fact people are still complaining that the victory was not of their satisfaction. Why complain about a victory which was out of your grasp regardless? Why ruin someone else's victory like this when you gain nothing out of it?
I guess that pretty much sums up what I feel right now.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krill
|
 |
On a cold wet rock, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dec 2003
time: 05:18
|
|
Please note this is my personal view, so it is going to be skewed, and I don't expect anyone, not even my own teammates, to appreciate it.
---
quote:
1) I seriously percieve (note the use of the word perceive, that means I could well be wrong) a sense of sore loserism among some people. As if to say "well, we lost, but at least we'll try and tarnish the other team's victory so we don't feel so bad". Of course, no-one will admit to this which means this is purely my often-flawed sense of perception. If you all want to label the victory as cheesy, I'm perfectly ok with that but outright denying it or refusing to accept it seems in very bad taste considering those complaining are (coincidence?) from the teams that lost. |
We lost. So what? I personally, don't mind that we lost. What I do mind, and still mourn for, is that both GoW and ND think that they will both win if it comes to a vote in the UN. Even via a diplomatic victory, only one team can win. You can vote for either GoW or ND, but not NGoWD, as that team does not exist.
---
quote:
2) I find it somewhat hypocritical that certain people are complaining that ND and GoW "set the rules" for everyone else. First of all, we set no rules until the instant we won and those rules were entirely legit. Once we did win we were in our very right to decide just how this game was to end for the simple fact that there was no-one left (or no-one willing) to challange this. Had GoW or ND been defeated, our "rules" would've meant squat and the rules to apply would be the ones that the other victor or victors set. I say this is hypocritical because the same people who complain about us "setting the rules" are likewise setting their own rules regarding what is an acceptable victory in their eyes or not. So I get it, it's ok for you to decide on what an "acceptable" victory is, but it's not ok for us (who being the victors are in far more right to do so) to do the same. That's called double standards and with all due respects, I find it highly deplorable. : |
Again with the "We Won". Only one team can win, and you, MZ, said it yourself. I don't have a problem with your "Alliance until only ND and GoW are left", so long as one of the standard victory conditions was reached. Check the threads that Donegeal provided above.
Standard Conditions. Culture, Domination, Conquest, Spaceship, Histograph, Diplomatic.
Where the hell is "Shared Victory" in standard Conditions? If you can show me where it was, then I will feel a hell of a lot better. If it turns out, as has ben suggested, and admitted, that both ND and GoW created this condition where both teams could be "victors", then is it really a victory? As I said above, only one team can win.
Last edited by Krill on 06-06-2005 at 00:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krill
|
|
On a cold wet rock, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dec 2003
time: 05:18
|
|
This point deserves to be in a seperate post. I'm not 100% sure on what would have happened, and nobody could be, but I have a good idea what GS would have tried to do.
quote:
3) Despite the many "what if" possibilities had things be different, there is one outcome which I doubt would have changed: GS and Lego would still have lost. The only difference being how and when that would've happened and also the fact that one of us, GoW or ND, would've joined you. Part of the reason that I sense this sore loserism on some people's part is that despite this plain fact people are still complaining that the victory was not of their satisfaction. Why complain about a victory which was out of your grasp regardless? Why ruin someone else's victory like this when you gain nothing out of it? |
Pick the point of divergence from the real game. The main points would be, IMHO, before and after The Bobian war, and both are in Legos' hands. Basically, how would ND have coped if a force of 15 Lego Knights were dropped into their core while the ansar were attacking Pamplona? How would GoW have managed without the insurance of Lego knights guarding against GS? I don't know, I just, dont know.
After the Bobian War, however, would GoW have been able to invade Lego without the assistance of GS in techs? ND were well behind both GoW and GS in industrialising, so they would not have been that great a help. And GS would not have sat on the ence, either, we would probably have helped Lego instead of Bob if shared victory was around, having written off victory if we tried going it alone ourselves. Imagine how powerful Lego could have been if we had helped them get Hoover, and Tanks.
---
If you are qualifying a victory using your standards, then a victory for Lego, GS, Vox and RP is by no means out of the question. It would be more than probable, it would be the most likely outcome.
If we qualify a victory as one that reaches standard conditions, then one of ND or GoW, in addition to Vox, has to lose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Donegeal
ND/GoW found a way to achieve this type of victory. One of the steps involved was to eliminate the question marks (ie: opponents) in the vote. We have successfully done this, and now an agreed upon game victory condition can happen. |
Yep, now GoW or ND can trigger one of the victory conditions agreed upon. Domination, Diplomatic, Conquest, Cultural, or Space Race. Unless you can find a way for both to trigger the victory condition though, that's still only one winner.
Look at it any way you want. Personally I see the loser of this "shared victory" alliance as the biggest sucker in the game. Giving away a victory for free to the other.
When I first read the shared victory announcement, NYE and I were discussing it. NYE made the point that it could just be a way of MZ getting ND to go along with the invasion of GS, and then get GS to hand GoW the game (which we basically offered to) by agreeing to an alliance against ND once we had been handicapped. I said something to the effect that if MZ could pull that off, he was my hero. All he had to do was accept the offer GS made...
To be honest I'm glad it turned out this way. "Some people" definitely wouldn't be a good hero to have.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-06-2005 04:58
I still can't think of anything comparable in the strategy gaming world... once we open the forums, and maybe some people contribute to a history and some stats (for instance, total number of posts!!), we can get some publicity for it.
|