.

[member66170]

.

 

[Khanate]

Why not arrange an ALC MP game, and every competing player can take screenshots and explain his game when we have a winner? We can then have discussions about good and bad decisions, strategies, tactics, etc. Not only will we learn what the winner did to win, but we can look more closely at mistakes, and that's what really matters if you want to take your game to the next level, MP or SP. If you're interesting, I'm in, at least if it's a one cont each game. I like those, and have experiented with using different leaders for it lately.

 

[tazpn314]

If it would be possible to do so I would agree with Khanate as we would have more coverage on what impact various tactics had. I think it may be difficult to arrange but is a good idea if you can get enough players with same skill to go along. What I like about the ALC and TIC is the slow progress where a lot of thought can be put into the short term strategy more me. I'm definitely an SP person so I'm not exactly the target audience. Regardless it will be interesting to see your take on this.

 

[mice]

Is it possible in multipalyer to take a break and come back to the same game the next day?

If it is then you could sort out your screenies and make posts about the strat so far, and then take advice and carry on the next day.

It would make a very interesting read.

 

[oyzar]

you could play a MP PB game with different threads for different civs ofc.. This sint realy what he is talking about though. Playing the blazing games is very much as much micro as macro. I'll usually manage to micro cities and workers until i get 4-5 cities or go to war. In FFA your basically allways in war it just doesnt show. I like mansa myself as he is good in all of these games if used right though he plays very differently as he is a very good early game player in FFA given his UU's tremedously ability to choke. In FFA it is obviously used mostly for defencive purposes. Spiritual is very good for allowing you to actually do other stuff than slavery from time to time and it means you can take full advantage of nationhood by hopping back and forth, it also saves alot of turns through the game and especially in the early game this is obviously crucial. Combining this with financial means you can easily get a very powerfull CE going and although not as flexible as CE it is more powerfull and you'll get alot of flexibility from spiritual.

The problem with seeing mistakes etc is that things happen realy fast. Its basically like watching any other rts game(starcraft, warcraft etc) since you barly got time to move your units in the time alotted.

 

[Hold The Onion]

Why not arrange an ALC MP game, and every competing player can take screenshots and explain his game when we have a winner? We can then have discussions about good and bad decisions, strategies, tactics, etc. Not only will we learn what the winner did to win, but we can look more closely at mistakes, and that's what really matters if you want to take your game to the next level, MP or SP. If you're interesting, I'm in, at least if it's a one cont each game. I like those, and have experiented with using different leaders for it lately.

exactly what i was thinking. maybe give a little longer on turns with the participants promising to use the extra time only to obtain needed screenshots

 

[cabert]

You could go for a custom PB game, having all civs represented in the map (= half the leaders).
It wouldn't be like an ALC, with external advices. More like a game report, each player doing his own report. Of course, it's going to be hard for the neighbours of Rome or the neighbours of incas, but this shows the truth of the game.

edit : maybe this is still a little too big map. Doing it in 2 different games may be better.

If you take simply the alphabetical order, here are the setups :
game 1 :
America
Arabs
Aztecs
Carthage
Celts
China
Egypt
England
France
Germany
Greece
Inca

game 2:
India
Japan
Korea
Mali
Mongolia
Ottoman
Persia
Rome
Russia
Spain
Viking
Zulu

12 players is a lot, but this would be some kind of event, so I'm pretty sure you could get 12 or even 24 players willing to play this game at a slow pace.

 

[cabert]

But that doesn't reflect MP at all.

that's because I never play MP and don't know what I'm talking about .
My input was only designed to suggest a little "out of the box" thinking.

Maybe have a 8 player FFA Pangea game. Where the first 8 players choose their civs. Then repeat this 3 times, but not allowing the same civ/leader to be used twice. In effect you would have the 8 best civs against each other, then the 9-16th best civs against each other ect...
I still think that the only way to really get players to talk about is to make it a succession game. Maybe with only 3 players per civ? That would still require 24 people, but it should be doable.

I don't want to sound mean, but this doesn't look very realistic.
The discussion part should be taken out of the game mostly (= no day by day reports, only a final report), or it will take a "SGotM" like organization to make it possible.
8 players only sounds good, though.

And why limit ourselves to 3 games? We could repeat this on different settings and maps!

sure, if you manage to find a team and if the first game turns out good, you'll be able to do others.

Let's look at the practical side :
- no time limit for turns (or a large time limit, something like 15 or 30 minutes to allow screenshots and notes => very long sessions, even for 40 turns. Going down to 10 turns may be good, but you're not going to finish a game in a week. let's assume 100 turns for a quick game (which is fast in SP, but from what I heard, this could be long enough for a MP), this leads to 10 sessions, 2 hours long.
- planning sessions mandatory (time zone issues + RL issues)
- some diplomacy could be done in between sessions, via email or PMs. This could lead to an interesting read .

Just trying to help, I have no intention in participating.