thinking about MP

[Julie_Delpy]

hello, here is just my feeling.

Since I got Civ2 CD last year, I've rarely ever been playing SP.
Unlike other players, I leant how to play MP in the first place. because the person who taught me the existence of Civ2 wanted me to join and play his game as fast as I could.

Therefore, As for SP I can't say anything.
Then, what about my favorite map at MP?
Probably small, conti , I guess.

Without contact and warfare, MP might lost its core.
It looks like that some people prefer the peaceful and slient world, while they take interest in only developing their sciences.
So they tend to avoid warfare or even contact itself sometimes.
For reasons of that, they always pick med or large one, while they surely know the fact that they can't finish this game.

What's more ridiculous is, that they always are trying to make alliances as soon as they found my men or cities.

I usually trust other players generous to my civ. they are mostly kind and nice people.
There seem be only good men in the MP world.

But I think that sneaky players sometimes should exist. Maybe the player whose words and actions never correspond.
for historical example, Ancient Assyria or Japanese in 1941 (oops, I might blame myself now)
Anyway rarely found them, though I like varieties of styles player seek at MP. besides real life ones.

The world does require not only a Good Samaritan but also evil Jack.

I don't know all sorts of complex strategies or techiniques.
maybe enjoy "way itself" which each civ makes and proceeds on.

But it seems be so hard for me to find and seek it, while I'm playing at the common settings which people like most
(3hours playing time, at least 70x80 sized map)

Probably my Civ2 season given pause to...

Milonga For Three

 

[Smash]

Sounds like you prefer "Rah's Rules"

Small rugged maps
No city bribe
No cooperation
4 players or less
deity and hoardes(optional but recommended)
conflict encouraged

That way,there is no surprise or future distrust.You'll fight for land so you'll need alot more than settlers and caravans

 

[EntirelyBS]

I think that most people find in a MP game that they have to be vastly superior in military units before waging war. therefore, I've found a lot of people don't want to fight until muskeeters or cannons... unless they play at the 2x speed option, which you don't. you will find a lot more fighting and city take over there...

 

[HIEROPHANT]

in 2x2 which ruins the game since you can attack you emeny only with catapults and still win. Highy unrealistic.

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

Julie_Delpy sez:

What's more ridiculous is, that they always are trying to make alliances as soon as they found my men or cities.

If you're playing true multi-player instead of head-to-head, making alliances is more profitable than immediate war. Otherwise, you and your enemy slaughter each other's Phalanxes while Poindexter on the other side of the world builds cities and wonders and prepares for conquest with Musketeers and Cannon. Besides which, the war of "all against all" favors the lucky player who has little contact.

Any alliance, of course, immediately dissolves when the opponents are eliminated or reduced to groveling. What more could anyone want?

 

[Julie_Delpy]

Thx, I've learned much from your replies.

 

[docker]

The size of world and stuff really depends on what you are after in the game,if you are just playing strangers for a quickie one night stand then small is best, but if you have a regular group of buddies who can committ to returning to play, then larger is better as the game develops into the modern warfare not just cannons!! Nothing better than seeing Stealth Fighters and Stealth Bombers in MP !!