 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
HappySunShine
|
|
The Sunshine State, where else?
Jul 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
I find it amusing vel that you associate strategy with slower gameplay. You never played civilization multiplayer. Creating a unique rush is in fact a strategy, otherwise I wouldn't have written those papers I call strategy in the civ 2 forums. The simple fact is that rushes are what win. The ability to attack, defend, expand, and keep your infrastructure all at once is what seperates the good players from the bad. Building up an empire for 3 hours and then massing units is not strategy. And nobody said there was no way to defend against rushing. There's lots of ways to play without rushing. Rushing has its drawbacks just as defending has its drawbacks. I think the real problem is that some people here think it's pure genius to build their civilization without doing anything else. How can you call rushing boring then? What you should really say is "I feel that my strategical genius is so far beyond these petty rushers that I will look down upon my intellectually challenged brethern as I spend months planning my brilliant strategical maneuver." Which really means "I can't find a way to beat rushing so I will simply call it a 'tactic' unworthy of my genius." Lets face it, you guys should be playing simcity, not civilization. There's a reason why 2x2x King was the most played setting of them all in civ2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
In looking back at my post, I can't find any references to speed....not sure where you're coming from....
And you're quite right. I never played Civ2 MP, so I never got to taste the joys of rushing in Civ2. I assume though, that it's not dissimilar to the joys of rushing in SMAC, or AoE, or WarCraft 1-3, or any of the other popular titles.
The mechanics of rushing are tactical in their inherent nature. No strategy to it. You can write papers till the cows come home and call them strategy, but that won't change the nature of the rush mechanic one whit. It will not, in fact, MAKE it so.
I agree with one thing you posted here very much. Rushes win. In fact, I think I said the very same thing in my post). The fact that they win though, also does not make it a strategy.
Ahhh...and just so we're clear on it: I never said anything about my strategies being brilliant. IIRC, you were the one who implied, in fact, that I only had a smidgeon of competence, and so anything I may write here should, I guess, be taken with a grain of salt. 
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
In SMAC, the game was set up so that the attacker often had great attacking odds. This is not necessarilly true in Civ3. I am not sold on the fact that a simple rush attack can win easily. I really think that movement penalties will make a difference and give defenders an edge.
But if you just sit there and build libraries and ignore your perimeters, yeah, you are subject to being swept off the board.
Thank god we don't have the overpowering air units like we have had in the past.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
This makes me wonder how anything is going to get researched in MP. In SP, I go for the whole 40 turn thing. If we all do that in MP...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
My solution for dealing with the rush would be to give forts the same bombard function as the appropriate level of artillery tech and give them a defense value of 1,2,3,4 plus normal terrain bonuses.
Then you could build the Great Wall of China to keep the Mongols at bay. Would be cool.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
Zach, you hit the nail on the head! Rushing is but one tool in the toolbox. As such....taken by itself....rushing is a tool. A tactic. Not a strategy in its own right.
Strategic USE of the tool, in combination with other tools....now we're talking strategy. But just because I write a bunch of papers 'bout rushing and put them up on a board someplace....that hardly makes my favored tactic a strategy.
As far as developing a "new rush tactic," I don't see anything therein that could be construed as new or original there. That's like painting your old Pinto a different color and telling everyone you have a new car. No...it's the same car with a different coat of paint on it. Same with rushing. Use an Archer, use a Horseman....same basic mechanic.
Again though, as you say, combining the rush (or threat of) with other tools in the toolbox and you get an emerging strategy, but the MP game isn't about that. It's about making a core set of cities, ramping up a military presence while doing so, and bludgeoning your opponent before he does the same to you. Player with the better starting position usually wins (assuming a similar level of skill).
That's about as linear as it gets, IMO.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
zack,
Is that a fancy way of saying that if I take out the garbage 23 days in a row and then forget one day, my wife will always say:
"you hardly ever do nothing you lazy bum my mother was right about you"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
I like that idea. Add a catapult; then you could stagger the forts and still control the frontier. |
The cultural border thing would be a problem.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-08-2002 01:15
|