Butterball
Bear
Hell yes!!! Join the idiots.
Another Civ III MTDG?
- Thread starter RegentMan
- Start date
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
Lurk.
Unless there's a really interesting map... something like what Whomp proposed.
Otherwise - I'm gonna focus on the Civ4 MTDG!
Unless there's a really interesting map... something like what Whomp proposed.
Otherwise - I'm gonna focus on the Civ4 MTDG!
donsig
Low level intermediary
What would a Civ III MTDG be without dinsog? Sure, I'll play and be active. How could I pass up another chance to build the Mausoleum?
No better form of multiplayer....
I'll join a team.
For sure.
As long as I don't have to campaign against General_W anymore
EDIT: I would propose an ODD number of teams, and maybe even an AI or two!
I'll join a team.
For sure.
As long as I don't have to campaign against General_W anymore
EDIT: I would propose an ODD number of teams, and maybe even an AI or two!
azzaman333
meh
I'd definately play again. 
RegentMan
Deity
So there's about thirty thus far. That's good for eight or so for four teams, and six for five teams. The number might increase as the game gets going, too.
My biggest fear is that a second MTDG would simply be the MTDG II. For the most part, people would like to be with their old team members (I don't blame them. I've seen the bonds created in M.I.A. and K.I.S.S. and am simply amazed. Friendships have been formed, and a community has been born. I wonder if they would have occured without the MTDG). This is understandable, but it creates old rivalries. Everyone, I think, will be out for the new M.I.A. team. The new Doughnut and TNT teams might instantly go for each other's throats, hoping for revenge or to prevent the seemingly unavoidable invasion. This was a concern of mine for the![[civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif "Civ4 [civ4]")
MTDG, but I saw intermixing, and with the addition of a fifth team, it has spiced things up, in my opinion.
That was why I voted "No - Other." However, if there is strong support for a second MTDG (were there thirty active people among the teams at game's end? Kind of a high number; I'm surprised!), I will be the first in line to be apart of it. I loved seeing the teams bond. The newspapers are an absolute delight. Making "The Great Meleet" the universal God in this game was hilarious; and like in real life, splinter "religions" broke out, the RNG being the most notable introduction.
I loved watching this game and hope for a second one. I just wanted to get my biggest fear off of my chest.[/rant]
In the words of Whomp:
I love you guys, man!
My biggest fear is that a second MTDG would simply be the MTDG II. For the most part, people would like to be with their old team members (I don't blame them. I've seen the bonds created in M.I.A. and K.I.S.S. and am simply amazed. Friendships have been formed, and a community has been born. I wonder if they would have occured without the MTDG). This is understandable, but it creates old rivalries. Everyone, I think, will be out for the new M.I.A. team. The new Doughnut and TNT teams might instantly go for each other's throats, hoping for revenge or to prevent the seemingly unavoidable invasion. This was a concern of mine for the
MTDG, but I saw intermixing, and with the addition of a fifth team, it has spiced things up, in my opinion.That was why I voted "No - Other." However, if there is strong support for a second MTDG (were there thirty active people among the teams at game's end? Kind of a high number; I'm surprised!), I will be the first in line to be apart of it. I loved seeing the teams bond. The newspapers are an absolute delight. Making "The Great Meleet" the universal God in this game was hilarious; and like in real life, splinter "religions" broke out, the RNG being the most notable introduction.
I loved watching this game and hope for a second one. I just wanted to get my biggest fear off of my chest.[/rant]
In the words of Whomp:
I love you guys, man!
Nobody
Gangster
Maybe we could make it so instead of selecting teams we could be randomly put in them. I think i could get along with anyone else just as well as the doughnuts.
I agree with RegentMan. I haven’t voted because whether I play again will really depend on how the game is set up. As much as I 
my teammates, if teams are recognizable from the first game, then it doesn’t really have as much appeal.
my teammates, if teams are recognizable from the first game, then it doesn’t really have as much appeal.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
We need an odd number of teams for such an odd bunch of people.
That does include me.
That does include me.
Tubby Rower
Chronic Slacker
should a new forum be created for ![[c3c]](/images/smilies/c3c.gif "Civ3 Conquests [c3c]")
MTDG 2?
MTDG 2?
A few observations...it's true at KISS we've had some great friendships built and it was partially due to our simplicity. However, I sensed some of our younger players feeling left out and possibly a need for more structure. This may sound weird but these types of games can be great lessons on life regarding communication and team building. Personally, I'd like to see them more involved.
A few other thoughts that I think could build some interest...
The North America vs. Europe vs. Oz/NZ/Pacific vs. youths. I'm not sure if this would work logistically but it sure sounds fun.
Another thought on randomizing would be to break people up into groups based on their expectations from the game.
Active or occassional poster.
Level of play.
Turnplayer or not.
Diplomat or not.
Bureaucratic government or not?
A few other thoughts that I think could build some interest...
The North America vs. Europe vs. Oz/NZ/Pacific vs. youths. I'm not sure if this would work logistically but it sure sounds fun.
Another thought on randomizing would be to break people up into groups based on their expectations from the game.
Active or occassional poster.
Level of play.
Turnplayer or not.
Diplomat or not.
Bureaucratic government or not?
Kickbooti
Ecclesia Militans
I would love to play, but I too would want the same band of idiots. The idiots I know are better than the idiots I don't...Trust me, I've tested this theory. Besides, I never worshiped at the temple of RNG
I agree whole-heartedly that the teams from the first MTDG should not be recognizable.
Whomp may have a good idea there, with 'expectations' being a component of team make-up. For instance, I can't play the save; so I'd have to be on a team with at least a handful of people who can.
Whomp may have a good idea there, with 'expectations' being a component of team make-up. For instance, I can't play the save; so I'd have to be on a team with at least a handful of people who can.
fe3333au
Deity
Custom Map ... with luxes spread so that trade is a big ingredient, and what about 5 teams 
I'm more than willing to create a new scenario - if you liked the map enough.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
Five teams; that would be wild indeed.fe3333au said:Custom Map ... with luxes spread so that trade is a big ingredient, and what about 5 teams
5 teams would take more time, obviously, but if you don't mind being on a team with about 5 others (active at least, based on those who voted in the poll), whatever you want!
I would have to say, there does seem to be enough support however to at least have teams of 7+ or so. I also think there's lots of ways (Whomp listed an interesting idea) to spice up the game too.
I would have to say, there does seem to be enough support however to at least have teams of 7+ or so. I also think there's lots of ways (Whomp listed an interesting idea) to spice up the game too.
greekguy
Missed the Boat
i think the next MTDG should have 5 teams. 5 teams would make for more complex diplomacy and war, which i think would be a very good thing.
Similar threads
