|
Author
|
|
Topic: Name your city in MP |  |
|
Xin Yu
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted November 20, 1998 01:03
   | 
 |
 |  |
This should be the 1000th message for strategy category, unless somebody posts one at this moment.
I'd like to hear opinions about the following idea: In MP, name all your cities the same name. This way, even if a spy get into one of your cities, he will have no way to tell anything about your other cities; If he use the diplomatic screen to check your cities, he will see a bunch of cities with the same name!
You can always rename your cities at the beginning of each turn to avoid confusion, then at the end of the turn name them back to the common name.
|
LeMay
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 20, 1998 01:35
|
|
| |
I think that the strategy forum hit critical mass a few days ago, and now people come here because there are always interesting topics being discussed, and they contribute, helping to keep the forum active. At least, that's what I hope. As to your idea, I'm not sure it would be worth the pain to rename everything each turn. Plus, the other players would kill you for taking 20 min. just to rename cities. However, if you could learn to live with it, it might be a smart strategy. A side note: in scenario games where events are attached to a certain city, renaming can be used to abusive effect. For instance, in Midgard, every time a race loses their capital, they receive a powerful unit nearby. However, since the event triggers on the name, it is possible to name all your cities the same name as your capital and thus get the unit any time a city is captured. Obviously, this is cheating of the worst degree, and I hope MPS undertakes to fix this bug sometime.
|
SeanD
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 20, 1998 07:44
|
|
| |
Xin Yu, that sounds like a very useful idea, but it would make the game less fun for yourself and everyone else. Perhaps it should be 'good ettiquette' to give all your cities different name and not change them all the time ;)
|
Sergeant Sheets
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 20, 1998 08:29
|
|
| |
I like it. One note: It'd work well if you had 15-20 cities in close proximity but not if you had 60 cities tossed all over the globe. Also, you'd have to keep a sheet on hand telling you were this city 'Xin Yu' is at versus another city 'Xin Yu.' Also, trade routes would be a bear. I think this would work better: Name the cities as usual, then if your building a powerful wonder, and you suspect an enemy is on the prowl, rename every city the name of the city the wonder is being built in, or simply shuffle city names ever five or six turns.
|
Xin Yu
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 20, 1998 16:22
|
|
| |
There are some variations to the naming scheme. First, do not give names to all of your cities; second, name your cities the same name of the nearest foreign city.
Yes, the naming also has effects on trading commodity menu. If you want to facilitate trading, just add to your city names the continent name, then you will see very clearly whether you can apply the two continent trading strategy.
|
St Leo
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 20, 1998 17:15
|
|
| |
If I play multiplayer, I will be Borg with the capital of Borg with wonders in several cities named Borg.:-)
|
Saganaga Canoer
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 20, 1998 17:21
|
|
| |
I hate to say this, but this is a really lame strategy. I'm surprised that naming all your cities the same is even allowed in the game. It certainly shouldn't be! Using a strategy like this will only create ill will and make people less likely to want to play you in the future. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD!
|
barefootbadass
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 20, 1998 18:27
|
|
| |
As my cities become specialized, I like to rename them based on their function in my empire so I know right away what they are supposed to be doing.
|
Ming
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 20, 1998 18:27
|
|
| |
Pretty sleazy trick Xin Yu...
I love it. The possibilities are indeed endless. But the Sarge is right, after 15 or so cities it could become a real pain in the neck. So I might use it selectivly.
And naming the city the same as the nearest foreign city... PRICELESS!
He he he he he he... I hope you're still interested in playing MP. I look forward to it whether we are on the same side or not.
|
My Wife Hates CIV
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 21, 1998 16:39
|
|
| |
Reading everyones comments I'm thinking MP will be good. All of the methods here will be used. I might name my cities the same to confuse another player. It's all part of the game, and a big part is information. I think most of us will be careful as to what info we give out (and who gets it!). Those who are not will be wiped out.
|
Prince_Pixie
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 25, 1998 07:22
|
|
| |
I intend to devise a complex mathematical algorithm to condense strateigic and geographic information about a city into a simple 15-character code. No, really.
|
Sergeant Sheets
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 25, 1998 08:31
|
|
| |
'Bet I can do it in ten characters.
Another thing, when sending frieght to a certain city, rename the city something distinct, send the caravan, then rename the city what it originally was [this is for if you name all your cities the same].
|
gambler
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 25, 1998 12:12
|
|
| |
Do you want to get your opponents really confused?
Just use empty name for your cities.
In the Diplomacy screen they can't see how many cities you have!
I discovered it because in the italian version there is a bug in city.txt, Zulu' instead of Zulu, and so Zulu cities had all an empty name (Now I fixed the bug).
|
Orcus
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 25, 1998 17:17
|
|
| |
While I must agree that "All's fair in love and war", there will be no love from me for anyone using this dirty (and quite clever) exploitation of an oversight in the program. Granted, anyone can use it, but I hereby vow to utterly antagonize to death anyone foolish enough to attempt this in a game with me. (St. Leo, you can go ahead, cuz anyone callling themselves "BORG" is a threat already)
|
Ming
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 28, 1998 01:31
|
|
| |
Orcus, get real! Any advantage you get over your fellow players is key. This isn't a tea party!
Gambler brings up a good way to confuse people. That's the whole idea behind winning.
|
Coug
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 28, 1998 11:00
|
|
| |
Sorry fella, I go with Orcus. My great military (If there will ever be chance to build one) will be turned towards those people with "dirty" tricks. And hey, don't come blaming me for playing dirty myself, I didn't start the naming thing.
|
FanatiC_KaBaN
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 28, 1998 12:03
|
|
| |
I think that making all your cities with the same name would be just boring and confusing.
I mean no country in the world has same names for cities (except U.S. they have like 50 greenville's and 5 charelstons.. ext)
It would just suck to have all your cities have same names, now if you have 3 cities with same names that would be good, like one is capitol one is with Wonders and the other one is build on a mountain near the enemy.
|
Colon
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 28, 1998 14:26
|
|
| |
This kind of ideas could make someone win the game, but for what price ?
As SeanD said it would make the game less fun for everyone.
I want to win (or lose) a game cos I'm the best (or the worst) not with such kind of tricks.
|
Ming
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 29, 1998 02:18
|
|
| |
Colon
Being the best means understanding how to beat the game, and your opponents.
Believe me, this is a competitve bunch, they (and myself) will use every trick in the book. And why not. Anything that gives you an advantage is a must. Now granted, I wouldn't name all my cities the same, or leave them blank (that would probably drive me more nuts than the enemy, but it is a funny thought) But, I may change the names of one or two every turn in key areas of the world.
|
Colon
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 29, 1998 08:09
|
|
| |
Do you know much about soccer ?
Well you can say there are two ways to play it. (Professional soccer ofcourse)
1. Attack, try to score as much as possible.
If two teams play offensive you'll likely to have an interesting and spectacular game.
2.Play defensive, do not attack, prohibite the enemy from scoring. And try to wine the game in only one chance.
Matches with these kind of teams tend to be boring and not very spectacular.
The 2nd strategy tends to work best, but if everyone does it, it kills soccer.
Xin Yu's trick looks a lot like this.
As I said before, these kind of tricks could make someone win the game, but for what price ?
|
My Wife Hates CIV
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 29, 1998 15:42
|
|
| |
I wana play Ming!!!
Everyone here will do what it takes. Re-naming cities is not a 'dirty trick', it's a tactic. Whoever learns how to work this tactic well will have an advantage.
|
Colon
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 05:06
|
|
| |
Do you know what the word tactic means ?
This is what the dictionary said.
"Art of placing moving fighting forces for or during battle => strategy: plan(s) or method(s) for carrying out a policy."
Changing names is not a strategy or tactic it's a trick. I never said it was a dirty one, but these kind of tricks could make the game less fun.
|
Robert Stevens
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 08:58
|
|
| |
I wonder whether people will prefer "bloodlust" or starship construction in multiplayer? If starships are allowed, players will be desperate to hide their capitals any way they can...
Completion of the Apollo project reveals the whole map at the time, but I don't think it gets updated thereafter. If players don't use the renaming strategy, I can imagine everyone launching shiploads of Engineers to the most obscure city locations on the map to build new capitals in remote places.
|
Ming
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 11:18
|
|
| |
Colon
From another Dictionary
Strategy = a plan for achieving some end
Tactics = Any maneuvering to gain an objective.
Actually renaming your cities could fall under both.
If the objective is to confuse the enemy, and make it difficult to target key cities, renaming your cities is indeed a tactic.
And on the other hand, misinformation is indeed a strategy used by most poeple in war.
I'm glad you say it's not a dirty trick, but everybody has their own definition of the word FUN.
You also use the line "at what price".
In all games or sports there are rules. In everyday life, people take advantage of what they can, just as they do in civ. If the machine lets you do it, why not. If it is so important to the game that you can't do it, then the game should be changed to not allow you to do it. In MP, I will use every trick and bug I can. I don't think it will cheapen the game. And why will I use these "tricks", because somebody else will if I don't.
|
Flavor Dave
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 12:02
|
|
| |
Does anyone remember the NCAA bball title game from '82? Late in the game, UNC up a point, Gtown had the ball. James Worthy looked at the Gtown player who had the ball (and who was panicking as time ran down), and clapped his hands in that age old signal "pass it here." The Gtown player did, and UNC won. In that circumstance, a valid tactic.
I once played a pickup game where a guy did the same thing. Since we weren't playing shirts and skins, and it was really hard to remember who was on your team, and who wasn't, I considered this an invalid tactic. It undermined what the game was about. It put this trick above the contesting of bball abilities.
I put changing city names in the same category. I know I've criticized many suggestions for improvements that are made for the sake of realism as being wrong headed. Realism don't matter, gameplay does. But this tactic is *BOTH* unrealistic and bad for gameplay. IMO, whether this should be allowed should come down to whether we believe a trick is available due to a programming bug or oversight, or whether it is intentional. That's why I don't build airfields on mountains to boost food production. It's an obvious mistake by MPS.
I will say, I could see allowing a player to change city names under the following: 1st, he must have different names for each city. Now, this won't prevent him from changing the name of his wonder city, and giving that name to a meaningless city built on a mountain. But both names have to be changed. 2nd, he must change city names during his 2 (or whatever) minutes. If that's what you want to do with your time, have at it.
Ming, how is this clever? I don't get that at all. If everyone does it, then who gains an advantage, and how is it clever? Clever is if you word a treaty with someone in such a way that you can screw him without breaking your word. Clever is getting an enemy to move his strategic reserve to one front with a feint, and then walloping him on the other side. Renaming isn't.
But, someone brought up a good point. If the community at large thinks it's a bogus trick, then neither Ming nor anyone will use it. B/c doing it will bring everyone's wrath upon your head.
I used to play a game called Diplomacy by e-mail. In this game, you send "press" to the other players to try to get them to do what you want. There were a vareity of press options. Some games, you were allowed to send press to just one player, in other games, all press had to be "broadcast." (Open to everyone.) In some games, you could send anonymous press, or fake press, in other games you couldn't.
You knew which kind of game it was before you signed up.
I think CivII will be the same. Some games will be set up with renaming allowed, or not. Bloodlust, or not. Raging, random, or villages only. Prince, deity, or prince with slow advance rate. And the "best" options will be the most popular games.
If that happens, I am quite sure that renaming disallowed will be more popular.
|
My Wife Hates CIV
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 13:23
|
|
| |
Oh well. maybe some will not like the way I play. Thats the price I'll pay to be one of the last two CIV's alive. Than I'll just have to beat Ming!
|
My Wife Hates CIV
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 13:37
|
|
| |
Flavor Dave:
why would the world attack a CIV that changes city names?? It's more of a defensive *TACTIC* more than anything else.
Why would others be upset with a player trying to defend his/her land and cities.
I would like you less if you park a sub with nukes off my coast - thats a threat!
I think it will be fun. I hope they leave this 'feature' in. It's stuff like this that make the game what it is.
|
Colon
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 18:02
|
|
| |
The last few days I was playing 2 games in civ2. In one I was trying to build as much cities, and was I trying to expand my civ as much as I could, to get as much points as possible in the end( I wanted to break my personal record). in an other game I played in a small map, I had about 7cities and I didn't try to expand as much as I could. I didn't try to get as much points as possible.
Which game do you think I liked most ? The 2nd one ofcourse. When I was playing a relaxed game without thinking about the final score or the HOF.
I believe some are forgetting something in their rush of getting as much points as possible and wiping everybody else out as fast as you can in order getting as much points as possible.
And that is the fun of playing the game. I like playing civ2 cos I like the feeling of ruling an own kingdom. (changing names would ruin that feeling)
I get the impression some only think about points and about being the best, "by any means necessary".
When I say that this could make the game less fun, people ignore like it's not important. I say that it is **** important, having fun is all what the game is about.
Don't forget that.
|
My Wife Hates CIV
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 19:39
|
|
| |
how many people here would rather play a peaceful (for the most part) game or a game more geared around war????
myself - a little of both. But I won't label someone for playing dirty, unless they do every single time.
|
Ming
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 19:44
|
|
| |
Colon, you are right about one thing, If you are not having fun, why play.
But, why should everybody think that the only way to have fun is to play it your way.
That's the great thing about civ. You can fun in many different ways. You can build an empire, go for point, kill everybody, play scenarios, build your own maps and units.
Everybody has a different Idea of what fun is. I stopped playing civ, until ChrisH tempted my into some fastest kill games. It revitalized my interest, and I started playing again. After a run at 20,000 plus points, it was indeed boring.
If all you are interested in is building an empire, and not being competitive, then you probably won't enjoy MP. Because if you have ever played any MP type game, you know how competitive and cut throat it can be. People will do what ever they need to to win... that's the whole idea of MP. If it's easer to kill people than build an empire to win, guess what people are going to do.
And Flavor Dave, as usual, you are the voice of reason. People will indeed set limitations, new rules, and other things when they play MP. As colon as pointed out, everybody will probably look for a game that they will enjoy. I will personally look for the most cut throat bunch I can find, and other people will look for a group they are comfortable with.
However, I still think renaming cites can be considered clever. It's as clever as some of the other tricks I see people talking about all the time. Just because everybody might do it doesn't mean it's not clever, it just means that everybody sees value in it.
I'm with you on airbases on mountains. I don't do it, and that will be one of the rules I will probably ask for.... But just think about some of the rules sessions that might occur before a game even begins... The games will last too long as it is.
|
Xin Yu
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1998 23:24
|
|
| |
I think it is OK to rename your cities to confuse other civs during war time. It's a part of intellegence war. The game should let a spy to rename a foreign city--the two civs can call the same city different names.
As for the airbase trick, the game should allow building farms as well as mining hills squares the same time. Now the farm and mine can not coexist, so airbasing it is the only way to maximize its output.
Hope the problems can be solved by civ3.
|
Colon
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 01, 1998 04:19
|
|
| |
Ming you've convinced me and you're right. MP will be about winning and nothing else, that's something I forgot.
If I want what I'm searching, I'll have to wait for civ3.
One more thing, my wife hates civ, could you give arguments like Ming, Xin Yu and Flave (Can I call you Flave ?) instead of just shouting things, you only irritate me with it and it doesn't change my opinion whatsoever. (on the contrary, it only makes me more convinced I'm right)
Appearantly you grab every opportunity to critisize my way of playing. (like in the multiplayer forum)
|
My Wife Hates CIV
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 01, 1998 09:33
|
|
| |
how about a peace treaty Colon?!
|
Orcus
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 01, 1998 09:56
|
|
| |
Ming, by all means, use every means you see fit to use to win the game. But keep in mind that there is in fact such a thing as civilized warfare. Nukes, biologicals, etc. have been "banned" in reality. Why? For the very simple reason that nobody wants them to get used on themselves. If you use these tactics, then you invite their use on you. I just happen to dislike this renaming of cities thing, that's all, personal opinion. I don't care what a city is called, I care about resorces and strategic location! If my armies are parked outside your city, renaming it is not going to do squat. I suspect that "conventions" are going to become a big part of MP games, like "no blank city names" or "dogpile on the treaty breaker". Feel free to employ any techniques you desire, as long as you realize that making other players annoyed will lead to a war on several fronts. Also, Colon and MyWifeHatesCiv, you guys need a Cease-Fire, not a peace treaty :-)
|
Colon
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 01, 1998 14:39
|
|
| |
OK, but I can't quarantee anything.
I write faster then I think.
|
Flavor Dave
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 01, 1998 16:02
|
|
| |
My Wife Hates
CIV
posted 11-30-98 1:37 PM EDT Flavor Dave:
why would the world attack a CIV that changes city names?? It's more of a defensive *TACTIC* more than anything else.
---------
Notice that in my post, I wrote, "If the community at large thinks it's a bogus trick, then neither Ming nor anyone will use it. B/c doing it will bring everyone's wrath upon your head."
That's a big if. I wonder about the Manhattan Project in MP--will anyone build it? I mean, folks have been postulating the Crazy Man scenario--a civ that's weak late in the game just building nukes like mad and lobbing them around. Given that, a leading nation would be reluctant to build MP, to allow these weaklings to use nukes to give themselves disproportionate clout. And the weak civs won't be able to build it. Once they start, they'll get attacked.
But, I may be wrong. It might be the opposite--the strongest civ waits till he discovers laser, builds SDIs all over the place, MP, and blackmails all of the other players. We'll have to wait and see.
Same thing with the name changing. We don't really KNOW the effect. IMO, it's a cheap trick and will be frowned upon. But, it is not unknown for me to be in error;-)
|
My Wife Hates CIV
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 01, 1998 17:07
|
|
| |
I still don't see it as dirty play. It's not a threat to anyone, it's not a weapon. It would be used for defense and to keep info secure (like where a wonder is being built).
I might also keep lines of units around my cities to keep out spies. True, a line could be easy to break - but you'd have to be ay war.
There's nothing dirty about protecting information (even from allies).
|
Ming
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 01, 1998 18:54
|
|
| |
You are right Mr. Dave... If the strategy of leaving city names blank, or changing them on a regular basis, was considered "outlawed", I won't do it. But, I don't see that kind of support for or against it. So, it will indeed probably have to be agreed to up front how it's going to be played. And frankly, if everybody else doesn't want to do it, fine... it will save me from being confused.
As far as nukes go, a civ that is behind can build it in one turn if they have the needed number of freights just hanging around. That's the problem. We won't even get a turn warning that somebody is building it... it will just be there. Then the little jerk will probably try to ruin the game for everybody else, just because he can't win. NOW THAT'S A DIRTY TRICK in my book. Yes, it's within the rules, but it still stinks.
And as far as the leader building it after his SDI network is in place, I don't think so. His supremecy in military will disappear quick.. because everybody will be gunning for him. Until they produce a unit that can act as a mobile SDI (maybe a patriot missle battery, it only works some of the time, just like in real life) there will really be no advantage to the leader to give everybody else the chance to build them.
|
LeMay
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 01, 1998 23:12
|
|
| |
If you're losing and want to ruin the game for everyone else, there's a much cheaper and simpler way, which is harder to counter and much harder to spot. Simply build factories and power plants (not hydro, solar, or nuclear) without recycling or mass transit, and let the pollution build up. I bet you could induce 2 or 3 global warmings before everyone figured out what was happening and decided to remove you from the face of the planet, and in the interim, everyone would be much, much worse off.
Your point about the MP is well-taken. If someone wants it to come into the game and that person has Nuclear Fission, it will come. Nothing to help it. I think Rocketry will be a must-have advance because if MP comes and you don't have it, your opposition is free to toast you and there's little you can do to respond. Once MP is in, it will be either MAD or global thermonuclear war. SDI will calm it down somewhat, but will give the defense a huge advantage because attacking armies and captured cities can both be nuked.
As for using the MP in a positive way, the only way I can think is pairing it with a fast spaceship. I.e. put a ship together in as few turns as possible by buying components, launch, build MP in a single turn, then start chucking nukes around to lower everyone else's productivity to a level where they can't successfully catch your ship. This would work best with SDI, to ensure that your capital can't be easily nuked and captured.
|
My Wife Hates CIV
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 01, 1998 23:30
|
|
| |
Players will have to make sure they have a good stockpile of nukes. Hit me and I'll hit you kinda thinking. If you don't have them - better allie with someone who does.
| |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums-archives
