How should it be played? multi

[TrailblazingScot]

At the moment I am engaged in a civ2 multiplayer game:

my strength is supreme and my human opponent is much weaker than I am. The A.I nations are keeping pace with him and it is alot of fun watching the game build up into something.

The query I have is about multiplaying in general:

When do you contemplate war? Just because you are more powerful? because you know he is the human player and the greatest threat?

The best multiplayer game of mpge was vs my brother on the world.mp

He sacked one of my spanish cities on the normandy coast using a caravel to land troopers. We warred thus continuously till I frigated his ass and he punched my face in -in real life...he doesn't like the fact that my frigates were blasting his pikement (cos I didn't even have gunpowder or metallury...just not needed). Oh, he was the celts...he had somehow got cities in siberia, which were a shock to deal with too!

Same with SMAC I hold back in multiplayer...don't take advantage. My code of conduct is too honourable...I will not start needless aggession, how about you?

[This message has been edited by kittenOFchaos (edited July 04, 2001).]

 

[SlowwHand]

It's one of those "different strokes for different folks" deals.

Some players play an "in your face as quickly as possible" style.
To them, the challenge seems to be how fast they can end a game.

Some enjoy a "Diplo" game, where combat is secondary to space race.

For my part, the only thing that will make me attack is my conception of borders, or borders of those I've allied.

It's been said by one (<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif" border=0>) that I'm too nice, and that may be true.
Usually if I am out exploring the world, and have covered a good amount of distance, and run into another Civ, I stop my advance.
I figure have sufficient land behind me to expand, and will consider where a border is to be located in my mind.

If I'm on a mass of land by myself, I do kill foreign settlers.
My thought is that trade can be established without encroachment on my land.


Tribe/team play is all together different.
It's build, seek and destroy. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>


------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

[This message has been edited by SlowwHand (edited July 04, 2001).]

 

[Dogberry_Old]

That you get to handle decisions of War & Peace is the main attraction this game has for me. All the other decisions about Wonders, governments, improvements, & combat are fine & important in their own right..but this is what "rings my bell". This is probably why my preferred game is normal map, 1x1 & with at least 4 preferrably 5 human players.

My general method for deciding for or against war is what I like to think of as Realpolitik..that is: first, what is doable; second, what is in my best interest; and finally, what has been the history of the relationship between myself & the target in the game so far.. if any. It is almost always worth it to eliminate or more likely marginalise a potential rival early, however it is not always doable. Long attritional wars are almost never worth it, esp. early on.

Most wars that I have seen, when you start into the midgame, are almost always limited wars for limited objectives.. many are more or less, just skirmishing. I have seen no "march of conquest" type wars so far, & really don't expect too many at these settings.

Ironically, after a series of real good starts, it seems that now I am stuck in a bunch of fairly poor ones, with lackluster geography & too near neighbors. I have had a number of games recently that have forced me to negotiate my right to be "there" at the point of the sword. Maybe the karmic wheel has just turned on me ( go ahead & laugh Sloww ).

Yes, Sloww.. you are TOO damned nice. Most of the others that I play with, in that situation, would have just whacked me & then chuckled about it, & me them. That's kinda the way that I prefer it. Of course each & every game has its own special kismet.

BTW.. what happened to that game, Slow ? It WAS an interesting situation.

Dog


[This message has been edited by Dogberry (edited July 05, 2001).]

 

[thedirk]

Simple,

If I am stronger I crush the opposition before they have the chance to challenge me. If I am weaker, I placate and seek a diplomatic solution. If I am uncertain of an enemies strength I hesitate to engage in war. I like to establish embasies so I know what I'm up against and react accordingly.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I'm too kind...Richard will get leonardo's b4 me...and his surrounded trireme with loaded settlers (all coast and sea I got units) will upgrade to a caravel...) curses.

Plus his tech is good so his army will rock...his problem will be that my production and army are just so big and my cities so numerous that...well I'd be kacking in his place

THEDIRK...you will have to placate me