 |
|
Dominae
|
|
Shaka Zulu is wondering why Cleopatra is spreading propaganda: there have been battles, just not the glorious bloodbaths every Zulu child dreams about at night.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
On to Sir Ralph (when he gets back).
I'm off for a week-long holiday on Friday, and so will not be playing my turns. Sorry to hold up the game. I guess we now have a lot of time to ponder the balance of power on our large continent.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Underground Times, Issue 23 Volume 4, May 380AD
EXTRA! EXTRA! Zulu nation collapsing.
Brutal despot Shaka losing control after over 4000 years of bloody rulership over a quiet and amiable people.
TIMBUK, Zululand - Shortly after the expected declaration of war by the American people, the Zulu people finally mustered enough courage to resist leader Shaka's iron first. After millenia of cultural, economic and political bondage to Shaka's twisted agenda, masses of Zulu citizens pleading the Arab and Egyptian leaders to offer them respite, and offer to pledge complete allegiance to either nation.
"Above all, the Zulu people are proud" affirms One-Eye-Open, an ex-soldier for the Zulu nation, "but we're willing to swallow it all to get away from that crazed dictator. If Egypt or Arabia takes us in, we can begin building our pride again, on our own terms."
Early reports indicate that half the main Zulu cities are swearing allegiance to Arabia, while the other half hope to become a part of Egypt.
"It's nothing more than a matter of convenience and personal taste, really" says Likes-Books-More-Than-Spears. "The people in the cities closer the Arab borders feel more at home embracing the Arab way of life, and similarly for those close to Egypt. At this point, most Zulu would be happy to be under either flag, but, given the choice they now have, they'll naturally pick the nation that is closest to their home, and therefore their hearts."
When asked about the reasons behind this bold move, the Zulu people are very vocal.
"Shaka is a bloodthirsty warmonger, plain and simple" exclaims Ten-Fingers-But-Only-Nine-Toes. "For too many years he has tried to make us believe that battle is in our blood. I would rather live and long life than waste it prematurely in some war I care nothing about".
Hates-Bananas-Above-All elaborates: "Historians indicate that things started out pretty well: the Pyramids made our nation proud, and our economy was top-notch for countless years. But Shaka always declared war whimsically, and held grudges that stood in the way of our future well-being. With the construction of Sun Tzu's Academy, it was clear that this pattern of behaviour was never going to stop".
"What really angered me the most was Shaka's insistence that the Zulu people stay away from Education" adds Belches-Louder-Than-Elephants. "He kept on pushing our greatest thinkers to research better ways to make war, without realising that other nations were pulling ahead, so to speak, by trading peacefully. I'm not at all surprised about America's attack. I wish I could stand in front of Shaka right now and tell him 'I told you so, you evil grinning bastard!'"
"And what's with Shaka's speech, anyway?" asks Never-Asks-Twice. "I mean, our ancestors probably talked like that, but that was four-freakin'-thousand years ago! We all talk normally now, why not Shaka? I'm looking forward to being Arab, so that I won't have to feel like a kid every time my ruler addresses the nation".
Analysts expect Shaka to retain control of the Zulu capitol, and perhaps a few other cities as well. The Zulu military will also remain under his control, although it will be next to useless so close to the Egyptian lands and so far from the core of the Zulu empire.
Surpisingly, no Zulu has expressed a desire to join the American nation. When asked about this, Zulu citizens mutter something along the lines of "that would be too ironic". It is still not clear what is meant by this, and why this belief is so widespread.
The question on everyone's mind now is how will the Arab and Egyptian leaders react to this sudden and momentous declaration. Although the Zulu people claim innocence with respect to past transgressions against both Egypt and Arabia, saying it was all Shaka's fault, the foreign leaders will surely be hesitant.
"Please let us be Egyptian" pleads Cindy-Lou-Who, a 5-year-old Zulu girl. "Shaka is scary, but Cleopatra seems really nice!"
Shaka has not made any comment as of yet, presumbaly because he has not killed enough servants with his bare hands to get himself calmed down.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
If the demise of the Zulu empire is so certain, I suggest the following solution:
We distribute some Zulu border cities to Arabia and Egypt so that all four empires are almost equal size. (Or perhaps Zululand needs to be smaller because of the Pyramids). We randomly assign teams of two players. Then, we have World Peace for a specified number of turns, or until a certain tech is reached. For example, nobody can attack anyone else for 20 turns, or until Nationalism is discovered by someone. When that point is reached, we have a World War, 2 vs 2, which lasts until one side surrenders.
Either that, or we start a fresh game. What do you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I believe the situation at this point in the game is clear to everyone now. My thoughts:
I'm "giving up" because alexman will surely breeze through my Zulu empire with his Cavalry. Most of my forces are nowhere near my cities. Worse, I'm too many techs behind to put up much of a resistance. This whole time I've been gambling that alexman would not attack (and Sir Ralph, for that matter), and my bluff has finally been called. This bad play on my part, and my hat is off to my adversaries who, to this point, have put up an admirable fight.
This said, it became clear to me long before that this game was going to be rather...slow, if one of us did not take action to combat this. Not wanting this game to turn into an Artillery contest, I seized the opportunity as bloodthirsty Shaka to spices things up a little. Unfortunately, this was largely a suicidal move on my part, as the three other nations refused to take sides and focused on tech advancement while I was making costly war.
I hope none of you think that I "threw" this game unecessarily. One thing that I learned about MP is that 4-man games are very limited, diplomatically. It's either 2 on 2 which is too much like 1 on 1 for my taste, or 3 on 1 which soon becomes 2 on 1, or finally none one dares attack anyone which is the most boring of all. Perhaps I'm not taking this game as seriously as I could by making uncompetitive decisions, but between fun and winning I'll always pick fun.
So, I think we should go along with my initial "proposal": the Zulu empire is divided up amongst the Egyptians and Arabs. This will not offer too much power to either of these nations since the cities will be mostly corrupt. The Americans will remain the superpower. Unfortunately, the most probable scenario at this point is that Egypt and Arabia will gang up on America, otherwise America would be guaranteed the win. It's sucks that this game has reverted to such a state, and I cannot help but feel partially responsible. Had we all gone to war when Shaka wanted to, things would have been a lot different!
Finally, one question: I have limited experience with MP Civ; are games like this one (staring contests) par for the course? If so, MP Civ3 has instantly lost a lot of its appeal for me.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
I don't like your solution, Dominae, because it creates an artificial situation which is unbalancing. If we are going to change the dynamics of the game, we might as well change them so that we get a balanced situation. Only a 2-vs-2 war can accomplish this, I think.
If we don't want to continue this as a 2-vs-2 game (we would all start from the same tech level, by the way), then I suggest we just end it and prepare our AARs.
I'm not sure about MP games being staring contests. This one is certainly not a staring contest any more  I have been in some games that have had plenty of ancient warfare, but it definitely depends on the players' personalities. In general, I think MP favors the defender through, so if you're going to attack, you better have a significant advantage. Perhaps Accelerated Production would be more to your liking, Dominae?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
I don't like your solution, Dominae, because it creates an artificial situation which is unbalancing. If we are going to change the dynamics of the game, we might as well change them so that we get a balanced situation. Only a 2-vs-2 war can accomplish this, I think.
|
I'm not sure what's artificial about it, any more than your solution is artificial. Maybe I'm just not big on team games, but drawing a line in the sand and fighting until one side admits defeat is not my idea of Civ3.
In any case, I've admitted defeat to you. My decision with my final turns is to ensure you have some stiff opposition if you want to go for win. It's not spite, although it may look like it. I'm just exercising my right to do something very un-AI-like.
quote:
If we don't want to continue this as a 2-vs-2 game (we would all start from the same tech level, by the way), then I suggest we just end it and prepare our AARs.
|
Why? The rest of the game could still be interesting after I gift my cities (all but a few...). For one thing, if jshelr and Sir Ralph do gang up on you, they would have a tough time defending their ex-Zulu cities, so you would not be obviously outmatched. I'm guessing your reticence to continue the game with only 3 players is that you and Sir Ralph have a pretty good relationship/alliance going, and that neither of you is willing to end it (as it naturally must, if only three players remain).
quote:
I'm not sure about MP games being staring contests. This one is certainly not a staring contest any more.
|
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I could have traded myself back into tech parity (or close to it) a while ago, and just fortified my borders. I doubt any of you would have unilaterally attacked me or each other, and any alliance would have resulted in the same situation we have now. I'm betting the game would have contined on much as it has up until now, with each player not wanting to commit the necessary forces for war. Hence my comment about staring contests.
quote:
I have been in some games that have had plenty of ancient warfare, but it definitely depends on the players' personalities. In general, I think MP favors the defender through, so if you're going to attack, you better have a significant advantage.
|
I agree; a significant advantage, and/or powerful friends. It's just that with only 4 players, everyone is (rightly) hesitant to make the first move. Strategically, my attack on jshelr was a sub-optimal decision, but I did it anyway because I wanted to make things interesting. It's easier to decide to attack in the Ancient age, because you can cripple your opponents by seizing momentary advantages; but in the mid-Medieval, such advantages are few and far between, because the smart player (not me!) has set up a very tough defense.
quote:
Perhaps Accelerated Production would be more to your liking, Dominae? |
Actually, no, AP is too far from Civ3 for my tastes. I have not played enough games at this point to say that MP Civ3 is "boring" because it's too defense-oriented. If I were to "blame" this game on anything, it would be the low (and even) number of players, not the game mechanics. Try not to get me wrong: I enjoyed this game a lot, even up to 380AD. But I simply was not willing to play another 100 turns of tech research and military consolidation.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
Fresh game, if you ask me. I see no point to continue this one. Alex's solution sounds pretty well too, although this would mean artifically leveling land areas and tech level, which I wouldn't like much.
Kudos to Dominae, he played an excellent Shaka, strong and mean, as everyone imagines the Zulu leader. Of course, the way he played him (bullying and scaring everyone) was not apt to improve his diplomatical status.
I would like to see a game of true competition. A hand-crafted (or hand-checked) pangea like this one, but without that ridiculous abundance of resources and luxuries. Balanced traits (there were way too many expansionists in this one). At least 5 players, this adds some diplo options (4 goes either 2 vs 2 or, like it was in this game, basically 1 vs 3). No larger map than the # of civs defaults to. Meaning, with 5-6 players we don't play a standard map, but a small one! Having less space to expand makes the ancient age more interesting and early fights more likely. And it is more fun than to REX till the mid of the medieval age, to end with the majority of cities completely corrupt. No long term alliances, let a good diplomacy trump. No research partnerships, but fair trades. And no AU mod, to be honest, I'm sick to have a basically worthless Republic.
As for accelerated production, no no! Not anymore. I play it in the first GS PBEM, and it makes the game run way too fast for my gusto. I just entered the medieval age and am making techs every 4 turns, not having a FP or being in a GA. Compare this with the usual ~15 turns for early medieval techs in normal games.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2003 21:25
|