Multiplayer: Extremely Basic Small Tips

[wc3promet]

10. This from the guy who two days ago said wonder rushing was the way to win the game. Glad you are learning!

Again I would ask that you stop playing random players on Gamespy and using these anecdotal games as "evidence" for your great MP strategies. Play the better players and you will learn a few things. I certainly did.

Dear Islandia,
Perhaps you were mistaken. Since I'm in a rush, I will refute Point #10 of your post. I did mention it in my "Wonder rushing Post" that Wonder rushers will definitely win if they don't engage in Early war.

Now the logic goes like this:

1) If you rush for Wonders AND you don't get attacked ->
The benefits will slowly pay off per turn.

2) If you don't get attacked early->
EITHER you experience the benefits of the wonder & your economy/military takes time to recover from the lost turns OR you experience accumulative benefits from the wonder & the wonders slowly "pays off for its production cost".

3) If you rush for Wonders AND you get attacked early->
You EITHER stop building the wonder and swap to building troops OR allow your economy to take a dive OR you lose the game.

4) If a player doesn't get attacked the entire game AND he chooses not to build an army AND he chooses to mass wonders->
Wouldn't he have more gold per turn as compared to equivalent population enemy Civ?
Wouldn't he have more Great People?
Wouldn't he have a higher chance of being more technically advanced?
Wouldn't he have a higher chance to get a higher a cultural rating?
Wouldn't he win in a game with the Default settings?

In addition, I'm not here to explain about human psychology, the destiny theory and why Human_A wants to inflict death and destruction upon Human_B while letting Human_C gain from the conflict. Also, I'm not omniscient.

 

[wc3promet]

A question to the Multi-Players. (I don't play much but would like to start)

How long is the typical game?

GameSpy's Games (not PBEM)
For 130 Turns Ladder Games -> 45 min
Small/Tiny/Duel Sized Maps -> 1 to 6 hours
Others -> They will end within 16 hours because someone has to go to bed/work/eat.

Do they make it out of the Ancient Era?

Yes and no. Players caught in an undesirable situation will more or less be eliminated before the start of the Classical Era.

Ladder games normally make it to the Classical Era.

If not is is due to discrepency in skill or just that people give up when behind?

Since this is not an RTS game, games tend to take up "more time". Since Real life goes on, it should take a higher priority than a game. Thus, the quitting.

Do you ONLY play with other people or a mix of Human and AI counterparts to provide somewhat of a buffer to the fast and early rush.

Anything that functions using AI is entirely random, all if not most ladder games disable AI Players. Once the AI takes over a player slot, the random factor of the game increases.

Nothing buffers an fast and early rush except LUCK.

Does there seem to be a pattern in players (Example Early Rusher, Builder, Fast Expander) or are there a lot of players who do adapt to the situation?

Attempt to adapt. Eventually, LUCK is still the determining factor.

Do you think a good single player who is aware of the "Early Rush" type strategy has a chance of winning MP if they effectively combat it or are there additional pitfalls common to the MP game?

A better chance. The best defence is an good offence.

If some of these questions don't make sense why?

Interesting discussion so far. I'd like to point out that some of these strategies work very well in Single Player as well.

All questions make sense when asked politely, so your questions are sensible.

 

[chriseay]

GameSpy's Games (not PBEM)
For 130 Turns Ladder Games -> 45 min
Small/Tiny/Duel Sized Maps -> 1 to 6 hours
Others -> They will end within 16 hours because someone has to go to bed/work/eat.

I find this is a little off on the ladder games. Normally for me a 4 - 6 person game will take about 1.5 - 2 hours, and 7 - 10 person game (never played with more than 10) will take about 4 hours.

I do prefer team games, so that may be why my games take longer. Games with strategizing and coordinated movement between teamates will always take longer than ffa's. To anyone out there just getting into MP or ladder play, try a team game. It is easier to learn the basics of MP, and the game will most likely last longer as you will have teamates to help in case of attack and to guide you on strategy decisions.

 

[Islandia]

4) If a player doesn't get attacked the entire game AND he chooses not to build an army AND he chooses to mass wonders->
Wouldn't he have more gold per turn as compared to equivalent population enemy Civ?
Wouldn't he have more Great People?
Wouldn't he have a higher chance of being more technically advanced?
Wouldn't he have a higher chance to get a higher a cultural rating?
Wouldn't he win in a game with the Default settings?

In addition, I'm not here to explain about human psychology, the destiny theory and why Human_A wants to inflict death and destruction upon Human_B while letting Human_C gain from the conflict. Also, I'm not omniscient.

Here is the crux of the issue. Rather than attribute someone's win to "being a wonder rusher" or "being a choker" or "being a really great warmonger" wouldn't it be wiser to just look at the underlying issue? In an FFA game the person who does not get attacked, whether he or she then chooses to pursue a tech path, a military path, or a wonders and building type path, will always have an advantage over those who are attacked early and often. The difference then is in the skill of the player whether he or she responds well to adversity as well as prosperity. The good well rounded player will be able to win these types of games due to being able to respond to early attacks and take over more land from their erstwhile aggressors, at the same time if he or she gets a starting position where no aggression occurs, then the strategy adapts to that situation and morphs into a wonder building and cultural development strategy.

In short, the game is a combination of skill, luck and diplomacy where the better players can make those three things converge more often than the poorer players. There is no overpowered strategy, and no overpowered civs/leaders (well other than planting capital on a horse egypt that they fixed last patch).

 

[madmaven]

In short, the game is a combination of skill, luck and diplomacy where the better players can make those three things converge more often than the poorer players. There is no overpowered strategy, and no overpowered civs/leaders (well other than planting capital on a horse egypt that they fixed last patch).

I agree with this. I'm not the greatest player, but I think the game is too intricate to site one simple strategy over another as a way to dominate. And it seems like that's what most of these threads are. The best players are the ones who come up with the best strategy for each game, rather than sit on one strategy and expect to win every time or complain when they lose every time.

 

[DangerousMonkey]

Yeah, sorry Islandia, in retrospec I have no idea where I got the notion that you counciled against early rushes. I must have gotten mixed up, and I am quite red in the face here.

But actually, if you do want to play a 1v1 duel that would be great. I'm always on the lookout for good players to test my skills against. I've just dropped you an email, we should play an IP game.

 

[kernok]

yeah you're right main poster:
attack your ennemy as soon as possible this is the point!
multiplayers games shouldn't run past the five first minutes
civilization is a good game but in the very begining: if you have to deal with diplomacy, exploration, culture science it becomes soooooo boring.
better do the job with plenty warrior and only a few archers
....
i don't know why they did such a deep game... only warriors are usefull
maybe you should play FPS or quick RTS instead of posting such silly tactics!!!!!!!!

 

[kernok]

my tips: enjoy the game without feeling the greatest general of all times
attack, defend, expand but don't rely on rush cuz it will only be enjoyable once!

 

[kill-9]

As I recall, Civ III offered the option of "No war before x era". Does Civ IV also have this option?

 

[Islandia]

As I recall, Civ III offered the option of "No war before x era". Does Civ IV also have this option?

There is an always peace option. Kind of funny when it is accidently checked and everyone goes WTH after meeting.

 

[Islandia]

Yeah, sorry Islandia, in retrospec I have no idea where I got the notion that you counciled against early rushes. I must have gotten mixed up, and I am quite red in the face here.

But actually, if you do want to play a 1v1 duel that would be great. I'm always on the lookout for good players to test my skills against. I've just dropped you an email, we should play an IP game.

I will email you after the holidays (no time right now for a long game). Should probably wait for the next patch before we play too as it fixes a few pretty critical things in my mind having to do with ladder (edit or shorter multiplayer i.e. turn limited) games.

 

[Finite Monkey]

GameSpy's Games (not PBEM)

All questions make sense when asked politely, so your questions are sensible.

Thanks for your replies! Do you all play MP under the handles you have here? If so if I get the chance I'd like to join one of your games.

I won't even mind the first time or two when I get early rushed into oblivion as it will only lead to better strategy. Adapt and overcome and all that jazz.

 

[Islandia]

Thanks for your replies! Do you all play MP under the handles you have here? If so if I get the chance I'd like to join one of your games.

I won't even mind the first time or two when I get early rushed into oblivion as it will only lead to better strategy. Adapt and overcome and all that jazz.

The very first multiplayer game I played I learned these things - turn off unit animations for attack and defense. Select stack attack. Select minimize popups. If you do not do these things you will lose and lose badly because people will double move on you while you are still scrolling around your cities picking buildings and new techs.

 

[Finite Monkey]

The very first multiplayer game I played I learned these things - turn off unit animations for attack and defense. Select stack attack. Select minimize popups. If you do not do these things you will lose and lose badly because people will double move on you while you are still scrolling around your cities picking buildings and new techs.

Ah, I hadn't thought of that and it makes a lot of sense thanks for the advice. What exactly is a ladder game?

Outside of team games do you find you can ever form an alliance that doesn't result in a backstab?

 

[kill-9]

There is an always peace option. Kind of funny when it is accidently checked and everyone goes WTH after meeting.

So it's either all war or all peace? No delayed war?

 

[Islandia]

Ah, I hadn't thought of that and it makes a lot of sense thanks for the advice. What exactly is a ladder game?

Outside of team games do you find you can ever form an alliance that doesn't result in a backstab?

You can find out more about ladder games here http://www.myleague.com/civ4players

In my opinion, ladder games are not really civ games. They are usually played on a map in which every civ is connected (lakes, pangaea, inland sea) and are turn limited (usually 120-150). Settings are almost always quick speed turn timer fast or blazing, 2 cities elimination (if someone takes two of your cities you are out of the game). Many of the strategies for these types of games involve quickly rushing your neighbors and beating them down with a big stick. Unbalanced factors such as lack of metal/horses near your capital can be a killer. Strange, non long term winning tactics such as spamming cities on the last turn (turn 119) and then hitting them with great artists to get more land area, mass deforestation, and suboptimal city placements are very common.

They contrast very sharply with the single player more "epic" gaming experience of civ, which is why I have lately been doing more private games with close friends playing the continents normal/epic settings. That said however, if I am looking for a 2-3 hour game of civ, I would highly recommend ladder games over randomly picking up a game on gamespy where you are bound to have people quitting if they don't like their start spot or get attacked in the first few turns. Ladder players as a whole are more prone to stick it out (because if you leave you need to report a loss), and are probably better than your average gamespy player.

There are many other ladder players who post here so they probably have a different opinion of ladder games than I do and I would not want you to be unduly influenced by my opinion. And for the record I do play a whole bunch of ladder games and enjoy them. My game play even in SP and normal MP games has improved significantly as a result of playing ladder matches.

As to your second question, every pickup non ladder game I've played I have been backstabbed by my ally(s) as soon as they saw that I had a point and tech lead and they have then promptly quit the game when losing the ensuing war, but again don't let my experiences color your own judgment

 

[Cicer0]

Should probably wait for the next patch before we play too as it fixes a few pretty critical things

Do you have a link to what's supposed to be in the next patch?

 

[Islandia]

Do you have a link to what's supposed to be in the next patch?

Don't think they've released one yet.

 

[Cicer0]

Don't think they've released one yet.

Then how do you know it's going to fix critical things?

 

[wc3promet]

Added Tips #11 and #12.