|
Post by notagoodname on Jul 15, 2006 19:49:52 GMT -5
Suggestion for Ironman: how about doing it on one of those earth scenario maps?
Ironman is the only time i've ever seen a multiplayer civ game played from start to end and the earth maps would be good for a start to end game. Could be fun right?
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 16, 2006 4:02:04 GMT -5
Those maps are so unbalanced it's a joke.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 16, 2006 5:33:21 GMT -5
maybe some1 can mod the earth map to be decent balanced to be used in ctons and epics? because somehow i like the idea to use worldmap - i want start in australia btw - how often did i start civ1 games untill random did put me into australia
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 16, 2006 6:37:57 GMT -5
That's something, but it becomes so dependent on the quality of the players. It turns into a situation where the players on the islands win (England, Australia, Japan, or the few civs on the Americas) unless one of the mainland players really steamrolls a bunch of newer players next to him.
Then again, I'm sure you could get it fairly even, if you tried.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 16, 2006 14:38:49 GMT -5
for sure u d have to do some tweks or USA ll be unbeatable - u could for example put French into Canada - spain into mexicao port into south smaerica
so that every1 got some room - england d need land with like only res
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Jul 16, 2006 15:42:13 GMT -5
England *has* land with almost only resources.
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Jul 19, 2006 1:35:46 GMT -5
Well you couldn't have both elizabeth and victoria in the one CCC as it would become too crowded in that part of the world.
So the map would probably have (assuming 9 clans) Ghandi (India) Mali (Africa) Catherine (Russia) Elizabeth (England) Huyuna Capac (South America) Saladin (Arabia) Napolean (France) Washington (North America) Qin Shi (China)
Resources in all the areas would be arranged to make it balanced given the different land mass sizes.
You could make a scenario that has those 9 civs already. Then CCC player would select which one of those civs they want the same way they do for evey CCC. The map would then be handed out to all ironman players well before the event so they can see resources and the selection they would choose for the civs.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Jul 19, 2006 11:37:34 GMT -5
A little off topic but I think it's kind of ironic that the Civilopedia tells us that Mali was producing like 60% of the worlds gold in the Middle Ages and how rich Mansa Musa was. Yet the Mali start on the Earth Map has not a single gold mine. How lame. There are some gems to the south but that is not gold.
I always thought civ was the most fun on the Earth Map but Civ 3 didn't have a decent earth map until the Tetrakhan scenario and that took forever to play. The Civ 4 game that was built from the ground up for Multi-player I think is seriously lacking in single player. I just don't thing the game is that fun in SP. Also the Earth Map is just too damn big to play in MP. People complain about long turns now on blazing. It takes forever to do turns on that map. Especially if your Russia, China or in North America with lots of room to expand so you will easily have like 15-20 cities if you know what your doing.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Jul 19, 2006 12:12:17 GMT -5
I'd also like to see a true Free For All game with Tech Trading and Diplomacy. I realize that we do the No TT and Always War in the interests of fairness but that really isn't the way Civ was meant to be played. A real leader has to be a shrewd diplomat and has to trade techs with other civs. I.E. the Armor on the M1-A2 abrams tank was actually developed by the British. It of course provides an unfair advantage on the battlefield but that is just a fact of life. As unfair as it is there should be a game of this type in the CCC.
I think it would be interesting to see who teams up on whom. Would the weaker clans have half a brain and team up on the strongers clans like MUD or MDR. Because of this would the stronger clans join forces to ensure their dominace. What about the other above average clans like LKT and ..A.. what would their stategy be and where would they end up. It adds another dimension to the game that is rarely employed in ladder matches.
There of course should be some ground rules like no forming alliance pre-game and other such fair play rules. This of course we would be on the honor system for. I do think that this game type would give the weaker clans a chance to win an event though instead of having basically the same few clans taking all the events.
I know it won't be the fairest game but if we really wanted to make the CCC fair there would be a no Tommynt and Slaughter rule.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jul 19, 2006 13:01:30 GMT -5
ccc was allways a kind of a mirror from games played on ladder as soon as FFA get popular as normal ladder game there ll be a ffa in cccc i guess
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jul 19, 2006 22:00:05 GMT -5
I personally like the ffa, but I do understand why the cton came about. If diplomacy could be limited by *ingame* geo-political factors then the cton would never have needed to be invented. But I think in the more professional realm of the CCC, perhaps a ffa would be viable. Clans aren't going to make out of game alliances that turn out to be bad during the game, clans want to win, and therefore they'd want to forge the best ingame alliance they could and wage wars that make sence, in order to win in the end. I'm not sure what the best map for a ffa would be, perhaps a balanced or TBG, or a islands map, something with a 2v2v2v2 in mind. Just a thought.
CS
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jul 20, 2006 0:55:10 GMT -5
I personally like the ffa, but I do understand why the cton came about. If diplomacy could be limited by *ingame* geo-political factors then the cton would never have needed to be invented. But I think in the more professional realm of the CCC, perhaps a ffa would be viable. Clans aren't going to make out of game alliances that turn out to be bad during the game, clans want to win, and therefore they'd want to forge the best ingame alliance they could and wage wars that make sence, in order to win in the end. I'm not sure what the best map for a ffa would be, perhaps a balanced or TBG, or a islands map, something with a 2v2v2v2 in mind. Just a thought. CS That will be true only if teams will play under numbers 1-10 so noone will know each other identity (and it should be written in the rules that it's prohibited to disclose your identity to others). In any other case, winning the CCC will be the higest priority and so out of game alliances will be overwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Jul 21, 2006 11:29:04 GMT -5
I hosted a FFA last night and it took forever to get it going since most people would only play the regular game types. After waiting for like an hour and a half I finally got a 5 person game going. Tech trade was on and always war was off, balanced map and it was 150 turns. We did a blazing timer but I think a fast timer would be better because I kept ending turns in the Diplo Screen.
The game itself went pretty well. As far as I could tell there was definately one alliance, maybe 2. I know there was one because I was in it. Mine really only came about because my neighbor to my west attacked my neighbor to my south and then attacked me. After he pillaged some of my stuff I kicked him out and then the Alliance was made although it really didn't amount to much. I took one of our enemies cities on my own and my ally did little more than pillage. Overall I think it was a fun game. I made it up to print in tech taking that when I got lib first and my ally made it to cavs. My ally was double teamed and he ended up in second place behind me, and we kinds double teamed our enemy to my west but as I said it didn't amount to much.
I think this game would be a lot of fun if more people played. As long as you realize you could get double teamed in an alliance and build units instead of trying to build a bunch of wonders like a lot of non ladders do in their games, you should be fine. I was in the middle that game and only went to war with one of my neighbors. In a cton you're pretty much guaranteed to face opposition from anyone that can get in your territory, so you're usually at open war with 2 opponents. It was nice to have someone on my borders who wasn't trying to kill me.
|
|
|
Post by swissy on Jul 23, 2006 16:18:24 GMT -5
FFAs were the norm in Civ3 from the start. Until rank-mongers ruined it by pushing big allainces vs the highest rank player in the game, no matter if it made sense or not. Also, there was a tendency for some rank-mongers to turn on any in the alliance higher than them and backstab them late in the game. That is why the cton style of game developed, because a few rank-mongers who saw winning by any means, not a good well fought game, to be the ultimate goal.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Jul 23, 2006 21:08:53 GMT -5
Well forming an allaince just to kill the highest ranked person in the game is lame. Backstabbing someone your are allied with seems like a normal tactic to me. Not like it doesn't happen in real life. The Germans did it to the Russians at the beginning of WWII. It's happened many other times throughout history. Really no one should be surprised when that happens. If you are, then you you're very nieve. I was expecting it might happen to me in that game although it didn't. I was still ready if it did.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jul 24, 2006 0:47:58 GMT -5
Well forming an allaince just to kill the highest ranked person in the game is lame. Backstabbing someone your are allied with seems like a normal tactic to me. Not like it doesn't happen in real life. The Germans did it to the Russians at the beginning of WWII. Russia wasn't allied with Germany for sure. IIRC we had only a non-aggression pact.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Jul 24, 2006 14:48:37 GMT -5
You are correct about it being a non-aggression pact Sir. The Germans still signed an agreement saying they would do one thing and then turned around and did the exact opposite. My point being they backstabbed the Russians.
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 27, 2006 11:31:42 GMT -5
Rupman wrote: You make a good point. Given that alliances are gonna form anyhow, why not opt for the depth of realism that the creator designed and intended with all the diplomatic options allowed? Because, let's face it, ctons don't really prevent gangbangs well. As long as players know each other's ladder identity, can move their forces as they please, and can communicate with other players, it can happen. Which brings me to Ellestar's point: I think it's an excellent idea, if it can be pulled off by the creators. Instead of always war, players will only be able to make alliances that make sense in the current game because they will not know what rank of any particular civ's controller except their own. Listen, I've been following this thread, and I'd like to offer an FFA PitBoss game (most likely Warlords) I'm hosting that is gaining popularity. Particularly Rupman, Check out in the forums: civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?board=pspga&action=display&thread=1153255446I have 7 players now, but we're always looking for more. We're gonna start when enough people have Warlords or the opportunity to get it. Think about the possibilities for Vassal States!
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Jul 27, 2006 12:10:49 GMT -5
I'm not going to have warlords till Saturday afternoon at the earliest. So it will be at least till then till I can try it out.
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Jul 27, 2006 12:41:00 GMT -5
I'm not going to have warlords till Saturday afternoon at the earliest. So it will be at least till then till I can try it out. That's perfectly fine, Rupman. Most people won't have it for another week, I predict. Warlords has "anonymous play", I just found out. For puposes of scoring the true identities of the players are revealed only after you die or win. But please make your presence known in my thread: civ4players.proboards44.com/index.cgi?board=pspga&action=display&thread=1153255446&page=1 thx.
|
|