I played my first bunch of multiplayer games last night and it's fun!

BUT!

The thing is you just gotta have military baby!

I went heavy on military all of my games (most of which I won, yay!).

What was deceptive about it was that my score was last in most of my games for a very long time. Meanwhile my opponents were founding religions, building wonders, jacking up their score. And then I came into town with my army and they would resign cuz they were defending with warriors or a couple units, lol.

So what do people think for civs for multiplayer?

Obviously you're not going to be doing marathon quecha rushes in multiplayer!

Here are the settings I was playing on:

Pangaea (continents takes *forever* on multiplayer), small map with 4 totaly people (more than 4 takes *forever*), quick speed (otherwise, you guessed it, it takes *forever*), with fast turn timer on.

So what leaders do you think would be best given these settings?

I think since military is sooo important in multiplayer that the value of aggressive just goes through the roof. Plus I've found that with these settings your opponents are *usually* a little bit away (not always, hehehe) thus giving you time to go mining before bronze.

The value of mysticism and fishing on these settings I feel goes down (mysticism cuz you want military! and fishing due to pangaea [less water]). I've seen napoleon used to great effect and, despite the fishing, I had good success with tokugawa (gotta love them samurai).

One thing I've noticed about multiplayer is that pyramids is SOOO much better than the other wonders yet pretty much people still go for oracle, lol... Having police state in multiplayer is insanely good, plus having representation for an unraidable specialist-based econ in multiplayer is also insanely good.

I've also felt like the value of hunting goes up a bit in multiplayer since having knowledge of the map early can be sooo valuable in multiplayer. Knowing where your opponents are so that you can streamline your axe-rush toward them can be huuuge. Thus Alex, Monty, and the Khans are definite possibilities I think. Having Alex for a theocracy lightbulb is a possibility. You want masonry for the pyramids anyways, and you'll get mysticism for 1-pop pop-rushed obelisks, leaving only poly and mono (mono is good for organized religion for faster build of pyramids).

So, yeah...Basically what I'm saying is that aggressive civs rock in multiplayer (imo). Any other leaders good candidates?

I'm surprised the # of people that like to play as if war would never come to them. Caesar is the best for an aggressive strategy, as the Praets can run over other units without the benefit of catapults. Going to war that early in a game really catches people off guard and twice now I have taken a Civ's capital without fighting any battles at all.

Any civ works on multiplayer, there is no uber bad a$$ financial + some other trait combo killer. You have to be on your toes in multiplayer, be ready for early and LONGGGGGG wars. So any civ that you can have a good military is essential. THIS DOES NOT MEAN AGGRESSIVE is the bomb either. For me it is, but if you can use Cathrine or Asoka to build powerfull industries to make quantity over quality units that works too. So there is no "BEST" civ for multiplayer. The AI is predictable, you can count on one thing in multi, the game will be very unpredictable.

P.S. Remeber to RAZE all enemy cities in MP games, even the shrines and wonders! Only exception is if you KNOW (for sure) you got him under your thumb or he dropped out of the game and the AI is in control.