Just thought about this. Has there ever been a multiplayer game between some of the well-known fanatics on this forum? I would love to see a documented game with people like Sis, Madsci, Obsolete, Dave, Rolo, MeInTeam, etc playing each other on something like a Pangaea or Continents map, maybe balanced?

It would require a lot of agreement between the players on game times and speed of the game, but I think it would be very entertaining.

Just a thought.

Well, first I'm honored for appearing in that list :blush: I'm not even close of Dave or Obsolete......

Second, I suppose that you would want a mutiplayer game. Speaking for my self , I have very few experience in multi and I bet ( given that I have slow openings ) that I would be eaten alive by someone wit bigger MP experience ;)

Third, I would think that it would a really big logistics chalenge.... We don't live all in the same time zone and it would be extremely hard to find a suitalbe time window for everyone. Other issue is the sheer map size needed for having a good set of players... Not everyone has the computer power for it.

Last, it would be probably better to have a third party to make the game report.

To make it simple: it is not a bad idea, but it would give a lot of problems ot organize. Any volunteer? :D

Just use pitboss...

Exactly. The logistics of it would be a pain, especially with times and game speeds and maps and balanced/non-balanced resources. How funny would it be to see one of them a vassal to another? Just things like that would be very entertaining.

My sgtom team is playing a pitboss game http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=282617 here for example...

Very good idea.
Use Pitboss. Have a computer expert to draw the map.
And, if possible, allow some kind of record so that everybody
could see the game later.
Best regards,

Very good idea.
Use Pitboss. Have a computer expert to draw the map.
And, if possible, allow some kind of record so that everybody
could see the game later.
Best regards,

Maybe is better to invite and confirm the players before all of this ( that most likely would be the more time consuming stuff ), right? ;)

I think Troy_The_Face must be invited, just so he can put his money where his mouth is and show everybody the impossible glory of Amphibious Elephants.

While I am honored to me mentioned in such company, you are confusing the people who post the most with the best players. I would not be interested in a multi-player game, thanks anyway.

a couple of problems. first and formeost the players mentioned are not
particularly that good. Second , any semi-competent mp player would make mince meat out of any of those.
Maybe all five vs Attacko might be an interesting match.:scan:

Where is attacko? Never saw him :p

play'n multi player i think. following a pattern ol meinteam picked up on.
they attack, they fail, they quit. and cry home to mama

. first and formeost the players mentioned are not
particularly that good. Second , any semi-competent mp player would make mince meat out of any of those.
:

OUCH!!! True enough but still OUCH!!!!!!!!

Haha. I'm sorry - I didn't mean to rank players in terms of skill... those are just the names that came to mind because they seem to post a lot of useful information. Realistically, it probably would never happen. I just think it would be a very cool scenario and very entertaining.

Haha. I'm sorry - I didn't mean to rank players in terms of skill... those are just the names that came to mind because they seem to post a lot of useful information. Realistically, it probably would never happen. I just think it would be a very cool scenario and very entertaining.

I'd like to see this not because I think the players named are stunning multiplayer players from whom we can all learn much, but simply because it would be fun to see them all stumbling around. That's what I thought this idea was about, to be quite honest.

Play by email on marathon speed. It should be finished roughly around the time Civ6 is released

I love the idea even if it is unfeasible. MP is always a little different and can be very unforgiving due to the inability to reload. You either win or - as Troy sez - "cry home to mama."

I would add to the invite list Rusten, VoiceofUnreason, and BurN.

Dave is actually decent in mp.. No idea if the others play mp though...

not sure if any of those are deity level players, especially pre-BTS. I've never seen any of them post a deity game.

You'd be better off with true civ gods, like moonsinger or maybe unconqueredsun.

Godonut has many insightful posts in vanilla back then
especially his famous guide to early cultural victory in deity

though i dont agree with some of his points, but no doubt he could win consitently in deity

Obsolete and Dave are clearly deity gamers, as Rusten and BurN ( as nobody mentioned ABigCivFan, sooooo, Snaaty, CellKu, acidsatyr, mutineer and so many others.....)

The OP clearly picked very vocal people that still care to post in here ;) Most of them are clearly Emperor/Immortal players, so they are pretty above the Civ player average. I OTOH would love to see a really big map with various high level players in it and a lot of AI to prevent MP syndrom.

not sure if any of those are deity level players, especially pre-BTS. I've never seen any of them post a deity game.

You'd be better off with true civ gods, like moonsinger or maybe unconqueredsun.

Who cares what they did pre-BtS? The hypothetical game would obviously be on BtS and take place now, as opposed to 2 years ago.

Search for moonsinger on the forums. There's no comparison with any of those, unless dave bothered to start posting some deity results.

For example, for a HOF deity attempt http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173910
If you wants all six religions, why not just capture and keep all six holy cities? If you are not a warmonger or if you are a warmonger who doesn't like getting your units killed needlessly in combat, there are a couple easy ways to dominate the world with as little as 12 Quechua on a standard map (i.e. 2 quechua per each AI civ).

I'm honored to appear in the list too, even though you could probably fork anyone else from the immortal U thread out and find a better player easily :p. I post a lot and win decently on emperor but I'm no deity player ;). I started running MP recently and found that generally the gamespy players are pretty bad - I doubt it would go so easy against other players on the forum! I kind of shutter when thinking about dealing with something like DaveMCW's "catapult theater" strategy with intelligent use of those catapults...

In addition to logistics, game settings would make a huge difference. The list (which is far from fair or comprehensive, it seems to be mostly based on post count :lol:) plays different speeds. Map layout would matter too. Obsolete would be pretty badly hampered if some relatively weak player "choked" him early. Actually, a choke would damage both players on pangaea enough that the remaining players (who are all solid caliper at least) would be able to take advantage.

Pangaea in particular would be reliant on luck...I can just picture the chain axe rushes. The person without another person at his back wins ;).

U Sun, Rusten, Obsolete, ABigCivFan (Why have I not seen his name here yet? He's obviously very good.), DaveMCW, BurN, Moonsigner, AcidSatyr (if he could be enticed back), etc would comprise a scary list of very high-level players! I'm leaving plenty out too :p.

It would, of course, be very interesting regardless of who wound up in it. Just don't expect 1 person to win consistently...I doubt it's possible when you mix a large # of people who understand the game together!

ABigCivFan (Why have I not seen his name here yet? He's obviously very good.),
*cough*
( as nobody mentioned ABigCivFan, sooooo, Snaaty, CellKu, acidsatyr, mutineer and so many others.....)
*cough* ;)

One thing would be definitely interesting to see: most of those players are diehard SE fans, but only one could have the Mids :devil: ( and then ,unnoticed in a corner , Dave builds his cottages , laughing on the other players :lol: )

I doubt Dave would go unnoticed. All those cottages would make lucrative pillage targets.

I doubt Dave would go unnoticed. All those cottages would make lucrative pillage targets.

It's harder to pillage humans than a lot of people seem to imply. I use cottages in MP a lot. Usually they go for your iron/copper/horse first (and with good reason). The problem is that cottages are usually on flatlands. People who go to pillage flatlands are just begging to get sieged+mopped up. In the very early goings its a bit easier to pillage the less mature cottage/hamlets, but remember that it will mostly be on border cities, and even then mostly towards the outside of border cities.

Who gets the pyramids is a pretty funny contest in MP. When I play my roommate I almost always let him get those (as well as pick my leader). However, in a recent game we did a nintendotogepi super islands setup, and I wound up with stone. I don't think he was expecting the mids to go in 1500 BC to brennus :lol:.

Obsolete and Dave are clearly deity gamers, as Rusten and BurN ( as nobody mentioned ABigCivFan, sooooo, Snaaty, CellKu, acidsatyr, mutineer and so many others.....)

The OP clearly picked very vocal people that still care to post in here ;) Most of them are clearly Emperor/Immortal players, so they are pretty above the Civ player average. I OTOH would love to see a really big map with various high level players in it and a lot of AI to prevent MP syndrom.

Whyever would you want to have AI's in it?? higest concentration of "good" players i have played with in a pitboss game is arboia masters http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=263241 . Probably 7-8 players who you could call immortal-deity level players although some of them probably haven't played enough sp to know that... Since someone mentioned moonsinger, another hot hof player is killercane who was in that game.

Seriously though alot of the best mp players doesn't even post on these boards, though they prolly don't play pitboss much either...

This sounds very interesting. But I'd rather see another SG with a "AllStar Team" like for example one of the acid series. I don't think you can compare SP skills to MP skills, and it's SP the most players play and would like to see.

BTW I don't think I need to add any more strong players not mentionned yet.

@oyzar

I want AI on the game to minimize human-human interaction, especially in the early days ( read rushes )

I'd like to see this not because I think the players named are stunning multiplayer players from whom we can all learn much, but simply because it would be fun to see them all stumbling around. That's what I thought this idea was about, to be quite honest.

Me too, I'd love to see it happen! Would provide entertaining reportage material as well.

This sounds very interesting. But I'd rather see another SG with a "AllStar Team" like for example one of the acid series. I don't think you can compare SP skills to MP skills, and it's SP the most players play and would like to see.

BTW I don't think I need to add any more strong players not mentionned yet.

That is what sgtom / gtom is for.. Or maybe hof gauntlets, depending on your chosen tournament style...

A. Who gets to be the Incans?
B. Who gets to be the Romans?
C. Who gets to be the Persians?

Not all leader traits and civ UU's and UB's are equal.

And I think CE might be stronger in a MP game. A lot of SE seems dependent on trading bulbed techs. Human's will be les likely to trade important techs to you. And with a lot of SE platers bulbing the same techs then everyone pretty much has the same stuff anyway so what do you trade for.

A player like Obsolete with a city that jam packed with wonders is going to be everyone's favorite target. I don't play MP, but I would assume building a multireligion shrine city is the same invitation to invasion.

I would love to see an MP game but it would be decided more by luck and leaders than by strategy.

You can allow duplicate leaders.. Neither incans nor persians are anywhere near overpowered in mp and the romans doesn't have very good traits... Humans are more likely to trade well than AI... There is no wyftba in mp. As such it is often better to turn off tech trading as it is quite unbalanced imo.. And yeah wonderspam without military is obviously not going to work in mp...

Good point. There may have to be some restrictions I would think... may I dare say no philo/financial civs? but then again, if players could pick any leader they wanted, there could be multiple Elizabeths, etc. I would also think that balanced resources could provide equality, but somewhat ruins the fun of a map.

I wouldn't want the game to be restricted too much, because the goal would be to see how well players can compete with one another, no matter what the circumstance. Obviously MP is much different than SP, so there would be a learning curve for sure. I honestly wonder how the tech trading would go - would people even be willing to trade? That might slow the tech progress quite a bit as well.

Adding AI's might make the game imbalanced if a human player abused them for techs via war & trading...

the idea of this kind of game seems almost too complex and hard to form, but it would probably be the most entertaining thread on civfanatics, especially for the forum lurkers. ;)

This would be quite entertaining. I'm thinking that it would be hard to even get them to agree to play, yet alone organize it all.

Maybe do an Islands map instead of a pangea map so that you could have competing economies / strategies that are closer to single player(since most of them are SP players I think right)? Would be an interesting comparison of playstyles of some of the top demogame posters. Though those kinds of comparisons are already done in other games as has been said. I realize that islands maps would rely a ton on luck of terrain/resources, maybe some sort of tweaking of the map could work to even things out.

It would be different than some of the competition games though in the sense that Obsolete for example would have to compete with humans for those wonders. Just thinking that if you make it a slugfest game, the SP players wouldnt be as interested.

No islands , pls.... no interaction for half of the game? :suicide:

I think a Hub map would be the best option.

hah ok rolo point taken. I was just thinking along the lines of economic competition as apposed to axe rushes. Hub is a good idea tho, everyone gets a choke point.

I'd actually vote for Pangaea but I could live with a hub map.

By the way, though I've said that there are more qualified players than myself in terms of skill, I'd definitely be up for something of this sort ;). It would be an incredible learning experience, and MP tactics/decision luck (I.E. 2 better players duking it out and me stabbing one or something) gives anyone with a reasonable skill level at least a chance!

Of course some people wouldn't like the "blazing" MP game speed I prefer ;), THAT might be the hardest thing to get players to agree on! It's kind of like regular chess vs speed chess...different people are better at each, even though it's technically the same game!

It would never work in a realistic way, for instance Obsolete's style is very dependent on diplo, and how useful is diplo when playing other humans? Basically MP is a whole different ballgame.

^^That could be solved with 5 AI per human in game and a really large map ;)

^^That could be solved with 5 AI per human in game and a really large map ;)

Yay a 12 hour straight game even on blazing!!!!! ;).

Even that would leave a lot to chance - someone gets Gandhi and someone else gets sitting bull who happens to put every city on a hill.

Also, is there any way to get the AIs in multiplayer off of noble? If not it would be a "noob hunt race" with the "noobs" being the AI. Pretty soon it would wind up being just the players again, but with more chance involved :p.

It could never be realistically resolved to take into account different SP skillsets and tendencies, although I would argue that for its purpose (fun) it wouldn't need to be. It's not like the winner would be crowned "forum king" or something, or that anyone who lost would be ridiculed. It would just be a fun event for the players and lurkers alike!

All sorts of problems remain, who are your neighbours Monty and Shaka or Wang and Hatty, alot of sorting out to make the starting positions more or less equal. Then not all players favor the same victory condition, domination'll be ruled out on such a huge map for instance, i just don't think it's a realistic project if you want to compare these playes (could be fun though).

Better watch for yourself who you think is best, i have my ideas about this but noway that i'm going to post these ;).

Which is better in multiplayer? CE or SE?

Just play pitboss... @ DMOC it depends on the map and the settings... You can't neglect specialists obviously but also neglecting good cottage sites is probably not pretty silly...

All sorts of problems remain, who are your neighbours Monty and Shaka or Wang and Hatty, alot of sorting out to make the starting positions more or less equal. Then not all players favor the same victory condition, domination'll be ruled out on such a huge map for instance, i just don't think it's a realistic project if you want to compare these playes (could be fun though).

Better watch for yourself who you think is best, i have my ideas about this but noway that i'm going to post these ;).

Lol - who is best? We don't even know who would actually play it yet ;). For example, good as acidsatyr may be I haven't seen him even post in a while. Getting people able to play at the same time would be a chore but I don't see a problem with mixing player skills between prince-deity. Obviously emperor+ players would be favored but in MP a lot of things can happen...even to players who are technically more skilled, they can get screwed. It would be different if you have one guy like any of us among a bunch of players like the average gamespy player - it's another thing entirely when the whole map is littered with players ranging from solid to elite...

Which is better in multiplayer? CE or SE?

I use both. Maybe you need to use both. Anyway I favor cottages with a GP farm and MP isn't an exception. People cite pillaging of them but it's not THAT big of a problem. Think about it. Where do you usually put cottages? Flatlands. Where is the ideal place for an enemy SoD in your territory to get mowed down by siege? Flatlands ;).

They'll usually go for metals first etc. A pillage stack might get some border cottages if you actually put cottages there but realistically if you are leaving an enemy stack to pillage lots of tiles you're in trouble anyway. A little bit of planning will protect most of them.

I played about 6 gamespy games last week and in 2 of them I got pillaged or attempted. This amounted to a total of a pasture and a mine - and I went CE in both of those games. He ignored the cottage tile as he went for the copper mine on flatlands in the game where I was actually pillaged. By the time he got to that tile, I was able to wipe his entire SoD out there before he pillaged my metal instantly at turn start with stack attacked + some cleanup with backup garrison troops. This prompted quitting.

Point is, you play your economy just like you would offline. You just have to predict human actions a bit, rather than the AI which almost always behaves the same. Choices from humans are still finite though, and some are far more likely. That kind of pattern recognition is very important in all MP, and civ 4 isn't an exception (backstabbing HUMAN players makes me feel really warm inside :lol:).

Ok, this is too tempting.

I'm going to go and download pitboss even though I REALLY don't want to do so (bad experience in the past with downloads) and try and see if I can play some multiplayer. I heard Gamespy was a big pile of crap so I'll be avoiding it. :lol:

I know that you can't play the same as SP so I'll assume that I need to focus MUCH more on military and less on diplomacy and tech trading (which should be off I would assume).

But at what times do certain wonders fall? I'm guessing some wonders are just skipped entirely until someone can build them in 1-2 turns.

Ok, this is too tempting.

I'm going to go and download pitboss even though I REALLY don't want to do so (bad experience in the past with downloads) and try and see if I can play some multiplayer. I heard Gamespy was a big pile of crap so I'll be avoiding it. :lol:

I know that you can't play the same as SP so I'll assume that I need to focus MUCH more on military and less on diplomacy and tech trading (which should be off I would assume).

But at what times do certain wonders fall? I'm guessing some wonders are just skipped entirely until someone can build them in 1-2 turns.

You don't need to download pitboss.. It comes with the game...

Wonders are comical in their variance. Play emperor with a lot of coastal starts and expect GLH to go around 1k BC. Mids will go by 1 AD almost every time barring unusual maps, and often around 1000 BC also.

In MP sometimes they go 500 AD and/or later, but often there's a guy who tries to whore wonders off in a corner somewhere. If a decent player gambles this way he becomes quite dangerous as he runs away in tech and with tech trading off it's mighty hard to recover with medieval troops vs renaissance unless you have like 3x his empire.

Usually though, those guys get to meet with "teh axor rush lul wut foolz" with some spears/swords/pults/HA's thrown in.

Archery is a really, REALLY big tech in MP, unless you like working unimproved tiles for basically the entire time you play or start isolated (unlikely as most MP games use settings that won't allow isolation).

multiplayer is completely different than single player. Humans are much smarter than AI and use cant use the single player tricks against humans. You dont get rushed early by AIs either...AIs wont attack your early secondary cities undefended or with only one archer or warriors. Nope, online is much different

Wonders are comical in their variance. Play emperor with a lot of coastal starts and expect GLH to go around 1k BC. Mids will go by 1 AD almost every time barring unusual maps, and often around 1000 BC also.

In MP sometimes they go 500 AD and/or later, but often there's a guy who tries to whore wonders off in a corner somewhere. If a decent player gambles this way he becomes quite dangerous as he runs away in tech and with tech trading off it's mighty hard to recover with medieval troops vs renaissance unless you have like 3x his empire.

Usually though, those guys get to meet with "teh axor rush lul wut foolz" with some spears/swords/pults/HA's thrown in.

Archery is a really, REALLY big tech in MP, unless you like working unimproved tiles for basically the entire time you play or start isolated (unlikely as most MP games use settings that won't allow isolation).


I kind of figured out that Archery was a must. It seems that the Protective and Aggressive trait are a lot more important in MP.

multiplayer is completely different than single player. Humans are much smarter than AI and use cant use the single player tricks against humans. You dont get rushed early by AIs either...AIs wont attack your early secondary cities undefended or with only one archer or warriors. Nope, online is much different

If people see you have archers early and defend yourself halfway decent they usually prey on others, and weaker players will play scared if they see you play ok - I've seen people hesitate a lot or mention it after the fact. You see all kinds of things online - gaming patterns actually vary less across games than I'd expected until I started playing a lot of different games online on a regular basis. I need more MP civ 4 experience but it does not appear to be an exception.

In 5 sec troytheface will appear here saying that SP players are noobs compared with MP players.... that kind of speech is like honey to abear for him.

And how does he know it? Because SP players bode badly in MP... :crazyeye:

SP play - You're playing against a noob that has bonus on you. Like if you played chess with a 6 y old normal child and gave him towers instead of pawns.....

MP play -you're playing against a human, probably as skilled as you and no one has bonuses. Like normal chess.

I really don't think that skills of both sides are comparable, atleast without a double check at MP and SP. The gameplay has to be diferent in both options.....

If people see you have archers early and defend yourself halfway decent they usually prey on others, and weaker players will play scared if they see you play ok - I've seen people hesitate a lot or mention it after the fact. You see all kinds of things online - gaming patterns actually vary less across games than I'd expected until I started playing a lot of different games online on a regular basis. I need more MP civ 4 experience but it does not appear to be an exception.

Good then.

I could build tons of archers and then after that a bunch of praetorians and conquer everyone. :goodjob:

In 5 sec troytheface will appear here saying that SP players are noobs compared with MP players.... that kind of speech is like honey to abear for him.

a couple of problems. first and formeost the players mentioned are not
particularly that good. Second , any semi-competent mp player would make mince meat out of any of those.
Maybe all five vs Attacko might be an interesting match.:scan:

;)

.....................

It's more like use 2-3 on border cities and watch them carefully - most MP games are on quick and you can usually get adequate defense if declared on in time (this changes based on game speed). More aggressive players are usually obvious and they get a couple extra, unless they're obviously gunning for someone else (this takes a lot of game experience and judgment - sometimes taking early risks is worth it, more often as you get used to how people act).

You can kind of guess what someone picking boudica of rome will do, or persia etc, or who will be going for early religion. If you get good culture in border cities you can see into enemy territory and a lot of players don't realize it. The power graph often tips people's hands also if you keep tabs on it. So many factors...I've not mastered what people do in civ multiplayer yet but the ways of thinking aren't anything new for sure.

Very good players who know each other might do weird gambits like showing a wonder attempt then axe rushing or building a ton of axes as security and then camping to tech - this is more rare but it also pegs players in that way too.

It's really hard for me to put into words - but I don't usually guess wrong on how players will act after the early game, and sometimes by civ/leader choice or how they speak in the chat room even then.

Well, with all the feedback for this thread, maybe someone (I don't have enough time right now) should try to set a game up. :goodjob:

I'd like to see this not because I think the players named are stunning multiplayer players from whom we can all learn much, but simply because it would be fun to see them all stumbling around.

a couple of problems. first and formeost the players mentioned are not
particularly that good. Second , any semi-competent mp player would make mince meat out of any of those.

You folks really know how to butter a guy up. :sad: :lol:

I've only made a couple of faltering attempts at MP, so I suspect Troy is right and I would get my virtual lily-white a** handed to me quite readily. As rolo has been saying, it seems to me that it would be a totally different game, playing against humans versus playing against the AI.

As for a leader, the others can have Caesar, Elizabeth, and so on. I'd put my dibs on Charlemagne just because he's Protective and starts with Hunting. My plan would be to research Archery, spam Archers; research Masonry, spam walls; then hunker down and hope to live long enough not to completely embarrass myself. :blush:

You folks really know how to butter a guy up. :sad: :lol:

I've only made a couple of faltering attempts at MP, so I suspect Troy is right and I would get my virtual lily-white a** handed to me quite readily. As rolo has been saying, it seems to me that it would be a totally different game, playing against humans versus playing against the AI.

As for a leader, the others can have Caesar, Elizabeth, and so on. I'd put my dibs on Charlemagne just because he's Protective and starts with Hunting. My plan would be to research Archery, spam Archers; research Masonry, spam walls; then hunker down and hope to live long enough not to completely embarrass myself. :blush:

It's not as bad as you make it out - remember that other humans don't get any bonuses. You can use this and their actions to estimate what kind of forces they're fielding early on. I think if you played on game spy and you minded the fact that people do stupid stuff like warrior chokes (that fail if you go archery early), you'd be surprised how well you do.

Game settings matter a lot too - I hate quick but that's what the typical gamespy game is on - games like quick pangaea ffa on a small map. A size 3-5 city working hammer tiles can easily put out an archer/2 turns w/o the whip! Attack forces have to be MASSIVE to make headway like that - or else the resistance met will be too great just while marching.

I think it depends a lot on prior MP game experience of any kind and your ability to adapt to the changes in settings (especially game speed and no tech trading!). No tech trading makes games inherently more military also (much larger windows in each era, even if units seem to pop out every second) - but the actual building up of military doesn't vary from SP - and you're good at war ;).

You folks really know how to butter a guy up. :sad: :lol:

I've only made a couple of faltering attempts at MP, so I suspect Troy is right and I would get my virtual lily-white a** handed to me quite readily. As rolo has been saying, it seems to me that it would be a totally different game, playing against humans versus playing against the AI.

As for a leader, the others can have Caesar, Elizabeth, and so on. I'd put my dibs on Charlemagne just because he's Protective and starts with Hunting. My plan would be to research Archery, spam Archers; research Masonry, spam walls; then hunker down and hope to live long enough not to completely embarrass myself. :blush:

My reaction was similar although I would elect for ghengis, tech archery then AH, settle ontop of the nearest horse, tech HBR and take as many down with me as I could before the inevitable loss.

@TMIT

Warrior chokes on MP? :rotfl: even a complete MP noob like me would not do that ;)

But I have to agree that my gameplay is not MP friendly: I make slow starts ;)

P.S Can I have Hammurabi? Try to axe rush me :p

You folks really know how to butter a guy up. :sad: :lol:

I've only made a couple of faltering attempts at MP, so I suspect Troy is right and I would get my virtual lily-white a** handed to me quite readily. As rolo has been saying, it seems to me that it would be a totally different game, playing against humans versus playing against the AI.

As for a leader, the others can have Caesar, Elizabeth, and so on. I'd put my dibs on Charlemagne just because he's Protective and starts with Hunting. My plan would be to research Archery, spam Archers; research Masonry, spam walls; then hunker down and hope to live long enough not to completely embarrass myself. :blush:

Last neighbour i had who did this i took out with oromo warriors against ancient units with 100 kills vs 0 no losses... Protective isn't that hot...

@TMIT

Warrior chokes on MP? :rotfl: even a complete MP noob like me would not do that ;)

But I have to agree that my gameplay is not MP friendly: I make slow starts ;)

P.S Can I have Hammurabi? Try to axe rush me :p

War chariot rushing hamurabi is fun.. Especially when withdrawl chance kick in and you win one battle in 3 meaning you can take out 3 bowmen with 4-5 war chariots...

My reaction was similar although I would elect for ghengis, tech archery then AH, settle ontop of the nearest horse, tech HBR and take as many down with me as I could before the inevitable loss.

holkans!!!!

Last neighbour i had who did this i took out with oromo warriors against ancient units with 100 kills vs 0 no losses... Protective isn't that hot...

Well I should hope that by the time you had Oromo Warriors, if I'd survived that long, I'd have something better than Archers to pit against you. :lol:

This was ormo warriors through a straight beeline with bulbing, but yeah if you know what you are doing teching shouldn't be too hard... Walls and tons of defensive units won't help you tech much though...

This was ormo warriors through a straight beeline with bulbing, but yeah if you know what you are doing teching shouldn't be too hard... Walls and tons of defensive units won't help you tech much though...
I'd like to think that's not all I'd be doing. ;)

Standart sci bulb via Education and self research of Gunpowder or the more exotic version via the southern route?

Theo -> bulb paper bulb edu bulb edu bulb powder actually...

How Did you avoid PP ? :confused: We are talking all scientists, right?

Those bulbing routes are gambits - particularly against an opponent who recognizes his peril and picks up guilds...oromos kind of suck vs knights (the one area Janissaries outshine them pretty hard).

If you don't get archery early a warrior choke can screw you. I've seen it happen to people...stuff gets pillaged then the warrior camps. Yes, the human getting choked will get archery and dislodge it, but this slows them down significantly at very little cost to the person doing it. This could be the difference between getting enough axes or not for example. Also, if you don't dislodge it quickly they'll reinforce with an archer of their own or two. This makes hooking up a strategic resource a major pain - I've only been on the receiving end of a halfway decent choke once, and then I learned how important an early archery tech is.

So don't laugh, it's lost people games ;). More comically, I 5 warrior rushed my roommate's capitol and actually took it (1 warrior defending, no BW, no archery...). I'm trying to raise his aggression/military building level - I think he needs it to finally beat monarch. He wins consistently on prince and I'd say is about average with what I've seen so far on gamespy - I'd imagine/hope pitboss would be better.

Edit: He probably got at least one non scientist GP, though I'm curious which.

Yes... I didn't have pottery... And the gambit kinda failed given that i prolly won't win the game...

^^ Creative, but it can be tough to win without granaries.

Oh, the no pottery gambit... risky as hell even against AI ;)

Actually it was with unrestricted leaders and i had alex... But in the end the map wasn't suited for it very much...

None of you have figured it out yet, have you? Or maybe you have, but aren't saying so. :lol:

That's not the way to win multiplayer. The proper way to win multiplayer is to make a pact with another player, a mutual non-aggression pact. You don't need to have any in-game treaty, just private words exchanged between you and the other player. Maybe you could even declare war on each other from time to time. That way people will not know you're allied. Then promise that player that you'll join up into a permanent alliance once Communism is learned, so you two can assure that the rest of the world will be your playground.

Then you do the same to player B. And the same to player C. And the same to player D. Do this to as many players willing to agree to the terms. Then, when the dust is all settled, you'll probably be know who the strongest person is, and side with them and only them. The ultimate backstab. THAT is how you would win such a game.

It wouldn't be so much your Civ skills that won you the game, but skills you learned playing simpler game, like Risk and Monopoly. You never, ever, want to play Monopoly with me. :lol: I don't think I've ever lost a game, even when I had friends who would cheat and steal thousands of dollars from the bank. I didn't care, it just meant more money for me in the end. ;)

If you guys happen to want to try your hand out at mp / pitboss there is a game starting up http://www.chaosciv.com/index.php/board,1.0.html here. Although it does have somewhat of a rpg element... Still like 5 spots left.

Oh, risk... nothing like backstack a presumptive ally after letting him to move troops from our border to try to get all the Asia ( people are so greedy ;) )

all these tactics are slow wrong and fatal. trust no one in mp number 1.
the best stategy is have lots of time, a good computer, and make'm quit early with a good attack. The real "secret" is that it is actually hard to die, staving off an attacker will slow that attackers tech rate, and invites someone else to kill them.
On more than one occasion i have been double/ triple attacked- only to hold them off and then watch them quit when someone who has been building attacks.
and on their departure i type in "another one cry'n home to mama via the wizardry of glorious me" Attacko

Troy's above post is almost scary-accurate - you have to be really ready to stick someone, and trusting someone only goes so far as "trusting" they're out to win, and that doesn't involve you. Getting them to believe you're not a threat and turn their back though...;).

Well, as said in a Dilbert cartoon, "trust is an excellent thing for other people to have".

And what happens if your target decides not to attack and expose himself, mr attacko? There was a certain Chinese general 2500 years ago that said that that there are cities that should not be taken, and there are quite some followers of that chinese dude ;)

And what happens if your target decides not to attack and expose himself, mr attacko? There was a certain Chinese general 2500 years ago that said that that there are cities that should not be taken, and there are quite some followers of that chinese dude ;)

Tech to space :p.

Let me know when this actually happens in one or your games though ;).

And if he techs faster than you to space? ;)

Just teasing mr attacko ( who ever he/she is :rolleyes: ), TMIT ;)

sun tzu is the biggest load of trash of all time. Of course it takes like a peasent from the tundra to smash this "great writer's tactics" or 50 british soldiers or
then the tiny isle of japan which ransacked it as well.
sun tzu- outdated- over quoted- non relevant except to pointy headed college kids and
history majors.

Ok, lets talk civish ....

The rules favour extensively the defender. Two players with the same civ ability and the same prod basis will never be able to take the other down, unless one of them makes a mistake, exactly because of that. Someone that simply wants to survive the carnage and that plays defensively with competence will probably survive much longer than a early rusher that fails his attack.

Ok, lets talk civish ....

The rules favour extensively the defender. Two players with the same civ ability and the same prod basis will never be able to take the other down, unless one of them makes a mistake, exactly because of that. Someone that simply wants to survive the carnage and that plays defensively with competence will probably survive much longer than a early rusher that fails his attack.

And what of economic warfare? Warfare not specifically aimed at cities or units, but rather at impeding one's growth, choking for instance?

I'm not a expert , but if you let yourself be choked , from what TMIT said, you deserve to lose ;)

And defense =/= passive defense :p

Good luck stopping choking skirms / holkans without resources or heck anything can choke if they have resources in bfc and you don't, immortals, war chariots and impis are obviously best if this is the case though..

TMIT was talking about warrior chokes which might actually be a good idea if you bet right on them not going after archery early enough(and hence gives you enough time to hook up a resource and bring better units to choke with). However most of the time they obviously suck...

And defense =/= passive defense :p

Of course ;)

There are of course some things I did not consider either. Most armies capable of choking a decent defender incur maintenance costs... not to mention the risk of getting backstabbing with your army away from home :p

sun tzu is the biggest load of trash of all time. Of course it takes like a peasent from the tundra to smash this "great writer's tactics" or 50 british soldiers or
then the tiny isle of japan which ransacked it as well.
sun tzu- outdated- over quoted- non relevant except to pointy headed college kids and
history majors.

Just when you posted something worthwhile you had to post this right after it. :lol:

Oh well. Back to the normal troytheface it seems.

"its not what people don't know that is a problem, rather that which they know that isn't so" Attacko, ripping off some writer

"its not what people don't know that is a problem, rather that which they know that isn't so" Attacko, ripping off some writer

You were supposed to be my friend!! :mad:

AKA "Ignorance is Knowledge"

Where did I heard that already? :rolleyes:

think you missed the meaning of that quote ol rolo. it is the opposite of ignorance. it is questioning things some seem to think are undeniable. it is like posting in a forum i suggest is mostly white, conservative and young and realizing that perspectives are sometimes invisible ideas honed for evolutionary survival and truth has nothing to do with anything other than to bolster this and the sense of self.

I have to admit that you have a point in there.....

But your partisan style does not help a little , you know?

(orwell himself said he couldn't shoot a guy in the spanish civil war because the guy was running and his pants were falling down.
in the same essay he read about major battles that were in reality minor skirmishes and fought in major battles not even mentioned.)
what may be considered partisan i call what it is to be human.

You understood it well, mr troy.... there is no need to actively pursuit hostility to search for the truth ;) ( in spite of sometimes being the quickest path )

hmmm, may be good advice. something to experiment with no?
But first "Attacko's Cheat'n Guide for Quitters"

sun tzu is the biggest load of trash of all time.

It's one thing to point out that some 'infallible' authority is, in fact, all too fallible; it's another thing altogether to write off everything he/she ever said because some of it is clearly nonsense.

I'd have thought you, of all people, would appreciate this. :mischief:

Another multiplayer question (I haven't played MP games). Can you talk to civs you haven't had contact with? Can you even see them on the scoreboard?

Another multiplayer question (I haven't played MP games). Can you talk to civs you haven't had contact with? Can you even see them on the scoreboard?

In the case of human players, yes you can. They appear on the scoreboard and you can see what civ they are and I think even their religion.
You just can't trade with them until actual contact.

Conversation has gone slightly off topic, so:

What with most of the candidate players saying that they will get beaten (to various degrees) as they lack MP experience, it would be an interesting game! Anyway, does it really matter who wins? I'd just be interested in the strategy discussion as it develops (perhaps one thread per player); the winner is far less important.

As for leaders, with the couple of games I've played online it seems that Elizabeth/Inca/Rome are incredibly popular, and for obvious reasons. It would be difficult to enforce rules such as 'no Elizabeth/Inca/Rome/Persia', but perhaps that is what we need, a mutual agreement to use middle of the road leaders? As subjective as that is...

The only way to play true multiplayer games is to play league games in the lobby.
http://league.civplayers.com

Pitboss is fun but is not true multiplayer. It is a perfection excersice with all the time in the world to do it. Also diplomacy between humans is plain ridicilous. That is why all league games are always war.

From what I have seen most players that are good single players and come online to try out their skills against humans, quickly realize that it is a different world, get some beating and then disappear only to post here saying how gamespy sucks!!!

Civilization has a long learning curve, and as it took time for everyone to be a good single player, it will take time to be good in multiplayer...people do not realize that and they start blaming, gamespy, the settings, other people.... whatever.

Why, might I ask, does the league ban diplomacy in most gametypes? It seems to me that diplomacy is just as much a part of Civilization as war is, and there are certainly wildly successful wargames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)) in which it is crucial to victory.

Indeed, I would think that the absurd interface tricks made necessary by Civilization's weird half-turn-based, half-real-time compromise mode are more "ridiculous" than anything two human diplomats can cook up.

League play seems like a very interesting way to play Civ, but I'm not sure that games without diplomacy are the only things Civ has to offer.

Why, might I ask, does the league ban diplomacy in most gametypes? It seems to me that diplomacy is just as much a part of Civilization as war is, and there are certainly wildly successful wargames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)) in which it is crucial to victory.

Indeed, I would think that the absurd interface tricks made necessary by Civilization's weird half-turn-based, half-real-time compromise mode are more "ridiculous" than anything two human diplomats can cook up.

League play seems like a very interesting way to play Civ, but I'm not sure that games without diplomacy are the only things Civ has to offer.

The problem with diplomacy is that since multiplayer is a small community after a while a lot of people know each other and personnal relations get in the way. It is difficult for a new player to get into a game where everyone else knows each other and actually make a deal with someone.

Also since alot of games are for tournaments, diplomacy allows game fixing, for example me that is first place can help someone overcome my main competiotor who is second place so I can face someone weaker in the final.

Always war guarandees that you will always be on your heels and prepared to attack or be attacked, it makes much more sence for multiplayer

Simultanious turns is true changes the game a bit, combat specifically. It becomes important to know all the tricks and keyboard shortcuts or else you are doomed. But it creates very interesting games and helps the games to be kept in reasonable ammount of time (2-3 hours on average).

There are many different game types in league games so everyone should find something they like without missing diplomacy.

Pitboss is fun but is not true multiplayer. It is a perfection excersice with all the time in the world to do it. Also diplomacy between humans is plain ridicilous. That is why all league games are always war.


I find this statement to be totaly opposite the truth. For me pitboss is true multiplayer because it allows you to draw upon the full reportoaire of tactics and strategies without real time concerns comming in the way... It is pure measure of game skill compared to just who can click / think fastest on their feet...

I find this statement to be totaly opposite the truth. For me pitboss is true multiplayer because it allows you to draw upon the full reportoaire of tactics and strategies without real time concerns comming in the way... It is pure measure of game skill compared to just who can click / think fastest on their feet...

I disagree obviously. In real time you have no calculator no worldbuilder save to load and try different things and not infinite time to do calculations.

It is you what you know and your instinct.

My idea of a good player is someone who can think and improvise on the spot, not someone who can spend hours calculating one turn.

Also in almost all pitboss games diplomacy plays a major role and I already discribed what I think about diplomacy.

Using a calculator is a huge part of civ... You don't actually have the worldbuilder save in pitboss but sure you can sim actions and battles before you go through with them... What a good player is definatly depends on the type of game it is, as you already mentioned yourself...

Oyzar I know you are a great player and would be delighted to see you play some online multiplayer, or even better see you join our clan . Is not all about fast clicking belive me, although you need to fast click from time to time :)

I am sure you will like it once you try it.

I had my objections before starting playing, but somehow this game, that is made for single player, can provide a fantastic multiplyer experience when all the players are good. And the only way to play against trully good players is in the league.

The problem with diplomacy is that since multiplayer is a small community after a while a lot of people know each other and personnal relations get in the way. It is difficult for a new player to get into a game where everyone else knows each other and actually make a deal with someone.

Also since alot of games are for tournaments, diplomacy allows game fixing, for example me that is first place can help someone overcome my main competiotor who is second place so I can face someone weaker in the final.

Always war guarandees that you will always be on your heels and prepared to attack or be attacked, it makes much more sence for multiplayer

Simultanious turns is true changes the game a bit, combat specifically. It becomes important to know all the tricks and keyboard shortcuts or else you are doomed. But it creates very interesting games and helps the games to be kept in reasonable ammount of time (2-3 hours on average).

There are many different game types in league games so everyone should find something they like without missing diplomacy.

Well, it goes without saying that some sort of anonymizing agent would be necessary; otherwise, outside-game collusion would become a problem. With said anonymizing agent, however, I think that this problem would almost completely disappear. Diplomacy is, of course, present in any kind of FFA game, even if the messages sent are limited to a show of force (or lack thereof).

Simultaneous games are, of course, a necessity (true turn-based action would take unbelievably long) and probably preferable in league play to PitBoss (getting "two turns in a row" with simultaneous play is annoying, but getting it with PitBoss is just absurd.)

Incidentally, is there a good series of FAQs for getting started in multiplayer? I looked on the league website, but it didn't seem to have anything analogous to the War Academy at civfanatics. Indeed, so far the only thing I know is that "cton" is always war :blush:

Well, it goes without saying that some sort of anonymizing agent would be necessary; otherwise, outside-game collusion would become a problem. With said anonymizing agent, however, I think that this problem would almost completely disappear. Diplomacy is, of course, present in any kind of FFA game, even if the messages sent are limited to a show of force (or lack thereof).

Simultaneous games are, of course, a necessity (true turn-based action would take unbelievably long) and probably preferable in league play to PitBoss (getting "two turns in a row" with simultaneous play is annoying, but getting it with PitBoss is just absurd.)

Incidentally, is there a good series of FAQs for getting started in multiplayer? I looked on the league website, but it didn't seem to have anything analogous to the War Academy at civfanatics. Indeed, so far the only thing I know is that "cton" is always war :blush:

The best way to get started in the league is to create an account in the website and go find a league or ladder CTON game online to play. These games are usually ancient start 120 turns. inland sea map, highest score or conquest at the end of 120 turns wins. Usually CTONs are less bloody than teamers and will let you get used to league play before jumping into teamers.

There is no academy like the civfanatics one, because simply the game is the same, nothing new to say. Only a few shortcuts and basic simultanious play fatcs are to be learned...look in the league forums in the strategy and tips section for those.

In fact in this video made by one of the top players http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PNUJ23MW there are some usefull tips that anyone playing multiplayer should know

best players or best forumers?

In fact in this video made by one of the top players http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PNUJ23MW there are some usefull tips that anyone playing multiplayer should know

Useful tips on how to place same-turn roads with fast workers and double-move your opponent. Being better at manipulating the turn timer does not make good MP play, any more than stealing money from the bank makes good Monopoly play. It just makes you an exploiter.

If your game strategy would fail if you changed the game to successive turns instead of simultaneous, its no strategy at all.

Useful tips on how to place same-turn roads with fast workers and double-move your opponent. Being better at manipulating the turn timer does not make good MP play, any more than stealing money from the bank makes good Monopoly play. It just makes you an exploiter.

If your game strategy would fail if you changed the game to successive turns instead of simultaneous, its no strategy at all.

Well, no. The 'strategies' (tips/tricks) are valid if you play multiplayer ladder games, because it's multiplayer. It's not as if it's a secret that you have to do it. It's just the way multiplayer is; a slightly different game to single player, but no less valid for it.

It does, however, make the game uncomfortably close to an RTS for much of it, which is one of the reasons I don't play multiplayer very much. :)

It doesn't work in successive turn MP games. It doesn't work in pitboss MP(where there are gentlemens rules about double-moves). Changing the gamespeed off quick (so workers can't road in one turn in front of your advance, at least without bringing 6 of them) seriously limits it. Changing from non-blazing gives people more time to react.

Automoves (Ctrl-A) are dependent on machine speed and pingtime (0ms for the host!), not any measure of player skill. If there was a popup to say "really attack this stack that moved onto the forested hill 23milliseconds before you, even though your computer hasn't drawn it yet?", then it would help.

It's not even remotely MP strategy. It's barely MP tactics. Mostly its rule-bending.

I was actually roading ahead of my army in another pitboss game i was playing... It was occ teamer though and we had 23 workers between us(in occ), mostly captured(which shouldn't ever happen anyways) so it is kinda not very realistic but it did happen, eventually we managed to railroad ahead of our troops as well to speed up cannon movement(the workers railroaded further than 3 titles every turn obviously).

Very interesting discussion,
since i flit between the two modes of play a lot, i thought i'd just say how the two differ, things which have not been mentioned in the thread yet, or just things i want to elaborate on.

1- Turn Timer...there are times when one DOES want 5-10 minutes in SP to think about what they want to do next, to carefully plan the tech tree, to ponder on the dot map, the next city build. You dont get that on MP....you have to live in the present and think of the future at one and the same time. you do not have 5 minutes to figure out the demographics or the espionage screen. The issues need to be dealt with NOW. And if you have a lot of workers running around too, with units requiring moving..things can get VERY hectic and VERY intense.

2- Simultaneous Turns- Quite possibly the biggest difference between the two, human players are great at warfare out on the hills and plains, they know the defensive bonuses, and if youre busy moving some other units, it is essentially possible that their unit will race first to the hilltop...basically moving 2 spaces instead of 1

2b- The timer strategy..declaring war after your opponent has moved all his pieces is tried and tested, take them by suprise, run the timer quick or slow, press enter or do not..with simultaneous turns, the running of the timer does matter a lot

3- the HEWMAN at war
Humans are horrible. They dont wage war predictably like the AI at all. Like one of the above posters said, if you get 2 equally good players, chances are they'll tech equally etc. Now imagine youre also producing units at the same speed and are fighting a war.
Want to sue for peace? not a chance, many many wars are fought to the death, because humans simply do not like to negotiate, it is practically always a straight peace treaty or nothing at all. You cant just take a city and declare for peace. Practically always the war objective against a human has to be their utter anhillation....that makes a big difference in the way one appoaches war.
and if you ever had a minor war with someone in 2000 bc with axes and u both declared peace. do not be suprised to see 50 panzers rolling down on ur city 4000 years later because ur opponent STILL holds a massive grudge.

4- Tech trading. normally this should be turned of, humans dont play logically to do logical tech trades, turn it on and someone who likes you might give u 5 techs for archery, it messes up the game. one needs to tech alone..and teching alone is a whole different ball game.

5- Diplomacy. 2 ppl can come to a secret agreement, most do in most wars, and if they have. you cant pick it up in the diplo screen. and if there is no other secret alliance in the game, the chances are that they WILL win. Most of the posters here will have 'previous'. so if you get 4-5 top players playing together, i'd imagine secret alliances and mutual understandings forming pretty quicky.

6- The teching strategy, with TT turns off, it does tend to be a massive race to see who can get their GDP going ballistic. Now in a scenario like that, it is very difficult for a player to engage in war and one can be caught in a catch-22. If you dont declare war and try to annhilate an opponent, you will definitely lose the game if you dont have the land needed. if you Do declare war, the lost turns building units means that the turtler who is building production and gnp will be able to blitz you in 50-100 turns time with massively superior units.
This dynamic plays quite differently in Multiplayers....some players are simply THAT good, that they are playing a near perfect GNP game, and once you get behind on technology, they have won the game,

These are just the differences i can think of right now....
what i would LOVE to see a game of however is the top 7-8 civ players in the world, and we'd record it up for history...that would be an amazing game i am sure...

3 through 6 work fine in any MP game. All good MP.

The first 2 are a product of the super-rush ADD-afflicted Warcraft players. Manipulating timers has nothing to do with making alliances, or balancing early wars vs teching rapidly.

If one guy can maintain a better empire, he should win. Yet in your typical gamespy game, he can lose to someone far inferior at Civ, who just happens to be better at double-moving.

3 through 6 work fine in any MP game. All good MP.

The first 2 are a product of the super-rush ADD-afflicted Warcraft players. Manipulating timers has nothing to do with making alliances, or balancing early wars vs teching rapidly.

If one guy can maintain a better empire, he should win. Yet in your typical gamespy game, he can lose to someone far inferior at Civ, who just happens to be better at double-moving.

yep, multiplayer games are great, but the style of play can take some getting used to.
i remember one game practically wasting the entirety just engaged in a cold war with another guy.
to simplify it, we had 2 cities 3 squares apart. The way they were situated, we could both see into the other person's city.
We spent about 200 turns just building up cats, axes, maces, muskets, rifles, whatever...jus to keep the city safe, now of course, if on the other side you see that happening. one would get slightly paranoid.
With an AI on the other hand, you can be content that it will look at ur powergraph, leave a few units in ur city and go stomp on someone else.
but nooo, wit hewmans, one must be paranoid....very paranoid.
in literally the last game i played, someone attacked japan in an earth game, with 16 galleys of troops. not very AI like.
what also wasnt very AI like was their opponent had 8 caravals waiting.
Reminded me of the mongolian invasion of Japan. :lol:
Mp is amazing, but the war side is a whole different kettle of fish

It doesn't work in successive turn MP games. It doesn't work in pitboss MP(where there are gentlemens rules about double-moves). Changing the gamespeed off quick (so workers can't road in one turn in front of your advance, at least without bringing 6 of them) seriously limits it. Changing from non-blazing gives people more time to react.

Automoves (Ctrl-A) are dependent on machine speed and pingtime (0ms for the host!), not any measure of player skill. If there was a popup to say "really attack this stack that moved onto the forested hill 23milliseconds before you, even though your computer hasn't drawn it yet?", then it would help.

It's not even remotely MP strategy. It's barely MP tactics. Mostly its rule-bending.


The situations where both opponents can use ctrl A are very rare. Remember you can use it if no enemy unit is in adjustent tiles of your path and you cannot use it to attack. The most common use of it is defensive, i.e you have an enemy stack in front of your city which will attack next turn and you want to make sure that your troops comming from behind will be in the city before the opponent attacks. In this situation ctrl A will beat any fast move and there is nothing the attacker can do about it.

If both players use ctrl A, for example to move a warrior on a hill, both comming from different directions then yes less lag and fast pc will win (get on the hill first) but the second player's warrior will not die as ctrl A will not work because the other one got on the hill first.

I was actually roading ahead of my army in another pitboss game i was playing... It was occ teamer though and we had 23 workers between us(in occ), mostly captured(which shouldn't ever happen anyways) so it is kinda not very realistic but it did happen, eventually we managed to railroad ahead of our troops as well to speed up cannon movement(the workers railroaded further than 3 titles every turn obviously).

What is wrong with roading ahead of your army?

What is wrong with roading ahead of your army?

Nothing, if you capture a bagilion spare workers. If I'm sure I'll win a war I'll do it occasionally, although realistically outside of OCC you'd want to be attacking someone you have road access to already (or naval assault), MOST of the time.