posted 07-21-99 01:21 AM ET            

* They need to be rigid, firm rules, to make it easier on the A.I for a start. In addition, having loose rules is often worse, often making for unusual situations and bizzarre outcomes. I think it's widely agreed that the SMAC A.I is too erratic, breaking alliances for no obvious reason and starting suicidal wars it has no chance of winning (especially Miriam).

Contrast the popularity of chess to snakes and ladders. The former is the most popular strategy game on the planet. The other is just an emotional investment in a random walk (especially if they don't let you spin the dice!)

* There are two areas of the game that can benefit from MORE micromanagement instead of less: Technology and diplomacy. Diplomacy tends to turn up around once ever 5 or so turns, while providing the main source of 'human interaction' of the game - the bit where your emotional investment occurs (love deirdre, hate miriam, etc). More diplomacy, and more effective diplomacy too, is needed in SMAC.

posted 07-21-99 01:32 AM ET            

The Opp Enging doesn't flake for no reason. You can almost always figure it out... the main cause being SE, secondary being power relationships, and third is the old classic of expansion. I have yet to see the Opp Engine make a crazy declaration of war. I have seen it make crazy determinations about when to surrender... like never, or when Yang still has 4x the amount of cities I have... but that seems to have a random factor in it. But going to war is always a (small series of) simple algorithm.

However, diplomacy is much rarer for me. Maybe once every 15 to 20 turns, and Research one ever 4 to 8 on average... The only time Dip is more is when the Opp Engine is demanding my tech as terms of truce as I roll it over and spank its behind for irritating my people...

now, the part one of my reply...

Shining... You are correct. I would send in more than 4 units versus a human, but probably peppered around in various places... But 4 units against the Opp Eng is generally enough to take out its best and take a base. Although its a little slow.
There are three defenses against arty... an arty defender, killing the attacking arty, or ignore it. Much of the time Arty seems useless in SMAC. Sometimes, its extremely effective. All on the turn of the random algorithm Firaxis used.

Civ3 I am looking forward to, but not with the mouth watering anticipation of Sid's new game. Civ3 I hope will be a step forward in fun from Civ2, but we will have to wait and see. It will be a BR game, so its hard to say... but seeing as they will try to model history, we should get a few cold war or peaceful periods scattered in the game. And everyone likes to build an empire they can understand...

The key, Shining, to games and their discussion is its EASY to see what worked and what didn't in a game, after its made. Its quite a different story when designing and building it. Hindsight is cheap, and 20/20 after all.

posted 07-21-99 01:54 AM ET            

Heh. Call it a hazard of education, but I found most of the stuff in SMAC made perfect sense, or was laughably stupid, instead of being unintelligible. However, CivII really taught me a few things about history and the development of a culture.

As for hindsight, it is a wonderful thing. But there's a lot in SMAC to be questioned - most importantly the lack of backup to the combat focus. If BR had a true vision for this game being starcraft with turns, surely a better combat system, animation, and unit stacking would have been a priority, rather than a lengthy tech tree and masses of infrastructure. And maybe some nastier adversaries, too.

Incidentally, how are you getting tech every 4-8 turns on transcendance. That implies a very large number of bases indeed. Or does this simply include probe teams?

Analyst: Taking the multiplayer aspect out of TBS is a recipe for failure. I mean, half the people who post here are only hanging around because of PBEM and net games. And TBS games are originally supposed to be played against other humans, correct? Like chess?

(This is also my rebuttal to the RTS influence idea - there have always being straight conquer type TBS games, whether chess or HoMM.)

posted 07-21-99 02:14 AM ET            

hey if you and darkstar form a game company can i join on too? i have an idea or two about games

posted 07-21-99 02:48 AM ET            

Free Market or Morgan with Wealth can be a real kick to research, when used in small spurts. And there is always the accepting of tech and stomping the computer after your advanced forces are ready for the next attack. Best probes around... take the city and make them beg for a breather...

But I still like to play a lot of Librarian as well, trying to figure out the thresholds on the Opp Engine's behavior. It's only personal mind candy, but I like to take apart a program and craft ways in my mind that model that behavior. Everyone has their hobbies...

posted 07-21-99 10:27 AM ET            

My guess (without hard facts to back it up other than the age of most people on these forums and a few other places) is an average age around 25.

RTS are another story entirely though. I have met lots of starcraft-addicted pimple-face teens.

posted 07-21-99 10:59 AM ET            

By any chance would you be talking about "The Last Grenadier" in Glendale CA?

posted 07-21-99 12:39 PM ET            

Wow, what a comprehensive phrase. It puts so many fine meanings in just one statement. It assumes that both Dowdac and I are uneducated. That to educate us, will be hard (fight). Also it describes the means to do that (contructive criticism). He writes it criciticism, I don't know why, but anyway I suppose I don't understand because I am uneducated.

posted 07-21-99 01:28 PM ET            

All I can point out to you is that he followed up his "comment" with a symbol.

That doesn't mean that he's trying to pick up on you in a singles bar. It's means that it's just a bit of good natured ribbing.

Lighten up a bit and have a beer!

BTW, I suggest that you review some of the TI threads. You will find 2 things.

1) Level headed discussion by those who strongly disagree.

2) An absence of flaming and personal attacks.

posted 07-21-99 02:40 PM ET            

I don't mean to sidetrack the thread. I've got nothing against teenage males. I was one, myself, once. No one need take it as an insult to observe the reality that the tastes and priorities of teen males as a group will differ from those of other demographic groups. It's merely true.

posted 07-21-99 03:29 PM ET            

re TBS Target Market
I think the Primary market of any TBS game is the Single Player. Right now, that market includes males of late teen to early thirties as primary buyers... IF I remember the demographics targeted versus demographics who registered through various means. That is the largest slice of the Computer Entertainment Seekers with disposable cash. As the market grows, they will slowly narrow their targeted group.

RTS tends to appeal to the younger side of the TBS market. Its that youthful exburance... and the fact that they have better reflexes. Its not that the "Old Men" of games aren't smart enough... they just like to be able to think things through sometimes, and after a long stressful day of work and home, they probably want something that will wait on them and not pressure them for an immediate response. Youth has its advantages, and one of them is stamina. Yes, please feel free to flame over this broad generalizations. We all know that no one person can be pigeon-holed WELL... but the corporate games of target markets do break us into simple pigeon wholes. Who do you think was the primary targeted demographic of Dungeon Keeper II? If its marketting hype with Horny (The Demon) and Hot Lips (The S&M Mistress) isn't targetted at the 16 to 21 crowd, I am losing my touch...

re Brian Reynold's Vision
I don't think Brian had anything more envisioned that CivII on an alien, but human sustainable, world. Why do I say that? Well, first off, the early press releases, chats, interviews and messages that he participated in. SMAC was meant to be what happened to those colonist you launched from Civ towards AC. Its a Human FUTURE game, where in Civ is a (Parallel) Human History game. Aside from the actual world difference (Chiron vs. Earth), the only other difference IS its Science Fiction vs. Historical Fiction. I think SMAC succeeded well in that regard. We enjoy, or at least enjoyed, it. And that is the primary purpose of a game... entertainment. To suggest BR was going for a Starcraft on Chiron is a direction I don't understand... so if that is what was really meant, could you further explain it? My big gray Delco has been spending extra time in the charger lately, and it needs all the help it can get, it seems...

Alkis... We are often arrogant. Get over it, or flame about it. Its our "board" clique. If you want to try and tear down one of us, or defend in a debate against us with arguments that got aired long ago, then be prepared for more arrogance. If you stick around long enough, you may become one of us. Shudder and run, if you don't like that idea. But its the way it is. Many here in the TI threads and debates truly are the cream of single and multi-player game tacticians and strategicos. Each kind of game takes it own skills, and you don't have to be the greatest to know them when you talk to others about such things.

The Celestially Illuminating One called Shining1 has worked long and hard on how to place stronger favor on peaceful play, rather than the "Early Rush". He has modified and continues to modify all the parameters that Firaxis was kind enough to give us to tone down the Military rewards, or at least raise its cost, so as to help herd the game flow in a more peaceful manner, or at least a more complex and challenging one. Not everyone will necessarily agree with him on how to do it, or even if it can be done, but anyone trying to improve the fun of the game, if only for themselves, should be encouraged. If he chooses to blow off some steam and vent some criticism of the game after working so hard on it since its release, you might do well to listen, rather than try to just pull his stuff apart. You only do so for yourself, not others, so that you don't join the "Darkside". The fact you feel motivated to do so implies it won't be long until you are one of us. (If kinder and more polite about it.)

SMAC is missing the built in stages of expansion (high defense or low attack) versus war (high attack or low defense) periods that are featured in Civ and Civ2. The reason that is missing is its a future history, not past history, game. Apparently, BR and his team thinks another Hitler or Alexander the Great could take over the world relatively easily... or that we want to play a game in which it would be POSSIBLE to achieve the Conqueror's dream of world conquest in a single lifetime. Faulting Shining1 and insulting Analyst is not going to change that fact. If you don't like it, go play something else. Or join the Shining1's team to improve SMAC...

Until then, until you can add to the grist of how to change the balance rather than try to argue that we can't be right as you don't want to believe what you already know, you ARE UnYinlighted. And no matter how many years someone has, the Unyinlighted are uneducated.

posted 07-21-99 06:09 PM ET            

I think your position contradicts itself.

First of all, I want to get one thing clear. Let's say, for example, that I was able to prove that the builder meets builder scenario gives a greater advantage to both players than a builder meets conquerer scenario gives to the conquerer (given that this is not a 2-player game, but a large multiplayer game). If this is the case, I think you will be forced to admit the validity of my position.

So all I need to do to win this arguement is show the benefits of b. meets b. is greater than the benefits of c. meets b., and to eliminate any flaws in my arguement (which you tried to bring to light in your response to my last post).

I've done the first part already. So I'll focus on the second part.

Your position is this: Conquerers are much more powerful than Builders. Then you go on to say that it is the conquerers who are more likely to make peace with each other than the builders! This would indeed create a large hole in my arguement, but fortunatly, these positions cannot coexist.

You must either hold one, or the other, and your arguement falls apart as a result.

Think about this situation: we have 2 or more very powerful conquerers, facing 2 or more weak builders. The conquerers might make peace, I suppose, because they think the builders may pose a threat in the future, due to their building (future oriented) strategy. They may make peace, indeed, but once the builders have been beaten down sufficiently, the conquerer who will win the game is the one who stabs the other in the back first. This is likely to happen, therefore, before all the builders are dead. Sooner rather then later.

The builders, on the other hand, see at least 2 great armies sweeping the earth. Now why do you think they would EVER backstab each other? They wouldn't, at least not until the conquerers are dead. Here's the key: the conquerers will never be dead, if their strategy is indeed much better than the builder's. And the conquerers, by virtue of their awesome power, will never kill the builders, but will always go for the other's conquerer's throat instead (he poses by far the most threat, after all).

The only reason why the conquerers would turn their attention away from other conquerers and attack the builders is if the building strategy is in fact very close in power to the conquering strategy.

So which is it? Are conquerers much more powerful than builders (i.e. much more likely to win the game), or are two conquerers more likely to make peace with each other than two builders?

If you pick the second option, I win.
If you pick the first option, I win if I can prove that builders collaborating can increase their chances of winning greatly (i.e. if by collaboration two builders can increase their chances to win to that of the conquerers).

posted 07-21-99 06:38 PM ET            

The reason two conquerors will make peace in games with more than they in it is so that the can compete in a cold war against each other, until they are the last two standing. The reasons this happens are...

Train up your troops as you overtake the weaker Builders...

Gain bonus energy as you overtake the Builders...

Gain bonus territory as you overtake the Builder...

There is also the fact that you will have to throw away units you would rather have to fight your Conqueror buddy if you wait too long. Remember, until Clean is discovered, the Conqueror is strongest until the Builder can set up their counter-defenses. However, even at weakest, the combined or massed arms of the Conqueror still takes the Builder's property.

Conquerors like to think they are a sneaky bunch. (But its not true, or they would be Builders... ) Any two that know each other would probably looking to Buy Ascendance in one turn after splitting the world. Quicker victory. Conquerors are all about Quick Victory and the fun they get from that. Or an immediate PB launch to eliminate their opponent. Or all SORTS of things... But the key is quick. The slower the conqueror, and the more you confuse them with Builders. Heck, many of you Slow Ones think you *are* Builders, after all. (I like to get Singularity Drop Blink Hovers and rush the world in one big drop! Hehe! I like to conqueor all but one city, and then Transcend! Hehe!)

Now, Dowdc, there is something that has to be settled before you can try to wrap me up in poor logic and double talk... that is what kind of personalities are the Builders versus Builders and the B vs C and the C vs C. A LOT of our hypothesis and discussions revolve around that. If we can't agree to what those are, then we aren't going to be able to debate about things like when a type meets a type...

Besides, your pointing out that the Builder will try to run to the outside for help proves that the Conqueror is superior. "YOUR" Conqueror wouldn't. (Mine would if they saw a need.) And you admit Conquerors win unless your Builder swaps to their style, Conquest. That action itself proves superiority for life-span in PLAYING the game. Although not necessarily superiority in ENJOYING the game, or scoring the highest, or other measures of success and superiority.

posted 07-21-99 09:59 PM ET            

Alkis: I apologise for any offense. Darkstar is right to call me arrogant - but it meant as a throwaway line, instead of an attack.

Dowdc: Darkstar's point about the conqueror standoff makes sense. Given the choice between fighting a massive land engagement early in the game and letting weak opponents grow powerful, or eliminating those same opponents before they are a threat, so you can focus better on your primary rival, what would you do?

Korn469: ??? Okay. Uncleroggy? Analyst? Wanna play?

Darkstar: Re the mod, I've had some good results on the defensive front - finding myself outside a size 15 PK base with a missile rover and being told my unit had no chance of winning against the defender (a 1-6+-1 Silksteel infantry). These units would have beaten off a Tachyon rover, too. Unfortunately, my mindworms proved to be a much better bet, and I took the base wholesale with no casulaties. So at least I had to plan my offensive carefully.

This is the limit of the mod, however. I can increase the defensive values of the units, cut the price of useful infrastructure, and delay the arrival of weapons until after the arrival of equal or better armour, but I CAN'T retrain the Opp Eng to build a variety of defensive units or to attack when it has a better chance. BR's supposed commitment to quality A.I is questionable, or has a few major blind spots at best. But then, I'm not about to write a superior A.I for this game either (well, how can I?)

Shining1

posted 07-22-99 12:33 AM ET            

I was just reacting to Darkstar's claim that a pair of builders would more likely betray each other than a pair of conquerers. I disagree really for two reasons.

1) Builders profit from each other, conquerers do not.

Both pairs here will receive pact money, but the buiders will get more money on account of their larger, better bases. Also, the builders' tech progress will double as techs are traded back and forth. Conquerers don't discover much tech and won't gain much on this front. This makes peaceful relations important to builders and not important to conquerers.

2) Powerful factions will always be conquerer's first targets.

If you agree with those who say conquerers are more powerful and more dangerous than builders, then conquerers have the highest chance of winning any particular game. As a result, each member of a pair of conquerers must target each other first if they individually want to maximize their own chances of winning the game. If one of the two eliminates the other, his chances to win jump almost to 100% (becuase all that's left are weak builders--easy meat!) If one of the pair ignores the other, the other's chances of winning greatly improves--because he gets the first jump. While the first conquerer's units are off killing a weakling builder (someone who's not really a threat, right?), the smart conquerer will jump his only real ememy, the only one who can really threaten his global dominance, the first conquerer.

posted 07-22-99 01:03 AM ET            

1) But conquerors have as much to lose from fighting each other, only in a different currency - military units. Attacking a faction that has less by way of the highly effective offensive defense type units comes at a heavy cost, compare to targeting a faction that has a lot of passive defense. So conquerors will forgo battling each other until a good oppotunity opens up - a strategy very similar to the builders.

As for tech, don't forget probe teams. Only two factions can ever resist these - the faction with HK and the Believers (and you don't usually want to steal from the believers, anyway).

Whether building or conquering, it doesn't pay to let a weak target improve their position. So while the two conquerors are of course ultimately eyeing each other, military engagements between the two will probably be minor, since each can defend themselves effectively. Naturally, a weak conqueror WILL, as you suggest in part 2 be pounced on and ruthlessly destroyed.

But, I mean, given the oppotunity to attack either morgan or santiago, who would you choose?

2)Powerful factions will always be EVERYONE'S main target. But weak factions are also attractive targets, especially if they have big bases and lots of infrastructure and tech to capture.

posted 07-22-99 03:41 AM ET            

See, you are still making a lot of presumptions about the PEOPLE playing. I'd cut a deal with Shining1 or Analyst in an instance, and offer to trade infiltration just so we could keep an eye on each other (Intel is the way to watch each other in a cold war). Guess what happens? If its accepted, we pact, point out likely weaknesses in each others defenses that we have no intention of utilizing ourselves... and lay waste to Chiron of all but us. If I can't maneuver things so that I end up ahead of Shining1 or Analyst in points, I will tip my hat and take second place. There is always the next game to better them in...

See, the problem is to me that most Conquerors are a bit more HONEST about their aggressions. And most of the experienced Conquerors won't want to get locked into a death match and allow you, Goob, or Alkis to get your defenses set. Makes you that harder to dig out. I'd be willing to send units in to cover my ally, and hope I wouldn't need the same done for me.

Sure, some boys and gals won't be trustable, but at least our diplomacy is honest... that of the gun, rifle, or Planet Buster. Everyone likes to win, but better to be part of a team that wins than the next meal of the Global Conquestador.

And unlike many Builders, I would share Air Power and Choppers... I'd wait until the first couple of interceptors were rush ordered, and then trade the tech... but I would do it. Would you?

So, any arguments you have made for the "Builders" about sharing tech are just as good for the Conquerors... at least, until PB tech is available. And once Defense Pods are up, even that is fair game. And I was serious about getting a tech every 4 to 8 turns... If I can do it, surely some other Conqueror can do that or better (I am NOT the best player of SMAC, after all)... And if we are trading techs, how do the Builders get ahead of us?

You're arguments are centered on the fact that Builders would cooperate, and Conquerors won't. And you further support your ideas that Conquerors would not research (Miriam and energy poor Yang? Its Yang I get all those sweet techs with...). The tech tree revolves around the Conquest techs... You get the weapon, THEN the defense. Splitting Weapon research with the big expanist research (No resource restrictions, etc) works better for the Conquerors.

So, once again, I have to ask you... WHO are you presuming behind those Conqueror factions, and WHO are behind those Builder factions? Most serious Conquerors in SMAC are the Darkside Builders... at least, those that post here. We just don't get as advanced in the tech tree because the game is already over...

Its not so much whether one strategy is SUPERIOR, its who is willing to go to war first and seize the initative first. *And* who can maintain it. After all, that is what the Builders are generally looking for... their pet techs that let them switch to Crusader mode. The Conqueror doesn't believe in waiting on anything past Lasers, Impact, or possibly Missile... anything past that, and they call themselves Builders.

So, I am still waiting. Who are your Conquerors... who are your Builders? We all agree that War is the key in which land, resources, and those resource metamorphers (bases) are exchanged and controlled by...

posted 07-22-99 04:05 AM ET            

And being brutally honest here, regular humans would defend a lot better than the Opp Eng. You put infantry next to my base, and I'll clobber you with a speeder (+25% vs. open). Attack from range, and you'll hit my sacrifical scout patrol before you encounter anything more substantial. And that's only if you can reach my base to start with.

posted 07-22-99 04:25 AM ET            

When we get to talking about humans, there is a LOT to take into account. I don't attack from open land against a base if I can help it against the Opp Eng. Against a human, I wouldn't send in just the boy scouts... I'd send the bloody country, and save the Dr. Strangelove subfaction as my reserve force to SMACk the heck out of counter raids and offensives...

The problem is we are dancing the issues and focusing on the particulars. Everyone wants to go, "Oh, you think you can invade ME? My AWAC scouts will spot you 10 turns out, and my Elite Singularity Blink Grav Reserves will wipe out your paltry Chaos Rovers before they get within a PB launch range!" or "I wouldn't let you live long enough to REACH Perimeter Defense Tech!". I know, I do it as easily as everyone else... but I am TRYING to keep it on the general theory and practices level. Feel free to smite me off my soap box whenever I get too carried away. I don't mind. That was why we padded the floor.

The real problem in this debate is we are talking about people, and as most of us haven't played against each other, its all hot wind sailing around unless we do play each other a few times. Most of us Conquerors are Dark Builders... this thread (and its parent one) alone has some of the Civ and Civ2 masters who launched Spacecraft to Alpha Centauri by the 1300's on Deity level. And I suspect that many Conquerors have a lot more IP and PBEM experience under our belts than the general Builder in SMAC. SMAC is a war game, or World Conquest game if you prefer. Its a resource game, that revolves around the control and utilization of such. Bases are the resource processors, and if you take away your opponents bases, its worth a lot more than building your own. You are denying them resources, while adding resources to your side. As SMAC has no real penalties for doing so (See my Sword vs Pen thread for that line of thought), its the most efficent way to win.

The Opp Eng is just too easily to manipulate or out-general. So that means the only TRUE opposition is other humans in a MP game. That being the case, you can play on something monsterously big to try and have room to expand and control resources and pursue peaceful competition... or you can disable all the techs that allow you to make contact and wage war (foils, cruisers, rasing land, lowering sea levels, air chassis, drop, grav). Or you have the possibility of war. Just being in a game with Analyst would be enough to put most people on a war footing. Me being in the game is enough to make 3 or 5 other people pact from the start to Conquer me and put me in my place. People are almost infinitely adaptable... which is why they are the dangerous ones.

posted 07-22-99 04:49 AM ET            

But I think it shouldn't be forgotten that the primary tactic in all Civgames to date is the ICS behaviour. Combined with the ability to pop boom at will in SMAC, you have a VERY VERY powerful tactic at work. If the land was available, I'd fight hard to take it, because the rewards of doing so outweigh the risks of being weakened or eliminated.

Heh. I'd also want to design a neutral faction for any superheros type game as well - something that doesn't let social engineering adjustments or anything interfere. It's one of the things I should mention for SMACX improvements - the ability to play CivII like, without the massive range of bonuses and penalties to constantly weigh up.

But I'm also rapidly coming to the opinion that multiplayer HoMMIII would be much more fun than SMAC. This game just needs too much extra work to be worth it. Ultimately, the SMAC system is a better one, but the implimentation disappoints on so many levels that the other, less serious game wins out.

posted 07-22-99 09:21 AM ET            

That being said, let me reveal a couple of multiplay tactics that are transferable to SMAC.

1. Triangulation--This is where Dowdc reveals his lack of real multiplay experience. I always know when I'm in a CivII multiplay game with another conquistador. He's the guy who offers to be my ally beginning with an offer to trade starting map coordinates. Basically, you trade map coordinates, then send exploration units toward a midpoint and meet up. After that, you explore the map by quarters, trading info as you go. The two conquistadors can quickly locate their other rivals and arrange joint attacks that, since they will come from two different directions, backed by the full power of two conquerer-led nations, never fail. The conquerers will, for much of the early game, coordinate research and share all tech, as well as map info. IOW, Dowdc's speculation that two conquerers won't ally is directly contrary to my actual multiplay experience. The alliance based on triangulation strategy to wipe out rivals early is extremely effective and good conquerers recognize it as being in their interests. [And if no one in the game accepts such an alliance proposal from me, I can pretty much count on them implementing inferior strategies throughout the game.]

1.a. Caveat--The start position seeding programs for SMAC and CivII are definately different. CivII tends to spread out start locations. SMAC tends to cluster them. This could reduce the opportunities for effective triangulation strategy in SMAC.

2. Anti-Bribe Strategies: "Builder" strategies are notoriously poor in CivII multiplay because the conquerer is focusing on piling up gold to bribe enemy cities with, while the builder has a small treasury due to his devotion to research. Since the price of a bribe is directly related to the amount of money each player has in his treasury, conquerers can often defeat builders based on the power of the purse alone. [Side note: If you lack multiplay experience, you probably can't conceive of how dramatic this difference can be. The AI is always stockpiling coin/energy. You don't realize how cheap everything is to bribe when treasuries are low--as they typically are for human players who don't know better in multiplay.] Apart from tactical strategies aimed at seeing and neutralizing bribing units, there are two other things that can be done: (i) rebuild your capital closer to the front; or (ii) stockpile your own treasury. Both of these things are quite effective in neutralizing bribery by making bribery a lot more expensive, though they carry their own costs (which should be apparent). Notably, both of these strategies involve a direct tradeoff with any "builder" strategy (as does, of course, the option of military preparation to meet bribing units). The bottom line is that the presence of bribery in the game will force multiplaying humans into the conquerer style channel in order to avoid losing to the single-minded strategy of being bribed to death.

2.a. Caveat: SMAC is somewhat more complex about how bribery works. Since some base improvements and techs make bribery more expensive, I'm not sure that a builder can't essentially outgrow the bribery threat. I suspect, though, that on the Small maps that multiplay is inevitably conducted on, the builder will not have time to outgrow the bribery threat and will be forced to meet it by more direct means.

posted 07-22-99 11:36 AM ET            

Hope you have been enjoying Civ2 MP.