 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DrSpike
|
 |
Enthusiastic member of Apolyton
Sep 2001 time: 05:20
|
|
I'll bite. I think if the game stays the same for MP as it is for SP then MP will have problems.
If players start close then archer (even perhaps warrior) rushes will be too effective. There are effectively no ZOC, and no way to defend against a stack of attackers, except to have a stack yourself. Units and settlers will be the only things built - remind you of any civ2 settings? In fact it is worse here than 2x2x king in civ2 because the only decision you will have to make is how many cities to build, with a relatively low number useful under the corruption structure, because the game will likely not survive till corruption reducing buildings are in place.
Also what about resources? If the rushing doesn't end the game because the players are too far apart then the player that starts with iron nearby will win. People will build a few cities, perhaps barracks, then churn warriors to upgrade to swordsmen. They wont need tech after iron working (maybe the wheel and horsies) so they'll have plenty of cash for upgrades.
Markus calls 2x2x king RTS civ, which is, I think, a fair analogy. Civ3 MP will be more like RTS than 2x2x king ever was. I do think they will change the resource setup to give fair access to resources, so they don't decide the game, but at best the game will be a game of rush and counter rush, not civ. Many will prefer this, hey, a lot more people play RTS than TBS, but I think diehard civ2 MPers will be disappointed, even if Firaxis make the changes I outlined.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|