Later in the game, sure. We all end up building railroads over every single square.Its not that you should build walls in your inner territory (because that is a waste of hammers), but more a good infrastructure so your troops can be flexible.
Woods directly near cities should be chopped asap.
In later era starts the same applies to explorers, don't attack them with your starting units (even if they are sitting on your food resource!)2) Related to this. Do not attack scouts on forest hills with warriors at 70% odds. Nothing to gain a lot to lose here, especially with opponents close. Since scouts can't attack, the unit itself is no threat. So he can see your city at turn 10. So what, everybody has the same thing in there city at this point anyways. If your warrior dies, you delay getting your worker out and are more likely to be choked by close opponents.
Yep, the one exception to this would a Marble/Stone-Plains hill in an ancient game it is worth losing your food to plant on this kind of tile. In later era games plant on this kind of tile if you have a chance, but don't give up food to do so.4) Not planting on Plain hill with your capital If you can keep food resource in city radius. Always worth moving one turn at start to do this. Thats +120 hammers immediately over the time of a full typical MP game. But dont move generally if you cant see your food unless you know the movement will keep hiddin food in the radius.
2) Related to this. Do not attack scouts on forest hills with warriors at 70% odds. Nothing to gain a lot to lose here, especially with opponents close. Since scouts can't attack, the unit itself is no threat. So he can see your city at turn 10. So what, everybody has the same thing in there city at this point anyways. If your warrior dies, you delay getting your worker out and are more likely to be choked by close opponents.
4) Not planting on Plain hill with your capital If you can keep food resource in city radius. Always worth moving one turn at start to do this. Thats +120 hammers immediately over the time of a full typical MP game. But dont move generally if you cant see your food unless you know the movement will keep hiddin food in the radius.
Later in the game, sure. We all end up building railroads over every single square.
But earlier in the game, trying to build roads everywhere is a waste of resources as well. Deploying 90% of your units on frontier means that a couple of strategic razed roads could trash your flexibility.
Remember, a penetration strike could also be useful if your combat troops had city garrison promotions but got lured out of the border cities in order to re-inforce the interior.
Also, since jungle gives no hammer upon being chopped, there are plenty of times where human players in MP leave jungles in place.
This article makes me want never to play Civ online.
Only military conquest? All armies? Everything you do should goal a military victory? No fun at all, at least to me. Civilization is a game with different ways of playing and I don't enjoy playing just one for too long.
I'm open to 'friendlier', diplomacy focused games. I know I have played quite a few of them, with humans.
6) Not assisting allies in a team game
A lot of online games are played either 2v2v2v2v2 (etc) or 3v3. This makes research go a lot faster, and having others to share in the glory/blame can be a lot of fun (and provides a good excuse for defeat too!) However, it becomes significantly less fun when you realise that you've joined a 3v3 game and gotten lumbered with two players who, with the exception of combined research, are basically treating it as a ffa.
In a 3v3, the team that attacks first is very likely to concentrate its forces on ONE opposing team member. Now, should that mean that the one team mate should fight off the troops of three opponents single handed? It shouldn't, but it often does.
If a teammate is under attack, and you are not, send what you can to him ASAP. Money is good. Troops are, obviously, superb. Any happiness resources or health resources you can possibly do without are also great. Fact is, you lose your third team mate, you have 2 researchers v 3. Put another way, lose the first team member, lose the game 99% of the time. If a teammate is under attack, YOU are under attack!