21-03-2001 05:11									#1
	What's wrong with remaining allied? Inflate your Upload Space

The Civ2 multiplayer setup is great, except for one thing: you can form alliances with other human players, but you can't STAY allied if you want to complete the game!

My question is, why not? Another multiplayer game I've played quite often is Warcraft II, and there the human players are free to form alliances against the computer and go for an 'allied victory'. A great way to avoid aggro with your friends! Also takes the pressure off, and allows you to wreak a just vengeance on those AI opponents who THEMSELVES tend to gang up on you in the end-game...

Is there anyone else like me who'd like to see an option like this included in Civ3??

------------------

	21-03-2001 08:46									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well, you can stay allied with another human and complete the game providing you accept the notion that an alliance - rather than one of its component parts - can win a game. It's basically a question of philosophy, and it has been batted around on these forums from time to time.

Some argue that it's ridiculous, that the game doesn't cater, technically, for an alliance to win, therefore a win by an alliance should be discounted. This doesn't stop them forming alliances in games, just that the alliances must end at some point. Others argue that if a victory - either by world conquest or space flight - has been achieved by the combined efforts of an alliance, then the alliance should be recognised as the "winner", regardless of which partner is the "winner" according to the software.

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that alliances can "win" games. I think the counter argument is a far too literal interpretation of the notion of "winning".

Just one of the many, varied and wonderful debates that have graced these forums over the years.

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591
[This message has been edited by finbar (edited March 20, 2001).]

	21-03-2001 11:39									#3
	Increase Your PM Length

Ilkuul, et al.:

Ha! IMHO, those anti-alliance endgame folks might change their tune if a truly intelligent, savage and cunning AI is ever unleashed on them. Then they'll be screaming to form into alliances as massive, merciless AI armies rumble over their soon-to-be-outlying-provinces-in-a-mighty-empire civilization.

I'm hoping Civ III AI's even better than Civ II's, which I consider to be decent.

CYBERAmazon

	21-03-2001 23:52									#5
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

At home, me and The Hogfather used to start games until we got two settlers, and then control one each, and everything which came out of them.

Each city must be able to pay for its own improvements, and all NONE units were set to one of the owner's city and homed there.

it was quite complicated in the later part of the game, but manageable.

also, all cities were renamed so that we could distinguish them...

	24-03-2001 10:26									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I´m also a CTP2 player, and liked very much the World Peace victory(including the video clip, which I think is the best of the three kinds of victory: Conquest, World Peace, Science). In this kind of victory, if you manage to be at least for one turn allied with every other civs remaining, then you win.

I think this is a great idea of a two players game - two settlers, one for each human player. May become very complicated at end game... But still very interesting! Never heard that before!

I thing, IMHO, that a multiplayer game must allow an Allied victory, and the scored points, at the end, should be about the global achievements of all Allies, without discriminating who did what.

Also, a *Surrender* option (demand or offer) must be included in
every civ game from now!!!

Thanks for your time!

	26-03-2001 10:41									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I like the Alpha Centuri concept of surrender, myself: the surrenderer gives all cash and research to the victor, and becomes a 'submissive'--an ally that (generally) does everything you demand, without making demands of its own, along with all of the usual benefits of alliance.

	26-03-2001 19:16									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I agree that an allied victory should be placed into the game, however one issue I think has been overlooked is the following...

If Green whipes out everyone except Purple, and demands that Purple allies with them or be killed, and Purple does so. Would Green and Purple get the allied victory? Because that seems rather pointless in the end. The only way it could make sense if it was an actual allied victory and not just a victory based on the computer's fields and commands.

Else we are arguing over a topic (the computer only recognizes victory the way it wants to when it can be achieved otherwise) that is only going to shore up again if the changes are made.