Double-Civ Setup?

Do we have a double-civ setup?


  • Total voters
    66
The reason I support the two civ idea is that more civs = more spice in the game. Civ5 is going to come out while we're playing this, so this game needs to be interesting enough to keep players who would otherwise be distracted by the next shiny bauble (CD/DVD) that comes along.

Hey! The C3C MTDG II is also still running and there is activity. And at the current pace it will even be running when Civ 5 will come out :rolleyes:
 
Calis has a point, but I am still in favor of two civs.
 
The only way I would see value in two civs per team would be if each of the current teams was split into two parts. These two parts would coordinate just like playing a team game in MP, as opposed to having one team juggling two civs.

That being said I remain in favor of 1 civ per team.
 
As I understand it:

Reasons to change:
1. It will make us tech faster (but some people don't like this idea saying it will be a builders game among other things).
2. It will add more spice (although "spice" was never really defined. I don't like Cilantro).
3. More Units, More stuff - all that equals more fun. (although the idea that more has to equal better is something I challenged).
4. THis coming year Civ 4 is going to experience lost of competition so we need to do more spice. (See above spice and more points).

Reasons to keep it the way it is:
1. Civ 4 is a proven success. (Civ 4 is a successful game. Why fix it?)
2. It is a carefully balanced game, changing things willy nilly has wide ramifications that can effect it very poorly.
3. If something so fundamental - like playing more than 1 civ at a time - was going to be happening it should have been advertised that way at the outset, BTS multi-team multi-civ Demo game
4. "More" doesn't mean "better" - game balance and fun isn't about throwing "more" at the player, it is about carefully constructing a well-balanced game. Civ 4 is already a well balanced game. Why are we messing with it?

Change requires some kind of reason - and I don't yet see solid reasons to change this. I see flowery language about "its going to be better, trust us!" ... nothing really concrete though. What are the concrete examples? A faster tech tree is the only real concrete example and Im not sure it is a positive one.

If someone could definatively tell me that because I now have 2 types of unique units and 4 traits I'm going to be so much more euphorically happy with the game then sure, I would be all for voting for multiple civs.

The idea that more is better is not a strong one. The point is that players are only intended to have access to 1 UU, that UU is weak or strong based on the realitive weakness or strength of the traits, and the weakness or strength of the UB... By giving players access to 2 civs the delicate balance of the game is upset. The strategy of the game suffers because the trade off between "should I pick Monty and go all out early, or Darius and build for long term" is gone. Civ 4 becomes less about critical thinking about trading off strengths and weaknesses and more about "how can I power house through this game most effectively."

That doesn't sound fun. That sounds like RTS. Build up quickly, build a bunch of units, and zerg. Rinse. Repeat.

I don't buy that having access to double the resources from the get go is going to be more "fun." The struggle for and eventual attainment of resources is part of the fun. The conflict that arises from racing towards strategic resources is fun! With 2 civs I have double the chances of having access to iron - and if my military focused civ doesnt have it - no worries - just trade it over and gift the units back to defend the others cities. How does that compare to the conflict that could arise between 2 non-teamed civs racing towards iron between them? You're right. It doesn't.

And Tech trading. Sometimes I make unfair Tech trades because I know that I really want a tech - or I know someone else really needs a Tech. It's part of the game. Its part of the fun. Not with 2 aligned Civs racing through the Tech tree - in fact with a double Tech speed it's going to be a wonder that we get any army together before it is obsolete. Fun? You march your army over to conquer some land and <boom> upgrades.

No doubt people are going to argue with these particular points - I'm not a game designer so maybe they should be argued with - but the underlying point is that people need to start thinking about things critically in these terms - not just in a "oh gee, this will be cool because it is going to be more cool toys lol omg..." kind of way. The fact that we are on page 8 and there are so few substantial reasons to change to a multi-civ game demonstrates that not only should it not be done, but the type of critical thinking to make such a fundamental change has not been done. I don't propose that my few examples above even scratch the surface of what should be considered - I'm not doing the work here - because I don't like the idea. Game designers have full time jobs designing balance for these types of play issues. Why destroy what is shaping up to be a perfectly good team game because of a whimsical idea that we should tech faster and add "spice" to the game? Oh golly gee, lets all play multi-civs then! Yeah, thats the ticket!:crazyeye:

There is a reason the game is balanced the way it is - it is a fun game. The proof is that we are all playing it. It doesn't need help from anyone here.

I'd be interested to hear from someone who can construct a thoughtful argument around "more is better" which consists of some substance, because as a snap statement I'm just suppose to swallow saying "more is better, c'mon, trust me" - well, I don't buy it. Neither should anyone else that is going to invest any more time in this game.

Spoiler :
Anyone still reading this thread needs to get a life. Anyone posting in it is well past the point of hope.
 
I'm still reading this since I have a boring job:lol:

Uh, oh. Sounds like a recipe for success in this game. We better watch this one. ;)
 
Reasons to keep it the way it is:
1. Civ 4 is a proven success. (Civ 4 is a successful game. Why fix it?)
2. It is a carefully balanced game, changing things willy nilly has wide ramifications that can effect it very poorly.
Civ 4 was built with team play in mind.
3. If something so fundamental - like playing more than 1 civ at a time - was going to be happening it should have been advertised that way at the outset, BTS multi-team multi-civ Demo game
4. "More" doesn't mean "better" - game balance and fun isn't about throwing "more" at the player, it is about carefully constructing a well-balanced game. Civ 4 is already a well balanced game. Why are we messing with it?
It's no different to playing a game where 2 of the teams are hypothetically locked together. It just cuts out the middle man.
 
Civ 4 was built with team play in mind.

It's no different to playing a game where 2 of the teams are hypothetically locked together. It just cuts out the middle man.

Lord Parkin made this argument on page 6 or 7. I made a ton of counter points against it there which (for the sake of the people reading) I won't regurgitate. Either you didn't bother reading that (I can't blame you) or you disagree with my counterpoints - assuming the latter - why?
 
Anyone still reading this thread needs to get a life. Anyone posting in it is well past the point of hope.

And anyone making posts over 950 words long...well...they've past the point of hope long ago...:p [/offtopic]
 
Lord Parkin made this argument on page 6 or 7. I made a ton of counter points against it there which (for the sake of the people reading) I won't regurgitate. Either you didn't bother reading that (I can't blame you) or you disagree with my counterpoints - assuming the latter - why?

I probably skim read it.

When I've played team pitboss games previously, it has always been like sharing 2+ civs between 1 person. Passwords are shared between players to allow each other to make sure turns aren't missed, and often a private forum is set up to discuss things. Rather than having two separate teams teamed together and having to share passwords, set up other forms of communication between the two entities and all that stuff, we can play a team game by giving each team two leaders.
 
Top Bottom