Luck is the most important factor?

[Florian]

Also, Flame, against the AI once you get to a certain level of proficiency, you're really playing against its bonuses more than its starting position. If a really good start position gives an AI an even larger head start than usual, yeah, it might make a Prince game seem like a King game instead, but it doesn't mean certain death, because the AI doesn't have a killer instinct, and the human is a better player. Against a human of equal skill level, it very well might mean certain death, because he might not let you catch up. I know from playing hundreds (thousands?) of hours of multiplayer Starcraft, it takes _very little_ by way of a starting advantage to unbalance a contest between equally-matched human players--at least in that game. Seems to me Civ is probably similar.

 

[Innawerkz]

Agreed. I think people tend to forget that sometimes (I know I do).

Not denying that I get emotionally invested in a game, too. I just try and balance out the frustration of a loss with a positive spin.

What did I really lose?

 

[Astromancer]

Firaxis could make a few online Scenarios (if they haven't already), which could be designed with as much a balanced starting location as possible, while still retaining a distinction and individuality about each location. Strategic resources or desirable locations could be placed at an equal distance away.

As an example, something like 'The Axis of Evil' where you're in modern day earth, as either Iran, Iraq, or North Korea. I'm sure you all have enough imagination to guess the rest. Surely this has been proposed before, but it would provide a balanced chess-like game for multiple human players.

 

[The Flame]

Also, Flame, against the AI once you get to a certain level of proficiency, you're really playing against its bonuses more than its starting position. If a really good start position gives an AI an even larger head start than usual, yeah, it might make a Prince game seem like a King game instead, but it doesn't mean certain death, because the AI doesn't have a killer instinct, and the human is a better player. Against a human of equal skill level, it very well might mean certain death, because he might not let you catch up. I know from playing hundreds (thousands?) of hours of multiplayer Starcraft, it takes _very little_ by way of a starting advantage to unbalance a contest between equally-matched human players--at least in that game. Seems to me Civ is probably similar.

I agree with that also. The human player is, to an extent, unpredicatble, as every person is different. The AI on the other hand was programmed a certain way, and it sticks to that. But, depending on what difficulty level you play on, the AI can have more of a killer instinct (also depending on certain settings). It can also keep you at a disadvantage though, which can lead to an AI's victory. But, it is still only artificial intelligence, so it doesn't have unlimited possibilities.

 

[Mat777]

Luck is a bigger factor in multi-player.

If you begin with a high density Flood Plain opening and (unwisely) decide to settle in place, you will be disadvantaged compared to the player who starts with more Production tiles & less of a health penalty. You could move to a better location, however you may be moving closer to the player who has prioritized the rush and you are also starting one or two turns behind.


The majority of multi-player games require a large military. Production cities over Commerce.

Yes, i'm playing MP. You are right, moving instead of builind the city in a bad land do not change anything because you loose too many time. A good start is the most important thing in mp.

btw, thanks for the moral

 

[Mat777]

Firaxis could make a few online Scenarios (if they haven't already), which could be designed with as much a balanced starting location as possible, while still retaining a distinction and individuality about each location. Strategic resources or desirable locations could be placed at an equal distance away.

I wish that too

 

[Mat777]

Also, Flame, against the AI once you get to a certain level of proficiency, you're really playing against its bonuses more than its starting position. If a really good start position gives an AI an even larger head start than usual, yeah, it might make a Prince game seem like a King game instead, but it doesn't mean certain death, because the AI doesn't have a killer instinct, and the human is a better player. Against a human of equal skill level, it very well might mean certain death, because he might not let you catch up. I know from playing hundreds (thousands?) of hours of multiplayer Starcraft, it takes _very little_ by way of a starting advantage to unbalance a contest between equally-matched human players--at least in that game. Seems to me Civ is probably similar.

I agree with that also. The human player is, to an extent, unpredicatble, as every person is different. The AI on the other hand was programmed a certain way, and it sticks to that. But, depending on what difficulty level you play on, the AI can have more of a killer instinct (also depending on certain settings). It can also keep you at a disadvantage though, which can lead to an AI's victory. But, it is still only artificial intelligence, so it doesn't have unlimited possibilities.

Yes, this is the difference, tricking a bot is very easy, tricking a man is not that easy. And can be pretty hard if the guy have good skills.