Hi!
I've started playing online few days ago after exploring the game during a month and even if it makes the game much more exciting, I'm quite disappointed by the community I've met so far. Only one game on ~20 has go past the renaissance era (with half remaining players - so poor interactions).
What I've seen are people leaving because they don't get a godlike start, because they feel their neighbour is developing faster, because they failed the capture of a city... In the end, as soon as someone sees his own victory getting out of reach he thinks the game isn't worth playing.
In my opinion, playing Civ like you play a competitive RTS is a waste. This game offers so much more possibilities! Of course, I couldn't find dedicated players just queuing in random lobbies. But now, I'd like to find some fellows to actually enjoy the next games, but I don't know where to look. So here I am in the first forum I found on google asking: is there a way to play Civ with people able to understand a game as a whole, and not from an individualist win/loss perspective?
To illustrate my point of view, I'll tell my last game.
6 players, Pangea, the map goes like this:
Greece.....Poland........sea.........Egypt
....Rome........Korea...............France
Classical era, Greece goes to war on Rome. They struggle a while, Trajan asks for my help. My hussards was far from being ready, but I can rely on a city state and a small army to take colony of Greece et force Gorgo to retreat. One turn before the crossbow upgrade and my entry to war, Rome leaves, judging it was too late though he hasn't lost a city yet. There, he thinks short: after taking Mycenae, I could have sieged Sparta only to force Gorgo to give Ostia back to Rome and restore the balance between both. I didn't need to conquer all his kingdom having already converted it to my religion. And I don't see the interest of erasing a player of the game. But when the siege of Sparta began, Gorgo left, arguing he wouldn't come back. After that, the three remaining players disconnected. The fun thing is that the AI succeeded in defending Sparta afterward...
We where at the end of the medieval era, and the possibilities were wide open for everyone. Korea, ahead in technology (of course) could have ally with Greece and invade me by the south while my army was west. France and Egypt could have attack my capital by sea. Gorgo was still first in culture, was getting all the GWAM, could have build a ton of wonders, settle on a superb spot he had left aside... then a bit later plot an invasion of France across the see allying with Egypt.
At the end of the medieval era, I was only ahead in religion, being the only one to own one though Stonehenge was still available! And there are plenty of means to stop a religion spreading.
It reminds me the games of Catan I was playing with friends. When everyone had learned the game the victor was chosen by politics and scheming much more than good investments and thinking. But it made all the fun! Someone fudgs your game up, you ally with someone else to make sure this ass hole won't be able to win... and you can backstab your ally later to grab a last second victory while everyone had forget you!
Civ isn't a binary game, where you have to dominate or surrend. For instance I loved playing Sumeria using the carts to clear camps then rushing the Oracle and a Theater district to get the steam achievement. Then spreading across rivers only, and searching for a noble cause to defend with a small army of knights. Or Kongo, trying to get that 30 population while amassing every great works of the game. And I imagine it would be hilarious to abuse the Scotland's leader ability and go for a war of liberation every time you can even if will be a complete disaster.
So here are my thoughts, waiting for the answers now.
PS : I added screenshots of the game to make the picture more concrete
I've started playing online few days ago after exploring the game during a month and even if it makes the game much more exciting, I'm quite disappointed by the community I've met so far. Only one game on ~20 has go past the renaissance era (with half remaining players - so poor interactions).
What I've seen are people leaving because they don't get a godlike start, because they feel their neighbour is developing faster, because they failed the capture of a city... In the end, as soon as someone sees his own victory getting out of reach he thinks the game isn't worth playing.
In my opinion, playing Civ like you play a competitive RTS is a waste. This game offers so much more possibilities! Of course, I couldn't find dedicated players just queuing in random lobbies. But now, I'd like to find some fellows to actually enjoy the next games, but I don't know where to look. So here I am in the first forum I found on google asking: is there a way to play Civ with people able to understand a game as a whole, and not from an individualist win/loss perspective?
To illustrate my point of view, I'll tell my last game.
6 players, Pangea, the map goes like this:
Greece.....Poland........sea.........Egypt
....Rome........Korea...............France
Classical era, Greece goes to war on Rome. They struggle a while, Trajan asks for my help. My hussards was far from being ready, but I can rely on a city state and a small army to take colony of Greece et force Gorgo to retreat. One turn before the crossbow upgrade and my entry to war, Rome leaves, judging it was too late though he hasn't lost a city yet. There, he thinks short: after taking Mycenae, I could have sieged Sparta only to force Gorgo to give Ostia back to Rome and restore the balance between both. I didn't need to conquer all his kingdom having already converted it to my religion. And I don't see the interest of erasing a player of the game. But when the siege of Sparta began, Gorgo left, arguing he wouldn't come back. After that, the three remaining players disconnected. The fun thing is that the AI succeeded in defending Sparta afterward...
We where at the end of the medieval era, and the possibilities were wide open for everyone. Korea, ahead in technology (of course) could have ally with Greece and invade me by the south while my army was west. France and Egypt could have attack my capital by sea. Gorgo was still first in culture, was getting all the GWAM, could have build a ton of wonders, settle on a superb spot he had left aside... then a bit later plot an invasion of France across the see allying with Egypt.
At the end of the medieval era, I was only ahead in religion, being the only one to own one though Stonehenge was still available! And there are plenty of means to stop a religion spreading.
It reminds me the games of Catan I was playing with friends. When everyone had learned the game the victor was chosen by politics and scheming much more than good investments and thinking. But it made all the fun! Someone fudgs your game up, you ally with someone else to make sure this ass hole won't be able to win... and you can backstab your ally later to grab a last second victory while everyone had forget you!
Civ isn't a binary game, where you have to dominate or surrend. For instance I loved playing Sumeria using the carts to clear camps then rushing the Oracle and a Theater district to get the steam achievement. Then spreading across rivers only, and searching for a noble cause to defend with a small army of knights. Or Kongo, trying to get that 30 population while amassing every great works of the game. And I imagine it would be hilarious to abuse the Scotland's leader ability and go for a war of liberation every time you can even if will be a complete disaster.
So here are my thoughts, waiting for the answers now.
PS : I added screenshots of the game to make the picture more concrete
