The Multiplayer Experience

[Sanguivorant]

I am writing this topic, because i want to know the experiences of other people on multiplayer.

So how is it like playing Civilization 4 with a human instead of AI?

Though I do have one main question: If you're playing a multi-player game, and all odds are against you (meaning you're lowest in score and vassal'd by a human), would you continue to play or quit?

[lymond]

Ummm...I would never vassal to a human. You win or you die

I'm not an MP expert, but I played around with it some. If you are playing in the public space, just be wary of non-starter games or games where folks bow out too soon for a variety of reasons. There's also quite a few tools out there.

Playing against humans means you are playing...generally...against more intelligent foes than normal AI games. Different tactics need to be employed vs. single player games.

You'll probably have a better time though getting to know some players and running your own games with familiar folks. PBEM and Pitboss is a better way to go. There's an MP forum here where you can hook up with players. Also, check out the Realms Beyond site - lots of MP stuff over there.

[Tachywaxon]

Never vote for a human;
Always check your corners of your BFC;
never automate your workers.

I never played multi.
Playing with other humans mean playing amongst a bunch of sadistic fellows and I prefer to be the only sadistic fellow amongst dumb AI's.

[GEFORCED]

Multiplayer is a completely different game, with abit of a learning curve, even for an experienced singleplayer.

These are common games found in the lobby.

Free for all:
Islands
pangea

team games:
inland sea 3v3+
team battle ground 4v4+

Sure, its ok to quit a free for all if your miles behind, just dont start leaving games because you missed religion or made stonehenge same turn and lost.

Its difficult to play team games online, the majority of players will not play with unknown players. Which is understandable as 5+ players dont want to invest 1 hour+ into a game where a new player will make large mistakes and die fairly quickly.

Wouldnt hurt to ask in lobby for advice from more experienced players. Im sure there are some players that will help you out.

[Sanguivorant]

I am guessing that diplomatic victories are either unchecked or not possible at all in multiplayer, right? I mean, who would want to vote for someone else's victory?

[GEFORCED]

yeah everyone abstains. Victory conditions are rarely met, apart from conquest in 1v1 matches. league team matches are usually limited to 120 turns and 2 city elimination, although these days games rarely go to score victory at 120 turns, the increased aggressive play and popularization of team battle ground start anywhere setting results in more player deaths and teams admitting defeat.

[Ataxerxes]

Originally Posted by Tachywaxon

Never vote for a human;
Always check your corners of your BFC;
never automate your workers.

I never played multi.
Playing with other humans mean playing amongst a bunch of sadistic fellows and I prefer to be the only sadistic fellow amongst dumb AI's.

I always felt that way about multi. Unless you have some specific ground rules you're going to look on the Aggressive AI setting as unusually peaceful. Maybe I'm restricting myself but I'll stick with SP.

[calibur]

Originally Posted by Ataxerxes

I always felt that way about multi. Unless you have some specific ground rules you're going to look on the Aggressive AI setting as unusually peaceful. Maybe I'm restricting myself but I'll stick with SP.

I think turning off domination might help.
What would happen if you turned of domination and conquest and destroyed all other civs?

[(Pro)Peanut_P]

Diplo is always off in MP games, as is tech trades. If they were left on too many players would team up and abuse them.

I play MP everyday and i can't remeber the last time i seen a game end(other than OCC/Space/Peace or 1v1). When one player or a team is in a winning position it's usually considered Game Over.

[rah]

Worker first usually loses in MP.

[Merovech]

Originally Posted by rah

Worker first usually loses in MP.

Completely disagree.

[Merovech]

Originally Posted by (Pro)Peanut_P

Diplo is always off in MP games, as is tech trades. If they were left on too many players would team up and abuse them.

I play MP everyday and i can't remeber the last time i seen a game end(other than OCC/Space/Peace or 1v1). When one player or a team is in a winning position it's usually considered Game Over.

I mostly agree with this, but I'd like to point out that some multiplayer games, especially not-fast paced ones like some PBEMs and Pitbosses, have diplo (without tech-trading) on.

Normally, however, you are right.

[rah]

Originally Posted by Merovech

Completely disagree.

Unless you want to preclude all searching by leaving your initial unit at home. Worker first is Death if someone starts close to you. And if you start with a scout, he usually won't defend well enough.

[Ataxerxes]

Originally Posted by calibur

I think turning off domination might help.
What would happen if you turned of domination and conquest and destroyed all other civs?

Wellll, you're eventually going to win. If you felt like finishing you'd just build a spaceship in peace. I don't think you can win diplomation as the only other Civ. However, I think most of us would find the game terribly boring - sort of like playing as the only Civ in the world with only barbarians.

[Merovech]

Originally Posted by rah

Unless you want to preclude all searching by leaving your initial unit at home. Worker first is Death if someone starts close to you. And if you start with a scout, he usually won't defend well enough.

Worker first is riskier, no doubt, but in my experience, it pays off significantly with a huge snowball-headstart.

Yeah, it could be too much of a risk with a scout start or a very close opponent, but if your opponent goes worker first and you go warrior first, unless you eliminate him right away, you will have a large development deficet to make up. In non-duels, even if you eliminate said opponent, if another opponent also went worker first, he will still be ahead of you, since you will have to auto-raze, unless you can settle the vacated area quickly and efficently.

When worker first loses, it loses more spectularly, but in my experience, it actually loses less often.

[rah]

In my opinion the risk is too great. I've lose over 50% of the game I start with worker first. No one cuts you any slack in our group. And if a someone gets lucky and gets experience from a hut......
I'd rather be behind then dead. And it is rare in our group that someone will go worker first due to the risk, so you're really not behind.

I'll prework a warrior and change to a worker so I can switch back if I notice a unit. but that's about it.

[reddishrecue]

Starting with worker first can put u at risk if someone warrior rushes. If you're next to inca or something could be a possibility to start with warrior first instead of worker. There are risks though if someone is nearby and doesnt warrior rush to go for worker start.

[Merovech]

Originally Posted by rah

In my opinion the risk is too great. I've lose over 50% of the game I start with worker first. No one cuts you any slack in our group. And if a someone gets lucky and gets experience from a hut......
I'd rather be behind then dead. And it is rare in our group that someone will go worker first due to the risk, so you're really not behind.

I'll prework a warrior and change to a worker so I can switch back if I notice a unit. but that's about it.

You play multiplayer with huts on? That's somewhat surprising. I like them (and events) in singleplayer, but not multiplayer. Too unbalancing, imo.

Yeah, preworking a warrior so you can 1 or 2-turn it is a reasonable compromise, but I must have a different avaerage distance away from other players that you (or a ton of luck )

[rah]

8 to 12 squares from cap to cap is reasonably normal on the maps we play. Yes, sometimes it's far enough to be safe but not that often and not often enough to risk it.

To complicate matters if someone starts on a plains hills with a forested plains hill in range he can spit out 2 warriors in 10 turns and get 3 warriors on you before turn 20. One warrior isn't enough sometimes. But at least if gives you a fighting chance.

And since it's a group of friends and we don't really keep score, so a few unbalanced games due to hut luck doesn't really change anyone's opinion on who the better players are. And it's good if it helps the lesser player win every now and then to keep them coming back from more.

And when someone's score goes up a few points in the first few turns, everyone is wondering just what tech he got.

Yes if it was strangers or a tournament, huts and events would be off.

[LeHam]

Humans online are a bunch of sadistic bastards, which is why I don't play online so much. Also the time commitment.

I would Reaaaalllly like to try PitBoss or PBEM, but I have no idea how they work or what they are, and I only know one person who is (kind of) interested in playing Civ IV. Playing with some of the people on this forum would be cool, though!

There was one game that resulted in a Diplomatic Victory (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=456394), but it was pretty controversial and to be honest it's not likely to happen. It was the most interesting game I've ever played, though admittedly I played pretty badly.