My last game in multiplayer ended with the usual civ2 situation. The victory of the leader over the second most powerful civilization. The third player, with an outsider nation, immediately surrendered, due to the objective impossibility of resisting the leader with the power of the two strongest nations. I think that all players in civ2 multiplayer will be familiar with this situation: from a certain moment, the power of the leader nation increases exponentially "snowball". What motivation should a player have who at the start got obviously unfavorable conditions? He sees in the first round of the game that he most likely will not succeed in winning this game.
I heard a lot of talk about the mythical "fun" in the game. If your playing style is “fun,” this text is not for you, close this thread, and forget about it. ) I find this style of play a little strange. About how to lose 100 chess games in a row, when the opponent puts you the same Scholar's mate. But you had great fun in these 100 games. Yeah ... "Fun" is a necessary but insufficient element in the game.
If you, like me, consider civ2 like chess, like a game where all the players want to win the same game, let's think together how to motivate all the participants to stay in the game until the end, despite any in-game situations (like a leader - a snowball).
So, I have a rather chaotic idea based on the civ2 Civil War game mechanics. Consider a situation where 4 people-players participate in the game. 1 - the leader, 2 catching up with the leader, and 2 more outsiders, who already obviously cannot win this game. How to convince and continue the game? Many players use the team versus team method. In my opinion, this is a rather dull style of play. Personally, I don’t understand the motivation of the player acting as “baggage” to the nation-leader in the team (well, if only this is your “fan”).
You can slightly modify this "command method". Let it remain so: the leader, and with him the vassal nation as “baggage” (approximately like Hitler and Mussolini’s “baggage” attached to him). The second team has the same composition. Finally, both teams start a decisive war, and in the war one of the teams wins. Usually at this moment the game ends. The losing team surrenders. Everyone is applauding the winning team. And including the player whose nation was a vassal-luggage with the nation-leader. A rather dull victory, about the same as for France in 1945, which "also defeated Germany." Let's not end the game at this point. Let's just shuffle the deck.
So, the winning team took all the cities of the losing team. Now let her take also the cities of her vassal. Indeed, in the hypothetical confrontation between Hitler and Mussolini, Italy had no chance of winning. Now we get the absolute hegemon that has captured the whole world. And now the time has come to apply the mechanics of the “civil war”. It can be a real "civil war" (through the cheat mode, barbarians capture the capital and the nation is divided approximately in half in random order). Or an agreement between players who, using the cheat mode, redistribute cities for two players, observing a certain parity.
The game continues again. Now the winner among themselves will be determined by former allies. What does this method give? He will keep the intrigue until the very end of the game. You can have any, even very bad, hopeless starting conditions. But you still have a chance to become the winner of this game. After all, the leader will still have to give you half of everything that he can capture in this game. The most spectacular illustration of this method can be the confrontation of Anthony and Octavian. Rome, in the era of conquest, was the same "team" of clans who together fought for dominance in the world. By the time of Caesar, almost all the surrounding rival nations were broken and submitted to Rome.
It seems that this is the natural "end of the game." The snowball cannot be stopped by anyone. Odako at this moment Rome is shocked by the civil war. The nation is divided approximately in half. And the two former allies begin the final battle for the absolute winner. Octavian conquers, Rome turns into a single empire. "Colonists reach Alpha Centauri" or "your civilization has flogged the whole world." What happened then is a completely different story. If the goal of your game is to determine from the 4 initial players one winner, keeping the intrigue until the end of the game, then this method can be quite sufficient. And not one of the players will feel like "baggage" - an appendage, and may well hope to become the final winner.
Here is such an idea. Once again - this idea is rather chaotic, and I have not used it in practice yet. It will be interesting for me to listen to other ideas on how to maintain the motivation of all participants in the multiplayer game until the very end of the game.
I heard a lot of talk about the mythical "fun" in the game. If your playing style is “fun,” this text is not for you, close this thread, and forget about it. ) I find this style of play a little strange. About how to lose 100 chess games in a row, when the opponent puts you the same Scholar's mate. But you had great fun in these 100 games. Yeah ... "Fun" is a necessary but insufficient element in the game.
If you, like me, consider civ2 like chess, like a game where all the players want to win the same game, let's think together how to motivate all the participants to stay in the game until the end, despite any in-game situations (like a leader - a snowball).
So, I have a rather chaotic idea based on the civ2 Civil War game mechanics. Consider a situation where 4 people-players participate in the game. 1 - the leader, 2 catching up with the leader, and 2 more outsiders, who already obviously cannot win this game. How to convince and continue the game? Many players use the team versus team method. In my opinion, this is a rather dull style of play. Personally, I don’t understand the motivation of the player acting as “baggage” to the nation-leader in the team (well, if only this is your “fan”).
You can slightly modify this "command method". Let it remain so: the leader, and with him the vassal nation as “baggage” (approximately like Hitler and Mussolini’s “baggage” attached to him). The second team has the same composition. Finally, both teams start a decisive war, and in the war one of the teams wins. Usually at this moment the game ends. The losing team surrenders. Everyone is applauding the winning team. And including the player whose nation was a vassal-luggage with the nation-leader. A rather dull victory, about the same as for France in 1945, which "also defeated Germany." Let's not end the game at this point. Let's just shuffle the deck.
So, the winning team took all the cities of the losing team. Now let her take also the cities of her vassal. Indeed, in the hypothetical confrontation between Hitler and Mussolini, Italy had no chance of winning. Now we get the absolute hegemon that has captured the whole world. And now the time has come to apply the mechanics of the “civil war”. It can be a real "civil war" (through the cheat mode, barbarians capture the capital and the nation is divided approximately in half in random order). Or an agreement between players who, using the cheat mode, redistribute cities for two players, observing a certain parity.
The game continues again. Now the winner among themselves will be determined by former allies. What does this method give? He will keep the intrigue until the very end of the game. You can have any, even very bad, hopeless starting conditions. But you still have a chance to become the winner of this game. After all, the leader will still have to give you half of everything that he can capture in this game. The most spectacular illustration of this method can be the confrontation of Anthony and Octavian. Rome, in the era of conquest, was the same "team" of clans who together fought for dominance in the world. By the time of Caesar, almost all the surrounding rival nations were broken and submitted to Rome.
It seems that this is the natural "end of the game." The snowball cannot be stopped by anyone. Odako at this moment Rome is shocked by the civil war. The nation is divided approximately in half. And the two former allies begin the final battle for the absolute winner. Octavian conquers, Rome turns into a single empire. "Colonists reach Alpha Centauri" or "your civilization has flogged the whole world." What happened then is a completely different story. If the goal of your game is to determine from the 4 initial players one winner, keeping the intrigue until the end of the game, then this method can be quite sufficient. And not one of the players will feel like "baggage" - an appendage, and may well hope to become the final winner.
Here is such an idea. Once again - this idea is rather chaotic, and I have not used it in practice yet. It will be interesting for me to listen to other ideas on how to maintain the motivation of all participants in the multiplayer game until the very end of the game.
