Father Beast
Prince
American Fork, UT USA
Feb 2000
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 09:11
   | 
 |
 |  |
quote:
Originally posted by Exile on 05-05-2001 10:04 PM
FB,
Yeah, Republic and WS is a killer combination and it allows you to make war with a capital W, against the AI. But the problem with Rep as I see it, is that in MP, you are always vulnerable to the bribing business. I've played a few mp games recently, and my experiences haven't been good. Honestly, the immense power of the diplomat in mp has convinced me that;IN MULTI-Play; 1.) The diplomat is far too powerful and unbalances the game. 2.) The diplomats and spies are ahistorical, unrealistic, and innacurate;
centuries worth of buildings and construction can just disappear in a
single turn if attacked by a covey of diplomats. Why build
improvements? It simply isn't cost effective. 3.) Why build anything but diplomats? They can bribe units and
cities, destroy improvements, steal techs, and drop city populations.
AND they are one of the cheapest units in the game to produce,
they cost NO shield upkeep, and will not make anyone unhappy if they
are far away from the city where they were produced. Additionally,
they can damage military units. And if they are spies instead of merely
diplomats, they can do all of these things and come back for more! 4.) Why use any other government except Democracy? It can put a brake on some of the power of enemy diplomats and will give a player the cash to
do the bribing. No need to wage war or conduct battles, simply buy your way to victory! 5.) The spies and diplomats change the entire nature of the game. It's not
an exaggeration to say that it becomes a very different game if one
uses the diplomats and spies. 6.) Sadly, it's not a game that I want to play. Call me perverse,
but I actually enjoy constructing improvements, building armies, and
fighting battles and wars. 7.) Conclusion; I'll stick with scenarios, apparently, but anyone who
wants to play w/limited diplomats should contact me and we'll play. Rant-for-the-day,
Exile
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited May 05, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Exile (edited May 05, 2001).]
|
Good point, which is why I started another thread on the subject. I have had games where I build masses of spies and buy the world, one city at a time. those recalcitrant civs that stay a democracy, I get them to declare war on me and I reduce their cities to little size 1 pieces of worthlessness and watch their unit support evaporate. I will usually the knock them out with a SINGLE artillery I keep around for just that purpose, and then found my own (I didn't like the AI placing). it seems as absurd to me as it does to you, exile, that I can wage war using my army of spies, and be MORE effective than my enemies army of units. |
Marquis de Sodaq
Warlord
Land o' Lakes
Jul 2000
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 09:26
|
|
| |
As far as bribing being ahistorical, read my signature line. It is a real quote, and implies the cunning use of cash to make friends. Maybe what needs to be done is to raise the cost of cities... Bribery was very real from ancient times on. Most armies were either conscripted (read: against one's will) or mercenary. A bribed unit simply was happy to turn coat or to change employer. Navies, right up to the modern time, have been overwhelmingly mercenary. Nation-states did not even exist 150 years ago, loyalty was not so centered as it is nowadays.I think the spy should be left powerful, but maybe the diplomat could be disallowed the ability to sabotage production or destroy improvements. ------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
