BNW - Implications for multiplayer strategy

[TheMipchunk]

Hi, I just registered for this website. I have been a long-time theorycrafter for Civ 5 multiplayer. Seeing as BNW will introduce a lot of new mechanics, such as having a city science penalty, what sort of dominant strategies do you guys think will emerge in all-human multiplayer games where everybody is competent and playing to win? Will tall empires, which have always been weaker against humans, become as viable as wide empires? How will the World Congress play out between humans? What about trade routes, since they would also give your opponents a lot of gold too? Will it be possible to win in a cultural victory, something that is currently nearly impossible in a competitive game?

 

[Tabarnak]

Hi, I just registered for this website. I have been a long-time theorycrafter for Civ 5 multiplayer. Seeing as BNW will introduce a lot of new mechanics, such as having a city science penalty, what sort of dominant strategies do you guys think will emerge in all-human multiplayer games where everybody is competent and playing to win? Will tall empires, which have always been weaker against humans, become as viable as wide empires? How will the World Congress play out between humans? What about trade routes, since they would also give your opponents a lot of gold too? Will it be possible to win in a cultural victory, something that is currently nearly impossible in a competitive game?

I'm also asking myself these questions...but i will play the game before making conclusions. Excepted that the Tall empires can beat Large ones if they tech properly.

 

[TheMipchunk]

I'm also asking myself these questions...but i will play the game before making conclusions. Excepted that the Tall empires can beat Large ones if they tech properly.

I'm no world expert or anything, but I've never seen a tall empire win in an all-human mutiplayer game. Maybe if a player happened to start far away from others, then he could do it.

 

[CrossTheRiver]

I'm excited to see how world congress would work in an all human game.

 

[MadMage86]

I'm no world expert or anything, but I've never seen a tall empire win in an all-human mutiplayer game. Maybe if a player happened to start far away from others, then he could do it.

I've done it many times.

Just disable the conquest victory condition; it's basically a cop-out anyway - to me, conquest in a multiplayer game is like throwing a fit halfway through a game of Risk - instead of playing the game out, you decide that you're behind and the winner is obvious so you throw the board off the table and declare yourself the winner because now there isn't anyone else to play with.

Kindof like playing Warhammer 40,000 with objectives and ignoring them to wipe the other player out - you're ignoring the 'true' victory to win by default by removing competition.

 

[werothegreat]

I'm excited to see how world congress would work in an all human game.

A diplomatic victory will only be won if you control all the city-states. I.e., it won't be possible with Venice around.

 

[werothegreat]

I've done it many times.

Just disable the conquest victory condition; it's basically a cop-out anyway - to me, conquest in a multiplayer game is like throwing a fit halfway through a game of Risk - instead of playing the game out, you decide that you're behind and the winner is obvious so you throw the board off the table and declare yourself the winner because now there isn't anyone else to play with.

Kindof like playing Warhammer 40,000 with objectives and ignoring them to wipe the other player out - you're ignoring the 'true' victory to win by default by removing competition.

Domination will be a lot harder now, since you have to hold all the capitals, instead of just being the last player with one.

 

[Randall_Flagg]

Madijn said the Science penelty is light and not worry over it.

 

[MadDjinn]

Domination will be a lot harder now, since you have to hold all the capitals, instead of just being the last player with one.

The other problem with it in an all human MP game is that there's a lot less gold floating around, without trade routes. That makes a lot of early game wars much harder to maintain a hate on everyone approach.

 

[MadMage86]

The other problem with it in an all human MP game is that there's a lot less gold floating around, without trade routes. That makes a lot of early game wars much harder to maintain a hate on everyone approach.

Well, unless you take the 'pillage' approach, I suppose.

 

[CrossTheRiver]

The other problem with it in an all human MP game is that there's a lot less gold floating around, without trade routes. That makes a lot of early game wars much harder to maintain a hate on everyone approach.

The standard "always war" in all human games may need to change then =)

I know I'd alter my approach given this. Find trade partners etc. Of course in a 1v1 all you'll have is city states so unit management will be critical. Spamming comp bows probably won't work anymore.

 

[TheMipchunk]

I've done it many times.

Just disable the conquest victory condition; it's basically a cop-out anyway - to me, conquest in a multiplayer game is like throwing a fit halfway through a game of Risk - instead of playing the game out, you decide that you're behind and the winner is obvious so you throw the board off the table and declare yourself the winner because now there isn't anyone else to play with.

Kindof like playing Warhammer 40,000 with objectives and ignoring them to wipe the other player out - you're ignoring the 'true' victory to win by default by removing competition.

I agree that conquest is the strongest victory condition, but I would not view it as a cop-out. Even if science, cultural, and diplomacy were the only victory conditions possible, I would try to wipe my opponents off the face of the earth. This game is supposed to be active, not passive. This is not a game about peacefully racking up wonders and seeing who can generate the biggest numbers. It's a game of action and reaction, especially in a game with many, highly skilled players, with resources scarce and desired by all. They have more science than you? Take out their biggest science cities. They have a huge, military-oriented empire? Gang up on him with the other players. They're thinking of going diplomatic victory by buying out city states? Buy them out yourself, or destroy the city states with sheer force.

 

[Altisma]

I agree that conquest is the strongest victory condition, but I would not view it as a cop-out. Even if science, cultural, and diplomacy were the only victory conditions possible, I would try to wipe my opponents off the face of the earth. This game is supposed to be active, not passive. This is not a game about peacefully racking up wonders and seeing who can generate the biggest numbers. It's a game of action and reaction, especially in a game with many, highly skilled players, with resources scarce and desired by all. They have more science than you? Take out their biggest science cities. They have a huge, military-oriented empire? Gang up on him with the other players. They're thinking of going diplomatic victory by buying out city states? Buy them out yourself, or destroy the city states with sheer force.

Actually if they have more science than you then the game is already won. You can't declare war on them since your will be facing superior units and cities that can one-shot your units. Destroying City States also makes diplomatic victory easier.

 

[TheMipchunk]

Actually if they have more science than you then the game is already won. You can't declare war on them since your will be facing superior units and cities that can one-shot your units. Destroying City States also makes diplomatic victory easier.

Well, how much ahead they are is the question. At any given point, there literally has to be someone who has the most science. And anyways, what you said is not exactly true, because if somebody is truly ahead in science, multiple players will gang up on that one player. It's true, destroying City States can be risky - you would try to only take those that the enemies are allied with, while keeping your own allies under your influence.

 

[HurricaneKnapp]

I expect to see "nukes banned" resolution come up a lot in the WC in any game that makes it that far.

 

[Talcove]

I expect to see voting through intimidation; vote yes/no on resolution x or I march my troops into your cities.

 

[wetroofwoof]

The other problem with it in an all human MP game is that there's a lot less gold floating around, without trade routes. That makes a lot of early game wars much harder to maintain a hate on everyone approach.

this is my thought as well. kind of concerning. purchasing units with gold is a fun part of MP.