How do you Defeat a Rampaging Multiplayer Opponent? Cheese it!

[strijder20]

The best part of the AP is in my opinion the hammer bonuses

1. That depends on your opponents. You need a state religion to build it and you need to have researched Theology. The religion you have when you build it becomes the state religion. Obviously it's a good thing to be the only person with that religion as you then get stronger voting power.

Well, the 'religion only you have' is obviously Christianity. Oracle/Bulb Theology or something.

 

[LeHam]

Wow, when I first created this thread I just thought it was an interesting thing to share, I didn't think it would start a whole debate.

 

[rah]

Reading this whole thread has been entertaining.
I only have a few comments.
1. DIPLO VC should be turned off in all MP games
2. If not, then it's fair game.
3. Nobody won this game.
4. There are a lot of MP games that I enjoyed but lost.
5. Play to have fun (however you accomplish that), or what's the point.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Wow, when I first created this thread I just thought it was an interesting thing to share, I didn't think it would start a whole debate.

Debates are fun though. The AP is just that controversial.

Edit: Also, Rah thanks for summarizing the whole thread; I think that's really all everyone needs to know.

 

[r_rolo1]

And calling a AP win "Cheese" in the thread title surely helped

 

[rah]

Edit: Also, Rah thanks for summarizing the whole thread; I think that's really all everyone needs to know.

damn 5 character restriction.

 

[uat2d]

You could have also tried to dogpile the Inca instead of handing over the victory to Shaka.

 

[r_rolo1]

I only have a few comments.
1. DIPLO VC should be turned off in all MP games

Well, to expand it a little, the diplo VC can be manipulated in ways that make the game extremely unbalanced

2. If not, then it's fair game.

That is the most proeminent point in here. Acepting a certain set of game rules and then cry about them when the enemy takes the cake of of your plate reeks of whine ... even if we're talking about of AP cheese , that , even being cheesy, it can be be detected miles away if you look at the game decently.

3. Nobody won this game.

No human, you mean Shaka AI did, though

4. There are a lot of MP games that I enjoyed but lost.

To be honest I don't remember a MP game that I had won, but again the MP I play are mostly 18+ civs Pitboss

5. Play to have fun (however you accomplish that), or what's the point.

True. That does not invalidate that some stuff is highly bad implemented, but again, if you're not competing with anyone, who cares ?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

2. Yeah that is true but that really depends on how "bad" the other players are. If the other players are aware of the dangers of an AP victory they will spread the AP religion throughout their empire thus gaining more voting power. To win an AP victory the winner needs 75% or more of voting power. That isn't 75% of all players but 75% of the world population. (though full members get a 2x bonus)

You're implicating things about the AP that are not true. Do you know how it works?

It's 75% of the world pop with the religion, not 75% of the world's pop. You can just spread it to the people who would otherwise react and give them no time.

3. Doing so would leave you at a disadvantage against military might and without much land to use for voting power. You also have to spread your AP religion to each and every nation. It's kinda hard to do that like a ninja without open borders with everybody.

Building AP is not a major drain on expansion or military, especially since its buildings the pay back some hammers over time. Kill this person fast or he actually gains hammers on top of the VC threat.

I'm well aware of the OB and other methods of lowering the possibility of AP cheesing, but it still exists.

I repeat then, to gain the colonies as vassals you have convince them that you are powerful enough to protect them.

Most questionable assertions about game mechanics. All you need for a colony is to settle a few cities on a different island from your capitol. No need to convince anybody of anything.

I do agree that celt choked that game away though. He easily had enough pop and time to block that resolution, and/or win votes.

 

[Cadde]

You're implicating things about the AP that are not true. Do you know how it works?

Well, i know as much about it as i could find by doing a google search. So you are saying you knew more about it than me but still chose not to give the full details on how it works and how it can be prevented?
If so, why exactly?

It's 75% of the world pop with the religion, not 75% of the world's pop. You can just spread it to the people who would otherwise react and give them no time.

Yeah ok, if i forgot to make that clear then it was a mistake. Obviously it's 75% of world pop with that religion. Still doesn't make any difference. To prevent getting AP "cheesed" you either destroy any who tries or balance out the votes so a single player can't vote for a win. If it's just you and the AP resident then you should have at least 50% of the AP religion population.

If there are more players gunning for the AP vote or voting for another member then you should make sure you have allies in a diplo game. Without allies you will get burnt by the AP votes.

Building AP is not a major drain on expansion or military, especially since its buildings the pay back some hammers over time. Kill this person fast or he actually gains hammers on top of the VC threat.

Still, it takes away from your military might as you try to gain voting power. If somebody doesn't strike then they lost their chance.
If nobody defends themselves against the AP vote then they lost the game.

Most questionable assertions about game mechanics. All you need for a colony is to settle a few cities on a different island from your capitol. No need to convince anybody of anything.

Still doesn't matter. What one does to win the AP vote, another can do just as well.
The builder of the Apostolic Palace isn't pressing an automatic "I WIN" button. Once built, anyone with full membership is a candidate and can steal the whole show away from the owner of the palace.

 

[gps]

This is a canned but extremely weak argument when someone claims a feature imbalanced. "Errrrrrrrrrrrrrr everyone can use it so it must be fine/same as other things/balanced". Actually, no, those two things do not follow. Ultimately only 1 side gets to build the AP and it is extremely powerful.

The discussion was not whether it's imbalanced, the discussion was wether the use was unfair. Which is a huge difference. And as everyone could have used it in the game or could have countered it easlily if properly aware of it's effects, I don't see an unfair advantage for anyone who actually used it.
Btw. please correct me if I am wrong here: if one is so paranoid about anyone abusing AP victories in a multiplayer game aigainst them, there is a powerful counter: theocracy. Maybe the AI won't use theocracy properly enabling what some might interpret as abusive victories in single player games. In multiplayer games it is not, because everyone should be aware of how powerful this thing can be, if used properly. So please deal with it! In most of the expert strategy articles it says 'don't bother with early religion', 'founding religion is meh' and stuff like that. Well, the AP is a strong reason not to neglect religion!

 

[Cadde]

On a side note, religion spreads and if you are the founder of a religion you can also get lots of if you spread that religion.
And if you DON'T want a "boring" diplomatic victory you should be the first to build the AP with the religion you want to have as your state religion. Then spread that religion to each and every city to ensure all have equal voting power while you ensure you hold at least 12.6% of the world population.

Say there are 30 cities on the map with average city size being 10. You would need 3 cities with 13 population to ensure nobody could vote for an AP victory.

Now, since your religion is spread in all 30 cities, you now gain +30 each turn as a bonus for being the first to have founded Christianity and having spread that religion in every city.
As long as you hold 12.6% or more of the world christian population you cannot lose to an AP vote. If you ever drop below that number then just capture another city and hold it or destroy it.
If you hold it you double your gain but it comes at the price of possibly having a broken city you don't want.

 

[rah]

In most MP games I've played, if you put that many hammers into building missionaries to spread your religion, your opponents have spent those same hammers building the army that is going to capture your shrine city.

 

[r_rolo1]

The discussion was not whether it's imbalanced, the discussion was wether the use was unfair. Which is a huge difference. And as everyone could have used it in the game or could have countered it easlily if properly aware of it's effects, I don't see an unfair advantage for anyone who actually used it.
Btw. please correct me if I am wrong here: if one is so paranoid about anyone abusing AP victories in a multiplayer game aigainst them, there is a powerful counter: theocracy. Maybe the AI won't use theocracy properly enabling what some might interpret as abusive victories in single player games. In multiplayer games it is not, because everyone should be aware of how powerful this thing can be, if used properly. So please deal with it! In most of the expert strategy articles it says 'don't bother with early religion', 'founding religion is meh' and stuff like that. Well, the AP is a strong reason not to neglect religion!

One word: events . Other word: espionage. That besides the obvious goodie of the AP hammers ....

And the "please deal with it" line of argument ... well, it is not a argument at all because it can be equally applied to unbalanced/broken stuff and to the oposite

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If events or huts are on in MP, little things like AP are irrelevant anyway.

 

[LeHam]

I would rather not have had events on, but the host decided on it and nobody else really complained. At least the AP you can see coming, but not getting randomly screwed out of your sole Iron resource in the middle of a war with a "mine collapse."

 

[gps]

And the "please deal with it" line of argument ... well, it is not a argument at all

You really kill me, it's as valid and as strong an argument as the "AP should be off in MP", which I read from so many people with a different oppinion on this issue than I have...
All these resentments many people have against events or AP from my point of view - is randomness. The fact that the victory can be taken from the top level player and given to a maybe less able player. They might be - as they feel it - unfairly beaten by someone less able than they are. If you're top level player this is bad. I can understand that. You have all my sympathy! Really!!! But for all the lesser able players this might be the very reason to play MP at all while still having a chance to win. Opening some options in what otherwise might be a futile effort. Adding some surprise to what otherwise might turn into routine. Once again verything comes down to the question whether you want to play (especially MP) games for spending some time having fun with others or for the rather determined satisfaction of your personal ego and ambition. There are both kinds of players - all I ask is a little tolerance towards the other side. And as said many times: all these options are options...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Victory by chance is less meaningful than earned victory. This is why lag compensation makes current call of duty game blow @#$!#$ $#%#.

There's no law of the universe saying a player with less ability can't beat a player with more in a straight skill game. In fact, it happens fairly often especially when one adds a team play factor. Things like lag comp or huts take away any real accomplishment from such a victory, however. I sincerely doubt anyone could beat me 1v1 if I popped HBR by turn 20 with horse and they didn't have copper. I don't see the point though; I might as well have worldbuildered to win such a game.

 

[gps]

Victory by chance is less meaningful than earned victory.

That's your opinion. Las Vegas is living proof there are other opinions...

There's no law of the universe saying a player with less ability can't beat a player with more in a straight skill game.

No, there is no law, but in a serious game of strategy and totally equal odds - like chess*) for example - it's highly unlikely and improbale that anyone with significantly less skill will ever be able to beat a better player.

I don't see the point though;

Does not prove there is no point and might tell us more about you than about the point itself. You yourself - correctly so - pointed out, there are allready many decisive elements of random character in the game. You say it's random enough, more randomness is intolerable. I say it's random anyway, who cares about two more random features - even if they might be seen als unbalanced or unfair. You say it ruins proper strategy. I say it adds a few more challenges to overcome. You say it does not belong into a game of strategy. I say it belongs into a game that tries to recreate human history in a nutshell. So who's right in the end? Don't you see, Firaxis have made their homework years ago by making all those features optional? Yes I know, they are broken anyway and should be banned and engineered out of the game...

*) I am aware of the 3% or so advantage for white in statistics, which might become relevant as soon as there is no or hardly any differnce in skill between players. Nevertheless chess has odds as close to equal as possible in an game based on alternating turns - especially when compared to the Civilization games. Which is fully sufficient for my statement.

 

[karadoc]

Chess does not have equal odds.