mp startegy discussion - post patch changes
- Thread starter MasterMishi
- Start date
irons with chemistry are nice too
Indeed. A detour to chemistry is ok if you have to wait some turns before getting a gs in time for Rifles, or if you just have no problem with defence/offence.
all these "mp strategies" seem to be more like "how to build up".
What u guys lack is experience vs good/better players who WILL stop your plans by aggresivly attacking, killing workers/settlers and so on.
Sadly only reaction of people of the kind posting here to a good player is quitting ....
What u guys lack is experience vs good/better players who WILL stop your plans by aggresivly attacking, killing workers/settlers and so on.
Sadly only reaction of people of the kind posting here to a good player is quitting ....
We are awarded of that. From every patch, it's always almost the same thing. We don't talk about the obvious, we talk about new stuff from the patch. Do you really think we don't know how to harrass players in early turns? Pfff come on. Stop the lame comments and be a man.
Multiplayer offers more than rushing warriors and spearmen and acting like a barbarian everytime. On larger maps than tiny and barbs, your lame strategies don't work well.
Our strategies implies a strong base talked from month ago about how to survive these basic rushes and the possibility to reach iron fast enough without losing expansion rate and so on. Why are you not playing in the civplayers ladder btw? Lost of interest? You stayed idle for a very long time.
Tommy, early aggression from neighbors is easily defended by a superior economy that switches to army. Building that superior economy in any situation is key for a Civ player. The walking time from their Civ to yours gives you enough time to respond, if your production is higher. Destruction of early enemy warriors/scouts enables you to not have to worry about settler/worker harass. I many times get shocked responses when I DoW just to kill a scout. The real purpose is to protect my worker, and I am happy to offer peace afterwards. Any enemy unit within 10 tiles of my capital is liable to be destroyed.
I also do not like enemy units to scout my territory, as good scouting leads to better battle plans. In the absence of scouting, the enemy will make tactical mistakes that could've been avoided, if they had more information.
I also do not like enemy units to scout my territory, as good scouting leads to better battle plans. In the absence of scouting, the enemy will make tactical mistakes that could've been avoided, if they had more information.
i'd love to see you challenge some of these guys like Smote to a match. back up those strong words!
Kyp Durron
CP5
Tommy, sure you can win a FFA with a league style kill em all, but its much more interesting in my book to win via other methods.
I know Tommy is a great player but i feel that he's too much oriented for one kind of game i.e. 2-4 players pangea no barbs. Kyp got it right. Much more fun if you can do things differently. What about continents, archipelago,etc? It's fun maps and you have to learn more deep strategies involving diplomacy and trades sometimes. Games don't always finish at Steel you know...
I truly wonder how many anc mp games u finished by killing some1 with rifles or even tanks, considering the huge amount of:
-quitters
-noobs
-seminoobs
-crashes
-huge turn times
- ....
- ....
- 1001 more mp civ5 problems
I hate scraped/nonended games ... thats why even thinking about starting a civ5 mp game with more then 5 players and a timeframe with 100+ turns is just pointless.
I had 95%+ win on civ5 ladder, was for multiple years dominant in both civ3 and civ4 mp (espacially civ4 vanilla), won some of these HOF and GOTM events around civfanatics.
U can be pretty sure that I know what I m talking about ...
Well all I wanted say is that a discussion about "strats" which just doesnt include opponents is pointless, sure u can argue about playing on continents or so but this is more like playing sp then mp ...
also the 7 player games where 4 quit after severall turns and u can finish the rest of after 3 hours ... well thats not the kind of game where u should rate the effectiveness of strats on.
BTW the only good thing about civ5 mp in comparision to other civs is the later era starts, try em ..
I had one strategy that was a "helicopter rush" to science victory in one city challenge. The helicopter rush would win domination if I was significantly ahead in tech, otherwise, it would simply pillage all of my opponents hexes. One of the key points of it was that it was hilarious! The reason to do it over mech rush was that it gave hydro plant and research lab, which enables a big production boost and ~50% more beakers per turn. Aluminum is generally accessible either in capital's 5hex radius, or else in a city state's possession. If not available, curse luck, bunker up w/ Mechs and science vic.
The helicopters would come out around turn 160. It probably wouldn't be as effective now, since Modern era techs cost more than they used to, so I would have to make it a more basic Mech Infantry rush. I found that this rush was safer than a rifle rush, which frequently failed due to oligarchy and other defender advantages.
In current CiV, I think rifle rush takes on increasing importance for both offense and defense, because of the huge oligarchy nerf. I believe Rifling is a required tech now, cannons+oligarchy+a couple other units have much more trouble defending vs rifles.
Playing with no barbarians is a completely different game from with barbarians as well. With no barbarians, longer settler travel times are allowable, to settle on distant luxuries. Temporarily skimping on military to create further economic advantage is possible. Travelling across the map to invade an opponent while leaving no troops at home to protect against barbarians is also possible. This causes a need for a faster race, with more gambles, either for military and a quick rush, or for a quick econ.
Personally, I prefer barbarians. CiV simply feels hollow without them.
Barbarians are harder nowadays too; soloing a barbarian encampment with a warrior is now only possible on plains/marsh, and is extremely risky/ill-advised on rough terrain. This is because the barbarians used to re-fortify every other turn, switching between 25% and 50% fortify. Now they stay at 50%, always. This means that the 2nd unit is sometimes required, even before turn 11.
The funny thing is that despite many of my strategies being peaceful econ strategies, everyone labels me an aggressive warmonger because I believe in unit efficiency
It is inefficient to build a unit if it is not going to be used!
The helicopters would come out around turn 160. It probably wouldn't be as effective now, since Modern era techs cost more than they used to, so I would have to make it a more basic Mech Infantry rush. I found that this rush was safer than a rifle rush, which frequently failed due to oligarchy and other defender advantages.
In current CiV, I think rifle rush takes on increasing importance for both offense and defense, because of the huge oligarchy nerf. I believe Rifling is a required tech now, cannons+oligarchy+a couple other units have much more trouble defending vs rifles.
Playing with no barbarians is a completely different game from with barbarians as well. With no barbarians, longer settler travel times are allowable, to settle on distant luxuries. Temporarily skimping on military to create further economic advantage is possible. Travelling across the map to invade an opponent while leaving no troops at home to protect against barbarians is also possible. This causes a need for a faster race, with more gambles, either for military and a quick rush, or for a quick econ.
Personally, I prefer barbarians. CiV simply feels hollow without them.
Barbarians are harder nowadays too; soloing a barbarian encampment with a warrior is now only possible on plains/marsh, and is extremely risky/ill-advised on rough terrain. This is because the barbarians used to re-fortify every other turn, switching between 25% and 50% fortify. Now they stay at 50%, always. This means that the 2nd unit is sometimes required, even before turn 11.
The funny thing is that despite many of my strategies being peaceful econ strategies, everyone labels me an aggressive warmonger because I believe in unit efficiency
It is inefficient to build a unit if it is not going to be used!Strategies imply long term investments as well. From land shape and kind of opponents you have around, you have to build your way for survival to get an advantage somewhere in the game. This advantage may be got very early, and sometimes this can be only obtained(or you want to play defensively until then) later with stronger units and defense.
Technically speaking, I find Landed Elite very useful to get high protection for your cities(more they grow, more they get strengh). I mean 17-18 strengh cities(with walls) around 1000 BC are impenetrable for a long period of time. Ranged attacks are stronger also. Oligarhy is suddenly powerful enough.
I play with good players almost all the time(maybe not the best in the world, but hey i just want to have fun) and i lose games like everyone. Nothing is perfect, like the crappy land you get in some games. Iron is a must, and with no iron you can be automatically doomed. That said, playing later eras is certainly more balanced.
The bad part of this game is when you play 50+ turns and suddenly it all stops...
You should start a new thread Tommy or a long post and explain in details what you do. We will read this with interest.
Technically speaking, I find Landed Elite very useful to get high protection for your cities(more they grow, more they get strengh). I mean 17-18 strengh cities(with walls) around 1000 BC are impenetrable for a long period of time. Ranged attacks are stronger also. Oligarhy is suddenly powerful enough.
I play with good players almost all the time(maybe not the best in the world, but hey i just want to have fun) and i lose games like everyone. Nothing is perfect, like the crappy land you get in some games. Iron is a must, and with no iron you can be automatically doomed. That said, playing later eras is certainly more balanced.
The bad part of this game is when you play 50+ turns and suddenly it all stops...
You should start a new thread Tommy or a long post and explain in details what you do. We will read this with interest.
Similar threads
