10 Mistakes Offline Players Make When Playing Online

[Mutineer]

I nevern meat this situation on standart maps. As far as I undestand the only way to achieve that is to mod the map.

Map is unballanced by itself to.
My peace of land were consisted only from Grassland and 2 grassland forests.
How the hell I can produce anything there after ancient age with out Draft?

I spend all game with -7 We can not forget your cruel oppression!

In addition to make thinks more fun it did not had any happiness resources or hourses or even river. Did had cooper and iron and 4 fishes.

I have no idea is this inherent property of this map and I am not interested in investigating that.

All I know that is was extrimelly unfair game, thougth I believe I won it as I had highest score and was ahead technologically when Catherina player left.

So, Do not tell me not to tell other people to avoide this map! I am not investigator, I just reporting my expirience.

 

[Zombie69]

Well, all that i'm saying is that you should go to this page and see what it has to say about the hub map type. It seems like one of the most balanced map types to me, but you can chose setting that make it pretty weird. I don't see any reason why it should be avoided altogether. Just because it was altered in your game, doesn't mean it has a higher chance of being altered than any other map type.

 

[MamboJoel]

Well the usual mistakes are (in standard game settings) :

1. Not cottage spaming
2. Not having a military

About point 2. People tend to try to stay on track in the tech race against cottage players by avoiding building an army. I allways attack such players because they are biasing the game.
Even if you don't plan on a conquest victory not having a very large offensive military is dramatic :
1. Your weak : you'll get killed.
2. Assuming no other player plan to destroy you, you are self centered on your own territory, completly unable to react to any aggression of a good player towards a weaker one. I consider it vital to gift unit to player that has been stabbed.
Usually the offender is very well prepared and has a stack of units that takes the first city very fast and is about to go deeper in the territory. At that time the guy often lowers his unit production for reinforcement, and think the hardest part is done, the rest of the empire will fall with what is allready fighting.
But he is certainly not prepared to see a defender miraculously opposing a lots of new modern units in the middle of his land counter attacking like hell.
Well, that was a digression, the fact is not having an army means you give away your number one tool not to be dominated in score.

In fact, the best IP game I played had good players with good armies and stalement lines protected each empire from rush/Stack of doom invasions.

 

[IglooDame]

Thanks, SoxSexSax for writing this article. I have never played multiplayer and was always curious as to the competence of the players. It's interesting that you think a competent Noble player would have no trouble. I am sure that will encourage a lot of new players.

Don't let the people who have nothing useful to say bother you. Some people don't ever seem to get the time and effort that people such as you put into the articles that are written in the Strategy Forum. You have to have a tough skin when you post anything on this site. But the players do appreciate your efforts.

Seconded, heartily. I'm a competent Noble player just starting on my first two real MP games myself, nice to get a sense of what I'm up against.

What's your take on gang alliances?

 

[Pbhead]

thankyou for your knowlege!!!

I would have been creamed... i would have been like that guy with one unit in each city.

 

[MazX_TheDog]

To add what others have posted-

- Not helping other players who are getting creamed.


My friends and I play MP all the time (2 nights a week) and I recently have been using the Praet rush strat. I played in game of 5 and I took out all 4 of my other competitors without ever being at war with more than 1 person at a time. Had someone else declared war it would have made me recoil. But no one did, so I just pushed from one person to the next.

I'm not sure in my next game if I will play Caesar, as I have gotten away with it 2 games in a row and I'm starting to think they are on to me. My 2nd opponent in my last game was my first victim in my 1st game, so he was much more prepared than anyone else. His problem was that he never got copper or iron as all he had was stacks of archers and warriors. Pff! I waited for Cats and blew him away after I encircled his cities.

 

[primeminister99]

SoxSexSax thanks for the essay, and others, thanks for the tips. I would like to play online, unfortunatley none of my friends have the game, and only a few them would even consider getting it. *sigh* I was a comptent Civ3 player, up to about emporer difficulty. But I really haven't had enough the time to become comptent with Civ4 since I got it last fall, I think I'll have some time now though. I'm at noble right now, but I have a lot to learn to transition from the two games.

 

[pixiejmcc]

Hey DeviousDevil and CiverDan,

Good to see some fellow ladderites on here.

AKA Churchill1

 

[Lynxx]

Just a small question to all you multiplayers out there. I am planning to try my first game soon myself and i was wondering how long a game normally takes? What kind of a game should i join, like what settings is best to start out with and what type of map? Is there any leader that is especially easy for my first go at multiplayer?

 

[DariusI]

Good article SoxSexSax!!

Indeed some very crucial points u higlighted! Nothing to comment really.
And it just shows nicely how civilization is still not a "cultural victory" kind of game despite the option given!
It's brutal warfare! Conquer or perish. (though against AI finance is much more important than military!!)

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia.

 

[Goobernatorial]

Personally, I don't like Permanent Alliance games. I feel the purporse of Civ online is to get a feel of re-creating history without the repetitive computers controling the other civs, but dynamic humans. I like people to be able to re-create history, and make alliances in game, where anything goes just like in real life. Permanent alliances, IMO, restricts this kind of gameplay. In a sense it simply makes it like any other strategy or RTS out there, not a Civ game where YOU recreate history, not the hosts rules.

 

[Speaker]

Good primer for the player new to MP. Against the typical, non-ladder MP player, a Prince or Monarch player should do very well. Against the average ladder player, a Monarch player who builds more military than they are used to might be competitive. Against top ladder players like CiverDan and KittenofChaos....I don't think too many SP players would be competitive (in an MP game).

 

[Lynxx]

Just a small question to all you multiplayers out there. I am planning to try my first game soon myself and i was wondering how long a game normally takes? What kind of a game should i join, like what settings is best to start out with and what type of map? Is there any leader that is especially easy for my first go at multiplayer?

Sorry for quoting myself but i would really like to get those questions answered before i dare to try out mp. Especially the one about how long a game might take.

I have come up with a few more questions too. What settings in the game is a must? No animated attacks and stackattack seems reasonable, anything else you would recommend?

 

[BCLG100]

Sorry for quoting myself but i would really like to get those questions answered before i dare to try out mp. Especially the one about how long a game might take.

I have come up with a few more questions too. What settings in the game is a must? No animated attacks and stackattack seems reasonable, anything else you would recommend?

it really depends on what type of game you play, PBEM's can take years depending on number of people and how long it takes to play each turn. Pitboss the new civ 4 'invention' you can specify turn time etc but it still depends on number of players and just how the game turns out. I've only played a couple of direct IP games so am unsure how long they generally take but i'd say about an evening.

Settings are anything goes really, however i prefer to play nothing above standard size-not only cos my computer is poo poo but also because it encourages early warfare. I dont really like duel maps however as they are imo too small.

leaders- pick one your used to with in AI i would advise, i prefer an AI with an earlier Uu, however allthough many think the romans are awesome as a first time player people tend to want to dogpile the person that could kill them at the drop of a hat.

i turn animated attack off but i suppose you can turn it on if you really want it doesnt really matter. normally key settings are worked out as the build up to the game starts. just post a thread in the multiplayer forum here asking for a game

 

[Ellestar]

Sorry for quoting myself but i would really like to get those questions answered before i dare to try out mp. Especially the one about how long a game might take.

I have come up with a few more questions too. What settings in the game is a must? No animated attacks and stackattack seems reasonable, anything else you would recommend?

No idea how long average non-ladder game will take. Join a game and ask host, he probably should know how much time it will take under his settings.

Another must-have setting is "minimize popups".

 

[Lynxx]

Thank you both for the replies. I better play some random people over the internet before risking my reputation in playing against people on this forum . But I might come back soon asking for a game, I think I feel confident enough to try mp out now atleast.

 

[BCLG100]

The only problem with non ladder matches or against people you dont know is that theres nothing stopping them from just giving up if they feel like it/are losing.

 

[cabert]

The only problem with non ladder matches or against people you dont know is that theres nothing stopping them from just giving up if they feel like it/are losing.

that's freedom

lynxx stated he wanted to try out.
He may well be the one giving up, if the game is becoming too long.

 

[BCLG100]

Maybe but even if i'm losing a game-hasnt happened yet- i'd hope to still finish it off.

 

[cabert]

Maybe but even if i'm losing a game-hasnt happened yet- i'd hope to still finish it off.

playing the ladder, you don't want to quit (just because you need to respect your opponent)
playing for the learning and the fun, you may may give up on hopeless / uninteresting situations