Does playing with a strong civilization increase the chances of winning multiplayer?

[Captain_Wozzeck]

Hey all,

This is the latest question that I have tried to address in my civscience project!

To those unfamiliar with the project, I collected data from 180 multiplayer games and use it to try and better understand the game.

You can find the latest post here:
https://civscience.wordpress.com/20...civilization-increase-the-chances-of-winning/

Please post all comments/feedback and questions here

 

[Callonia]

It can increase your chances of winning but, if you have questionable skill to win. It won't help you one bit. lol

 

[komodowaran]

jes, as long as u don't get Teamed

Arabia has a hiden downside: get teamed by your neighbors before medievil

so Playing Arabie does decrease your chances of wining if u play a FFA with good players

 

[killmeplease]

jes, as long as u don't get Teamed

so Playing Arabie does decrease your chances of wining if u play a FFA with good players

and does playing a crappy civ increase your chances?

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Moved to Multiplayer forum.

 

[Captain_Wozzeck]

and does playing a crappy civ increase your chances?

The title didn't make this very clear, but I'm linking to an article I wrote that actually tries to answer the question with statistics. As it happens, the evidence suggests that this might actually be the case for the most competitive players!

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Interesting article Makes sense too.. who wouldn't want to eliminate Mongolia before Keshiks arrive?

 

[komodowaran]

Interesting article Makes sense too.. who wouldn't want to eliminate Mongolia before Keshiks arrive?

mongolia is ondly realy scary if u make the setings and rules so that they are
if u fix the bug that keshiks are not mounted units and alow shift then it's possible to defend agains keshiks

 

[Sharples]

It most certainly can increase your chances. But ultimately it decides on the skill base of the player.

 

[Ethansito]

I would say that playing as a strong civilization does not increase your chances of winning.
It depends on your and the other player's skills and actions.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

You can't tell me that being Poland, Babylon, or Korea doesn't increase your chances. You just get free stuff for playing them. Did you know Babs even has a bias for avoid tundra? Poland stronk. Poland very strongk.

If having free stuff doesn't tilt the game in your favour then this isn't a strategy game but the worst of all random generators: the win by poll.

The effort to use quantification is laudable, but I'm sure any statistician of your caliber knows the flaws with your method.

 

[Melchizedek]

It seems probable from my own limited experience that strong players are more willing to play weak civs. Weak players tend to use a civ with top-flight bonuses as a crutch. However, I do think strong civs give less advantage in MP than in SP, since human players will see that bonus coming and do something to blunt it.

 

[killmeplease]

 

[Lightning5555]

Playing with a stronger civ will increase your chances of winning in multiplayer, but the limiting factor will always be the users skill level. If a new person uses Washington, they are not going to get much help from their benefits versus a civ like China. With China the perks can help them stay alive or in the game by accident more or less. With advanced players of equal skill that know how to use the civs, those perk advantages become even more helpful. Picking a better civ is like picking a better pantheon or a finding more ruins. Just gives you a leg up on the competition.