Do certain leaders/traits have particular benefit for MP?

[GVeers]

Hey all, I've been lurking for a day or two and reading the literature. I'm a pretty raw player mostly interested in setting up some games with friends, and right now I'm trying to decide on a preferred ("ultimate") Civ. I apologize if the question's been asked before, but I couldn't find it after a couple searches: do you think there are particular traits, UUs, or civs in general that are more optimized for multiplayer?

It seems to me like people come down on Protective, but I think it would be more disadvantageous in the single-player arena where it's easier/necessary to wage war. In a MP environment I think it can sometimes be beneficial to have the enemy come to you, or fly under the radar and be diplomatic, giving added value to an obviously defensive trait.

On somewhat shakier ground, I also tend to think of Industrious as better in the MP environment because it gives you such a clear advantage in getting wonders, such that civs without the trait shouldn't even bother competing for certain ones (which seems pretty hurtful IMO). Against the computer it seems like wonders are a bit easier to manage - on easier difficulties it's not difficult to get them, and it on harder difficulties it's not worth trying or there is a specific progression.

Incidentally, I'm strongly favoring the Incans as my preferred civ. I love the UB and the Fin/Ind combo is perfectly designed for my play style. I wish I could also start with Hunting, but you can't have everything....

 

[CivMonger]

I'm a huge fan of the financial trait myself. I tend to like to build a good stockpile of cottages and play maps with a lot of water, so it adds up to sizable bonuses for me.

 

[notagoodname]

No, people avoid the protective trait in multiplayer unless the leader has a particular UU they wish to use. Churchill and saladin are sometimes chosen in later era starts, but it is definitly not because of the protective trait.


It depends what game type you are playing. If it's a water map or one where i can get away with building rather than fighting then, yeah, i think financial is the best. Otherwise i think expansionist is a little bit better.

I also think spiritual is a must. In multiplayer you will find your cities come under a very sudden threat. Double moves and mass sneak attacks are common. Having the spiritual trait means you can switch to slavery and nationalism and draft+slave out 2 defenders in any big city as soon as you come under threat. Without spiritual you have to wait a turn for the civics to change and in the meantime the enemy will take your cities. Spiritual is actually far better for defense than protective ever will be.

So normally i pick spain or mali for a builders game.

For war type games, such as teamers or 1v1s, aggressive is great in the ancient era, in fact neccesary i beleive.

So i pick Zulu or Aztecs for an ancient era war game.

 

[cv431410]

Do certain leaders/traits have particular benefit for MP?
Yes.

See reasons here

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=198627

 

[Galileo44]

I say aggresive is very very good because it unlocks the anti-melee and anti-archer promotions as well as medic. getting these early is very important if you plan on having any war. lets face it, have you ever seen an MP game without war?

Other than that, i like financial and spiritual.

 

[spoooq]

Aggressive is perhaps the best in MP. Anything that gives you even a slight edge in combat is vital. Don't underestimate the value of cheap barracks either.

Financial isn't as useful as it is in SP because humans see those cottages for what they are - gold coins sitting around on the map waiting to be harvested via pillaging.

An appropriate UU is just as important as traits, which is why Julius is popular with some people.

The MP games I've seen are Great Plains or Pangaea map types, which are just brutal. Personally I don't mind Genghis or even Kublai in these situations.

 

[Fosse]

It also depends on who you're playing with and in what envirnoment. MP from the lobby is different than Pitboss or PBEM. In the latter two double moves are often disallowed (or actually impossible) and a great deal more weight is put on diplomacy beyond, "I agree not to attack you before we both attack Johnny... but we agree we might both just attack each other anyway."

Protective is very useful in my opinion as I can think of several real life examples in Pitboss games I am in where it has allowed a player to stave off invasion pre-catapult (you do NOT want to try to take a protective capital without catapults), where a "protective" civ has fielded an early offensive army of highly promoted archers, and where protective units have clearly turned the tide of battle.

So my point is that protective isn't so bad in MP. I don't think what's been said about the other traits is something to disagree with. Especially Industrious... early wonders are basically forfeit in larger games if you aren't industrious unless you have stone or marble. Later wonders are more up for grabs because their value isn't so extreme as Pyramids or Oracle.

 

[EscapedGoat]

Ironically, aggressive is a better protective trait than protective, because it is usefull anywhere in your territory and not only inside your cities. If you lose access to strategic resources and let your improvements get pillaged in a multiplayer game, it's over for you, and it's just a question of time before you lose.

If the enemy is comming at you with Axemen with combat I + city raider promotions, axemen with combat I + shock promotions will annihilate them both in city defense and in open field combat.

Other than that, civs with exceptionally powerfull UU's are a good choice. Like Romans and their praetorians.

It's also predominately Civs with early bonuses rather than later ones that are good in MP, mostly because MP games tend to end rather early with someone's defeat.