|
Jumping Choya
|
|
We all have probably experienced the pains of war weariness in Democracy, especially so when the AI does not acknowledge our envoy. The longer at war, the worse it gets, even if you weren't the aggressor.
So that got me to thinking: if there is ever a Civ III multiplayer that people are willing to play...this could be exploited greatly (or horribly, if you're on the receiving end). Some hotshot opponent of yours, under Communism or Monarchy, could declare war on you...and refuse you when you try to talk to him. If he's bold enough to stay at war for an indefinite amount of time, it's likely that you'll have to spend a lot of time hurting him enough to give up. And in that time, you're faced with a cruel choice: take the war weariness and risk anarchy, or turn by turn, lower your science rate in favor of the luxury rate?
Given enough time, a determined Communist player could cripple a Democracy. They can afford long, drawn-out wars, and you couldn't. And unlike the AI, they could be quite stubborn and never make peace until you really muster up the force to take them out.
So, unless I haven't figured something correctly, I get the feeling that Democracy in multiplayer could easily be defeated.
|
13-01-2002 13:05
|
|