I haven't noticed a thread where the changes for multiplayer in Civ4:BtS are discussed. There are two MAJOR changes (announced in last interview with new lead designer):
1. possibility to choose leader and civ independently
2. modification of turn-based mode - players of one team have common turn

For me #1 is really important - can you imagine Queen Boudica (agg+chm) leading Zulus? They will be awesome for small maps. Maybe even better would be (for very small maps) Boudica (or Tokugawa) leading Mali - quick skirm rush.

#2 is very important for teamers - we play a lot of them in our club. For now players have to play in simultaneous mode which cause problem with attacks - players wait until end of turn to move, game is longer and less fun. In Civ4 and Civ4:Warlords it was impossible to choose turn-based mode as each player had his own turn - waste of time even with 4 players. In Civ4:BtS there will be finally properly designed turn-based mode for teamers - thanks Firaxis!

I wonder if they will remove two more annoying facts which (in my opinion) are not correctly handled. Both cases concern turn-based mode:
1. during opponent's turn it is possible to choose unit's promotions - it causes that units are healed (50% of damage with each promotion given)
2. during opponent's turn it is possible to upgrade units - it also causes that unit's health points immediately increase
I think that those actions should be queued up like any other order (movement, attack, bombardment, load/unload etc) and executed at the beginning of next turn. Currently it is good to wait with finger touching proper key and wait until opponent suicide attacks our units (with catas, cannons etc), and when he is about to strike with his main forces to give promotions to your units. It's easy to get two promotions (from traits, barracks and civics), so giving two promotions will heal 75% of damage.

I haven't listened to the interview yet, but I am extremely opposed to the first change with any leader can lead any civilization. People ignore many leaders already, but this isn't the solution.

Your example provides exactly why it is bad. A whole bunch of people will rush out to be Boudica as Rome, with combat 1 and city raider praetorians right off the bat, and just 1 xp from a praetorian with 3 upgrades :eek:.

Besides the obvious, a problem with this is much like what I saw in vanilla civ 4 multiplayer, where every game 3 Ghandi's (Spi., Ind.) shot for the oracle, 1 of them got it, and the other 2 left the game or fell behind because their entire stratedgy relied on that. This will happen with the new system if it is the way I think it is. People will choose the best early war combos and someone will kill someone else early on, providing a huge boost and then should be able to out compete the others for the rest of the game.

The second one actually seems to be very positive. All multiplayer people know of the quick moves, where you steal a worker at end of turn yada yada yada. In a FFA, it sucks, but the game still goes on for everyone else. In team games, like 3v3, the "teams" go into 1v1 matchups (team battleground) or 1v1 for 2 ends of the team (inland sea). If one team wins one of those 1v1 matchups, it becomes a 3v2, and game is over.

In team games, 99% of the game can be worthless, but if that 1 impi of team X's is able to move into the back city guarded by a warrior before team Y's axemen is able to move into it, that 1v1 matchup is pretty much a done deal. 1 quick move shifts the whole game around and almost ends it in this example, and if team Y's person got his axemen in, the game would return to normal. This team turn stuff would get rid of those quick moves in team play, making it less crucial on the speed of the 1vs1 matchups.

Atleast for the first "improvement", my thoughts is that if Firaxis wanted to try to get people to play with the less desirable leaders, they might want to implement a system where you can choose either the civ or the leader, but not both. People would still choose the powerful leaders and civs, but if you choose Rome and get Asoka as the leader, it might balance the field a little. Alternatively, if you choose the new Boudica for your leader but get India as the civ, her traits won't be able to be used for an early UU. This method also provides the randomness that I personally like (90% of the time I choose random)

I also think that the whole mix and match civs thing is a mistake. But I don't think the mistake rests in the idea. I think the mistake is that the game is improperly balanced as it is and this idea just break all chains on any form of official balance.

As to what you mention Spock, the problem with the Boudica and Romecombo isn't the idea. It is that the Praetorian is already not balanced for gameplay. Traits are also imbalanced right now. Some trait combos are overpowered because of this such as Cha/Agg. With this option, I doubt anyone will ever be picking Exp/Ind or something. I think it would have been time better spent trying to figure out how to beef up the crappy traits.

LDeska u dont understand that Shaka is the best early leader EVER. Playing Normal speed turned you off to the fact that Exp is the best ancient trait followed by Agg (followed by Ind probably). I think that change will ruin the game. What makes a civ balanced to me is the balance of traits, UBs and UUs. When the traits are no longer part of the equation, you end up with a ton of worthless civs. Why in the world would I pick civs that don't have a UB or UU till Modern Era liek America when I am playing Ancient start? I would never pick America! But now I do sometimes because of Washington who makes an excellent Ancient start leader.

This will also create a lot of balancing issues because there will be a whole slew of overpowered cambos. Using zulu UB with an org leader... Using a phi leader with egypt's OBELISK. Not to mention AGG with roman Legion.... And we are back to square one with Fast Worker and IND trait. Atleast no Phi this time, but maybe they will add a phi/ind leader again which would really be overpowered.

I still like this idea. I don't get it why you think that Roman praetorian is so powerfull? Normal axe is properly handling him :) It might be hard if praetorian will have 2 promos, but axe's built-in 50% Melee bonus works still well - remember that it is not added towards axe only deducted from the opponent, so axe attacking praet will be (both two promos on flat land, no river crossing):
axe: 5 + 10%(Combat I) = 5,5
praet: 8 + 35% (praet promos) -75% (axe Melee + 50% of built-in Melee bonus for axes) = 8 -40% = 8 / 1,4 (if bonus is negative then power is divided by 1-bonus) = 5,71
I checked those values in WorldBuilder, so are surely correct.
It's almost the same power but keep in mind that axe costs 35 hammers and praet 45. So it's not overpowered.

@Astax - why do you say that I don't understand it? I play as Shaka almost each time when early combat is inevitable... I also think that he is the best early leader in Warlords (but only on small maps where early game is crucial). I play many games on totally different settings (separated continents, reachable after discovery of Astronomy) and then Shaka is a little bunny comparing to Victoria, Huyna Capac, even Mehmed, Peter and Bismarck are _way_ better than Shaka.

So, for me it's not unbalancing game. It is simply putting pre-game tactics to higher levels. Even now, playing Warlords you may lost your game before you start it - for example playing on this my map script http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=219891 as Shaka against me playing Victoria or Huyna Capac or Peter.

You said "can you imagine Queen Boudica (agg+chm) leading Zulus? " - Well I can and to me it wouldn't be better than Shaka leading the Zulus. That is why I thought you didn't understand :)

I've done the math and testing in worldbuilder. In all cases a 2 promo preat is better than 2 promo axe. Combat 1 promotion for preat adds .8 regardless of the axe counter melee bonus, this is the source of it's power. Only downside is that axe is a bit cheaper to make, but if you are constantly winning fights and not losing units, this is not a problem.

Axe vs preat on open land:
Combat Odds: 35.5%
5.50 vs 5.71
Axe:+10% str
Axe"+75% vs Melee
Preat: +10% str
Preat: +25% vs Melee

Preat vs Axe on open land:
Combat Odds: 67.8%
8.80 vs 8.00
Preat: +10% Str
Preat: +25% vs Melee
Axe: +10% Str
Axe: +75% vs Melee

Axe vs Preat in woods:
Combat Odds: 4.4%
5.50 vs 8.80
Axe: +10% Str
Axe: +75% vs Melee
Preat: +10% Str
Preat: +25% vs Melee
Preat: +50% from tile defense

Preat vs Axe in woods:
Combat Odds: 27.2%!
8.80 vs 10.50
Preat: +10% Str
Preat: +25% vs Melee
Axe: +10% Str
Axe: +75% vs Melee
Axe: +50% from tile defense

As you can see 2 promo Preat is ridiculously overpowered with only counter being an elephant with 2 promotions! AND that is only in open land. In woods elephants would get owned :(

Here is a paste from my old formulas which I derived a while ago, however they onyl work for units that recieve defensive bonuses. Units like chariot have a different Str formula on defense, I believe it is more akin to attack formula.

DEFENSE STR FORMULA:
dStr = ((dStr) - (dStr x ((aBonus - dBonus)/100))) + ((dStr) * (combat/100))

ATTACKER STR FORMULA:
aStr = (aStr * ((combat + 100)/100))

COMBAT EXAMPLES:
Shock Pret vs Shock Axeman

8.8 = (8 * ((10 + 100)/100))
8 = (5 - ((5 * x ((25 - 75)/100)) + (5 * (10/100))

Shock Pret vs Shock Axeman in woods

8.8 = (8 * ((10 + 100)/100))
10.5 = (5 - (5 x ((25 - 125)/100))) + (5 * (10/100))

The praet example is just one of the many possibilities of obvious shuffling of leader and civ in order to get a combo favorable for something. It might not always be warfare. For another example toward Flevelence's statement, somebody probably will look at Bismarck? or whoever is Exp/Ind and play as India to try to chop out all early wonders on Custom Continents.

What I don't like isnt necessarily that new superior combos will be made, I can always change my way of playing as random, but that people will go for the exact same superior combos. Every Pangaea game will probably have 1 Boudica of Zulu, 1 Boudica of Rome, and maybe a protective person for mali (drill can be effective offensively). It becomes a question as to who cranks out the most early UU with these bonuses and wins an early war the fastest.

@Ldeska: Now in multiplayer an axeman can easily (or easily enough) defeat or hold off a praetorian. This allows people to play as any leader and have a chance- obviously some leaders are more favorable than others, but every leader can hang in there. This is why I and other people have the freedom to play random- even if our neighbor draws Rome w/ iron nearby while we get Mehmed or something, we can still hold up and win the game (I'd say I win or am far enough ahead that I should win most games, but I don't play ladder). But with new way, people will gain that extra edge that pushes it over the top, forcing you to choose a better combo for yourself to keep up.

@King: Your absolutely right. Traits are imbalanced as is, but I think its not so umbalanced that you can't hang in there. It does need to be improved, and I am just criticizing way that has been proposed.

The possibility for an aggressive leader to handle Praetorians, coupled with the pervasive (and, in my opinion, justified) belief in the overpoweredness of those units strongly suggests to me a Praetorian nerf is coming with BtS.

My guess: Str 7, +10% against cities. Although, Str 7 on its own would still be pretty good if they dropped its price down to that of a swordsman.

Astax - let's say that you're right :) . Shaka has even better traits for early game than Boudica. But Tokugawa or Mao leading Mali will be quite nice :)

Maybe they will adjust Praetorian... but even if they leave it as it is, I don't think that Rome will be interesting for me. I don't think that Praetorian rush will be possible. As we computed before Praet vs axe is not winning in woods (27%) and is almost equal in open. Considering the price of those units it will be possible to hold off those Praets with axes (you can build 4 axes for the price of 3 Praets).

@SpockFederation - it' interesting that you play using random leaders :) I think that starting from some level (playing with other humans of course, not the AI level) it's not possible to win if you get for example Asoka against Shaka or Huyna...

Anyway I like this idea, but I think that you're right that there is a threat of potential unbalancing of game. Maybe they will change some things to diminish that possibility?

LDeska u dont understand that Shaka is the best early leader EVER.

Pfft.

Give me Mali led by Mao and I'll pwn Zulu before he ever finds metal :p

The thing is I dont want Praetorians nerfed :( They will then be worthless for non Agg civ. Preatorians vs Axe may seem close to u but when coupled with cats it will be a total blow out. Cataputs promoted with combat 1 will rival axemen but die horribly to preats at a rate of 2 to 1. If u survive the initial rush u will die once cats show up for sure. And the collateral damage will be almost nonfactor if you spilt your stack, which is easily done with preats. Also add to it the fact u can promo half your preats with city raider 2 and still defend well vs cats :(

@kittenOFchaos - I meant that in the current state. Yes protective Skirmishers will be a pain but u can also pair Shaka with a civ that starts with mining. Also Skirmishers can be countered by chariots, War chariots will murder them and Immortals will decimate them :) Still I know a lot more people will pick Mali then they do now.

There will certainly be the possibility of playing multiplayer games still the classic way, meaning without reshuffling of leaders and civs! So I don't think they need balancing at all. If someone then chooses an uber-combination, chose another one yourself... ;) When at the moment there can be two Roman civs in the game (two leaders), it means at last that you can play with 10 Roman civs. If everyone got Praetorians, they ain't overpowered anymore...

mick

mitsho pickign the same leader by many players has been always possible so it was always possible to have 10 Roman civs. But yeah I will probably stick to classic way.

Hmm, I found the multiplayer changes to be the least spectacular of the bunch. Not that it bothers me ... I'm playing SP only. But from reading the interview, it almost seemed as if they made two quick changes (one of them of questinable merit) just so that they had something to show for multiplayer too.

But the other proposed additions are great, imho.

ok, sorry, didn't knew that, I am not a big multiplayer. Nevertheless, my point stays valid...

mick

Couple more things:

1. Praets will be nerfed. Not because of multiplayer, but because people have complained/opposed it since the start. I think this is also why they threw Boudica in there- the gallic warrior sucks, and I believe the dun (walls that give mountain upgrade to all mellee? units) doesnt give the gallic warrior the second promo, so Boudica is there to beef it up.

2. This combining of traits won't be too bad, because I think people will discourage the uber combinations. I see this already- a lot of time games have everyone play random, or if 1 person chooses it really doesn't matter.

3. @LDeska: Random actually isnt entirely random. As I've seen in team games, where just about everyone chooses an aggressive civ or a civ with a early UU, when I go random it always gives me a civ for war to an extent. It never gives me a peaceful leader- it always gives me aggressive like Egypt or defending like Churchill. In Pangaea same thing happens- you never get peaceful leader if other people have war leaders. In custom continents, it is random as you don't usually get to fight until astronomy.

I think its kind of lame that firaxis would nerf the legion i mean the praet just b/c they are adding a new feature that allows us to use shaka with rome.

If they do this it is b/c of Multiplayer b/c it will not be fair to the other players who are not Rome. Shaka with the legions is kind of scary with his traits. So where i stand if they do add a kind of a lame feature like this they will nerf the legions to please the multiplayer community not the 1 player community.

And if they do make the legion a 7 +10% city attack it will not be fun playing multiplayer getting owned by a barbarian with an axe and no shield in many battles against the most dominant heavy infantry the world has ever seen just b/c someone had an idea to have shaka lead the romans or any other civ with this new feature.

And i play many games online and the legion at an 8 is not overpowering unless you are playing a noob who likes build an archer army or they dont have copper or iron. Axeman are cheaper in tech and are cheaper to make and faster to build. Agg civs with axeman in my opinion own the legions.

Non agg civs with axe hold there own with the legions. Axeman+shock upgrade=dead legion. Most ladder players agree that rome is not all that good in multiplayer and the legion is not all that it is cracked up to be. Financial civs and agg civs rule the multiplayer universe.

@kittenOFchaos - that's exactly the combination I've mentioned in my previous post :) Even now, when I play very small maps, I tend to choose Mali. His unique unit is really great and available quite soon (you have to research Hunting and Archery - not too expensive techs). Then you shot for Bronze Working and slave several units. When your rush is bringing havoc to the opponent, you may expand a little.
The only problem is when opponent chose Inka :) Quechuas are cheaper and have the same power against Skirmishers (in open). Huyna is also financial but instead of Spiritual trait he has industrial, which is way better in my opinion.

@Astax - I think that it all depends on the type of map you are playing, game speed, count of opponents etc. etc. That's why I think that this independent choosing of leader and civ to lead is great - because you may accommodate your leader and civ to the settings - this is for me a part of game - I would call it pre-game strategy... Of course if we will consider one type of game, for example cton and one type of map let's say C4F_TBG then there might be several combinations which will be best. But I don't think that there will be one obvious, overpowered combination.

@SpockFederation - I haven't checked that, I thought that random leader is a random leader :) I did some check-ups of random in civ4 (vanilla and warlords), here is a thread on our forum: http://forum.kac.org.pl/viewtopic.php?t=2642 it is unfortunatelly in Polish, but attached drawings should tell you everything. I tested 200 fights of warriors against warriors to check if random isn't flawed (we had some suspicions).


testing environment:
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/8997/civ4screenshot0007kz8.jpg

results for civ4:
X axis - remaining strength of warrior - because of fight algorithm resulting strength could be only: -2, -1.6, -1.2, -0.8, -0.4, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, 2 where negative values indicates remaining strength of opponent - our warrior lost, positive value indicates that our warrior won
Y axis - count of cases
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9223/civ40kk.jpg
values below chart are:
ilość - count
średnia - average
wariancja - variance

results for warlords:
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2606/warlords5gz.jpg



the results were: random is fine :) as you can see in warlords the chart even better reminds Gaussian curve... and variance is less - we suspected that it will be bigger because of very odd fight results that we encountered in Warlords. But the results may be not totally correct because of too less cases I've tested (only 200 fights).

@Titus001 - I agree that Rome isn't too interesting for me. I simply don't like Praets - are too expensive and too weak comparing to axe... about trait's that rule the multiplayer - I also thought that fin + agr is the best combo, but Ragnar is not so good... kittenOFchaos showed it to me last time, when he blocked me with his Impi and I was unable to stretch my wings and show how financial works :) as a result I was fin and had less GNP that non-fin Zulu :)

I actually don't like Praetorians, just I threw that example out there because thats what alot of people online will do i suspect. Now any body can keep up against anybody else for the most part. Sometimes you might get overpowered by a good skirmisher rush or impi rush or w/e, but you can't win them all.

@LDeska: Combat is random, and thanks for showing me that (haven't seen anything that extensive). However, I still suspect that in multiplayer it is not as random as it appears,particularly in team games where other people are warlike leaders. If the other team has a Zulu, Persia, and Egypt, while our team has Mali and Inca, if I go random I probably will get someone like Churchill (protective) or a early/mid-unique unit, like Ragnar or Korea or China. I've never seen someone draw say Ghandi or Mehmed in these situations.

I just think its kind of funny that people always want to nerf the legions. The legions are not all that good against a barbarian with an axe and no shield in civ4. People that complain and say they should be nerfed obviously never played online before. Again the legions in civ4 are not all that its cracked up to be while online and the roman civ is kind of weak and in my opinion with the legions also.

I really do think firaxis is biased to the romans by making the legions not all that great against a barbarian with an axe and no shield. Along with the dubious starting techs. How can a civ like the mongols and other civs get the wheel as a starting tech and not rome who was known for building roads?

And whats up with rome not getting the colliseum as it's unique building instead of the forum? Since the colloseum is not rome's unique building it should be a wonder.

And if firaxis chooses to put the byzantines in the expansion i think they should learn some history. Byzantines= Eastern Roman Empire and are infact the same civilization.
Byzantines are a funny name. Thats like the whole eastern united states getting invaded and loosing all its land to some invader but the west still survived and lived long and prospered but some historian decided to change its name from the united states to something like the byzantines.

end of rant