 |
| |
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by realpolitic
That at least is a start, and since most people believe Commercial is eigther too late or not valuable in a warmongering game, maybe we should elimainte those civs too! |
No. The assumption is that this MP game will be a "warmongering game" is incorrect. Too many people still incorrectly believe that all we have to do is build a lot of X unit and then go stomp somebody. That works against the AI and it works on quick net human vs human skermishes, but when you throw in the complexity of human governments vs human governments with the best and brightest players, and all of the propaganda, misinformation, politics, complex relations, and other "incidental" relationships that will be involved, you have to step back and consider alternative benefits or detriments to your civilization choice.
1) Image is everything. Our enemies will treat us in the mannor in which they would treat that country in any other game.
2) Corruption kills production, research, and income. A corrupt empire supports less units and researches poorly. Corrupt cities produce no more than 1 sheild. Commercial = courthouse in every city, and bonus trade when your cities get large enough.
3) Our ability to trade tech is no longer dependent on static formulas and cost charts, it is directly related to our image and to our diplomacy.
4) If we jump off to an early rush and pummel someone, we will have a very difficult time getting anyone to trust us, we will face a wave of negative propoganda and will likely face a Grand Alliance that will tear us appart before we are strong enough to stand alone.
5) Good diplomacy is more important than good UUs or traits.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Beta
|
 |
Prowling in a PBEM near you!
Nov 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
No. The assumption is that this MP game will be a "warmongering game" is incorrect. Too many people still incorrectly believe that all we have to do is build a lot of X unit and then go stomp somebody. That works against the AI and it works on quick net human vs human skermishes, but when you throw in the complexity of human governments vs human governments with the best and brightest players, and all of the propaganda, misinformation, politics, complex relations, and other "incidental" relationships that will be involved, you have to step back and consider alternative benefits or detriments to your civilization choice.
1) Image is everything. Our enemies will treat us in the mannor in which they would treat that country in any other game.
2) Corruption kills production, research, and income. A corrupt empire supports less units and researches poorly. Corrupt cities produce no more than 1 sheild. Commercial = courthouse in every city, and bonus trade when your cities get large enough.
3) Our ability to trade tech is no longer dependent on static formulas and cost charts, it is directly related to our image and to our diplomacy.
4) If we jump off to an early rush and pummel someone, we will have a very difficult time getting anyone to trust us, we will face a wave of negative propoganda and will likely face a Grand Alliance that will tear us appart before we are strong enough to stand alone.
5) Good diplomacy is more important than good UUs or traits.
--Togas |
Togas - excellent points. I agree whole-heartedly that the miltary offensive is 'dulled' in human-vs-human games. Let's face it - the AI cannot wage war well. The only time it does reasonably well is when it has overwhelming force. With any kind of equity - the human player triumphs.
So now - in human vs human, there will likely be greater parity of forces - barring alliances - which make your point about the 'international' perception of the civ important. But in a match of two reasonably close opponents, the advantage goes to the defender. For a whole host of reasons. This is going to make war a much tougher decision in MP. And lends support to your position.
I ackowledge the early discussion about industrious, but you know, the more I follow this thread, and the points you raise, I am wondering about the Greeks - commercial, scientific, and a great defensive UU for the early game. Will have to produce a few more workers....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
No. The assumption is that this MP game will be a "warmongering game" is incorrect. Too many people still incorrectly believe that all we have to do is build a lot of X unit and then go stomp somebody. That works against the AI and it works on quick net human vs human skermishes, but when you throw in the complexity of human governments vs human governments with the best and brightest players, and all of the propaganda, misinformation, politics, complex relations, and other "incidental" relationships that will be involved, you have to step back and consider alternative benefits or detriments to your civilization choice.
1) Image is everything. Our enemies will treat us in the mannor in which they would treat that country in any other game.
2) Corruption kills production, research, and income. A corrupt empire supports less units and researches poorly. Corrupt cities produce no more than 1 sheild. Commercial = courthouse in every city, and bonus trade when your cities get large enough.
3) Our ability to trade tech is no longer dependent on static formulas and cost charts, it is directly related to our image and to our diplomacy.
4) If we jump off to an early rush and pummel someone, we will have a very difficult time getting anyone to trust us, we will face a wave of negative propoganda and will likely face a Grand Alliance that will tear us appart before we are strong enough to stand alone.
5) Good diplomacy is more important than good UUs or traits.
--Togas |
Bingo 
This is consistent with my belief of what an inter-site game will be like. Due to the sheer number of people playing and the whole reputation issues and all of the internal debating, etc, etc, etc.... it is quite likely that the human civs (all of them) will be FAR more risk averse than they would be a quick internet PTW game or even in a single-player game. This conservative environment will foster the success of long-term over short-term strategies, minimize the importance of UUs, and greatly minimize the value of the expansionist trait (except where REX is concerned).
As Togas has argued, it would be not terribly far-fetched to imagine that the civ that stomps its closest neighbor into the ground during the ancient age will be the same civ stomped into the ground by 3-4 other civs sometime between the ancient and middle ages.
Military strength will be key, but it will be more key in terms of how others view or fear us than it will be key for actually conquering our neighbors in the early game. Having the biggest and toughest military is most useful in diplomacy when it is NOT used capriciously and your potential foes are guided by their fear of its only possible use rather than their determination to pre-empt its inevitable use. You save its actual use for situations in which your own secuirty is at stake. It's most likely use would be to side with an underdog in a military conflict on or near your borders, ensuring that another does not become too great a military power.
When your potential opponents understand that you will only use your military muscle to prevent what you see as threats to your security, those who are reasonable and care about long-term survival over potential short-term gains among them will many times develop strategies to seek after their own intersts, but actually be careful not to threaten your security in the process.
I know that such a strategy won't sit well with those who want to go for a conquest victory, but then, what will?  Unlike games online where you're playing your civ by yourself, entire democracies will be running each civ... and such large groups of people of diverse outlooks on the game and lots of people looking at strategy and potential outcomes of each move will, of necessity, become conservative in the use of force. They'll build large militaries, alright, but they will be very careful in their use.
Wars likely WILL happen eventually, but such wars are more likely to start over disagreements over spheres of influence and competing security interests in the late middle age or early industrial age (starting much like the First World War did...) than they are to start by a rush strategy in the ancient age.
The inter-team game has significantly more chance of having early wars because the teams are smaller and some of the teams are explicitly dedicated to conquest. This will not be the case in the inter-site game, where the "teams" are more diverse and far larger.
But hey... I could be wrong I just don't think I am 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HarryH
|
 |
Olympia, WA
Sep 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
by ThePlagueRat:
HarryH, i gotta mention the Scandinavians who got this nice Berserker. (4,4,1)
|
Yes, I did miss that one. NYE listed it as a 6,2,1 unit. If that is true (I think I remember reading something about that in a ReadMe) it is extremely powerful being the only 6 attack unit that early in the game. Its amphibious capability would be very useful in a archipelago type map.
quote:
by Panzer32:
I agree, we should not judge a civ only by its UU. Ind/exp is a powerful early tool - what good is a uu if youre not around to enjoy it? Also, for French: whats so bad about their UU? I know it doesn't have super attack, but it is more useful on a battlefield as a support unit - especially pilliaging resource tiled!
|
We need to look at the two attributes plus the UU. It is the combination of the three that makes each civ unique. As for the French UU, a 2/4/1 Musketman can defend and pilage just as good as a 3/4/1 Musketeer. You get an attack point for a unit that I would not use for attacking. Most Middle Age attacks will be done by Knight type units or, in PTW, Medival Infantry (swordsman that were upgraded).
I agree with Arnelos about war in the inter-site game. I remember some decisions that happend in the DG game that were based more on morality than what was best for the game. When you get a lot of people together to (vote) make a decision you are more likely to get something that is middle of the road. That will probably mean careful decisions and less war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Togas
No. The assumption is that this MP game will be a "warmongering game" is incorrect. Too many people still incorrectly believe that all we have to do is build a lot of X unit and then go stomp somebody. That works against the AI and it works on quick net human vs human skermishes, but when you throw in the complexity of human governments vs human governments with the best and brightest players, and all of the propaganda, misinformation, politics, complex relations, and other "incidental" relationships that will be involved, you have to step back and consider alternative benefits or detriments to your civilization choice. |
Sorry, but that is not always true. The scenario I recounted was human vs human. 2 humans out of 4 on one land mass. I got the free settler. I got horses next to my 2nd or 3rd city. I was the Iroquois, and because of scouts I knew the entire land mass before I got horseback riding.
The Persian capitol was about 20 tiles away from mine. They were much smaller. It was nowhere close to a contest (they didn't have Iron close by, and if they did i would have killed fewer, more expensive Immortals rather than spearmen). I used the Golden Age to build my choice of the Ancient Wonders.
The game was PBEM and the players had ample time to consider options.
quote:
1) Image is everything. Our enemies will treat us in the mannor in which they would treat that country in any other game.
2) Corruption kills production, research, and income. A corrupt empire supports less units and researches poorly. Corrupt cities produce no more than 1 sheild. Commercial = courthouse in every city, and bonus trade when your cities get large enough.
3) Our ability to trade tech is no longer dependent on static formulas and cost charts, it is directly related to our image and to our diplomacy.
4) If we jump off to an early rush and pummel someone, we will have a very difficult time getting anyone to trust us, we will face a wave of negative propoganda and will likely face a Grand Alliance that will tear us appart before we are strong enough to stand alone.
5) Good diplomacy is more important than good UUs or traits. |
Good points, but...
Commercial does not equal a Courthouse in every city. I can post numbers if you wish. It does diminsh corruption for cities at a certain distance, but it has less effect than a Courthouse for non Commercial civs.
I disagree with point 4. What would anyone care if we pummeled someone? You are painting a picture of 7 builder civs and one sole war monger. What leads you to this conclusion? I agree that indecriminate making of war would be harmful, but if war is the right thing to do given the situation on the map, it should be done. To do otherwise would be to pass up on advantages which may be vary rare indeed.
Point 5 is something to debate, but I would not say that diplomacy is more important than traits. It is important, perhaps equally, but what says we cannot have good diplomats and accomplished armies? Why does having beaten a close neighbour in the early game preclude making friends with more distant civs later?
Last edited by notyoueither on 05-02-2003 at 08:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:25
|
|
You're right, Commercial doesn't affect distance corruption, only number of cities.
Commercial does affect the optimal number of cities, but a little differently than what you are talking about. The number of cities corruption is based on a numbering of each city. It's basically a list of cities as they get farther and farther from the capitol/fp. The number of cities corruption factor is applied based on the city number in that list.
Commercial bumps cities up that list. On a standard map, the optimal number of cities is 12, so Commercial's 25% reduction means city 12 will get the corruption rate (still just talking # of cities corruption) that city 8 would get for a non-Commercial civ.
Now on a standard map, city 12 is probably far enough away from the Capitol that in Despotism it's going to have 95% corruption just from distance, so early on it makes almost no difference at all. In practice, it usually amounts to 5-7% lessening of corruption for each city. That's great, but doesn't really show up until your city is producing 15-20. Even for very productive cities later on, it's not a big difference. In some cases it means a build a turn sooner. Though, the difference of a couple shields per turn can be huge or irrelevant depending on the build and overall city production. This can be dealt with as an non-Commercial civ can plan their cities a little differently to get to those valuable production 'sweet spots' just as well in most cases though.
The main problem I see with Commercial is that it's overkill. For a well run empire (even small), it isn't too hard to get to 4 turn techs by the late Ancient era (the first few Middle ages techs will slow down), and then keep the techs flowing in as fast as they can come for the rest of the game. If we end up on Regent, where the player gets no reduction to their tech rate, no tech after Republic should take more than 4 turns to research (unless someone is putting the hurt on us  ).
Also, gold tends to be relatively easy to come by in the later stages of the game, when Commercial starts to shine. It's great for making big(ger) piles of gold.
On a standard map, Commercial's main strength is that you start with the Alphabet, which is the most costly of the first tier techs. Some of that value is lost if you have to research the military techs just to make sure you live to see Writing/Mathmatics though.
In single player it's value is almost priceless when combined with Masonry from Industrious, as the AI's won't research Mathmatics. Even on Deity you can get Writing (sometimes), Mathmatics (usually if you skip Writing), and Currency (almost always if you skip Writing) first, opening up tons of trading opportunities. That won't apply as often in MP.
Last edited by Aeson on 05-02-2003 at 10:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:25
|
|
Just my two cents... and it will not even fully be my own two cents, as someone has already mentioned the idea of taking a worse-than-best civ before...
If I am not mistaken, this intersite demogame is about reputation and prestige. Would we really look that great and admirable choosing Carthage, which is largely referred to as the best civ for Civ3MP? Or any other "top" civ, however difficult it is to rank them? I would support the decision to take a second tier civ.
Just an idea... what about this: every site chooses one civilization (from those not nominated yet). All the civs are thrown into a hat then and each team draws one of them. No disputes over who gets which civ and a good chance that the civs will be fairly equal, as most teams would probably choose a "mediocre" or "average" civ, they could live with, but would not mind if someone else got it. This would be a a variation of the "Misfits of Society" PBEM game I take part in - in that game, players chose civilizations not for themselves, but for other players. Needless to say that we are playing a bunch of pretty crappy civs, there... 
EDIT: typos
Last edited by vondrack on 05-02-2003 at 15:38
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
If we are planning on a peaceful, rapid REX, we should pick civs with supporting traights.
(In order for MP games: Industrious, Expansionism, Commerical, Religious, Scientific, Military)
But if we are instead planning on expanding initally via war, we should pick civs with early UUs.
(That would rule out Ottomans, Russians, English, Germans, and Americans.)
For a Hybrid stretgy, any of the Industrious civs will do, even America; the synerieges between Industrious & Expansionism would make up for the weak UU.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CiverDan
|
|
I would not choose commercial over religious. The abilitary to switch goverments with 1 turn of anarchy can be important for tech research and production (means you dont have to wait for that wonder to complete to switch govenments either). I would rather have cheaper tamples and cathedrals than cheaper science improvements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by realpolitic
Expansionist still only has limited applications in MP. I don't think its too hot. You just need HR or IW to start a war, then throw in the other unit when it make sense.
Scientific saves 120 shields/city in the first 2 ages, early libraries tend make culture a non-issue.
Since there is considerable contraversy over which traits are best,  , while some civs have UUs that are either too little or too late,. We should eliminate these
because the drawbacks of the UU's are incontravertable!!!!!!!!!
America
Korea
France
England
Germany
That at least is a start, and since most people believe Commercial is eigther too late or not valuable in a warmongering game, maybe we should elimainte those civs too! |
hi ,
if you are a good player you dont need to depend upon a UU , .......
it would be backwards to base a choice just on a UU , ......
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
|
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vondrack
Just an idea... what about this: every site chooses one civilization (from those not nominated yet). All the civs are thrown into a hat then and each team draws one of them. No disputes over who gets which civ and a good chance that the civs will be fairly equal, as most teams would probably choose a "mediocre" or "average" civ, they could live with, but would not mind if someone else got it. |
I adore this idea, but recognize that it's probably too late to impliment it.
Perhaps, once the terrain is established, we can create a new poll, post all of the civs, and pick our top 2-3 choices.
Also, for anyone with an interest in the Commercial debate, check out this thread from the strategy forums. It's very current and rather insightful.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2003 03:14
|