Multiplayer

[Ecofarm]

MP games generally last 1-3 hours. Blazing timer is lame. I dont mind playing on medium timer and find games end at 1-3 hours regardless of timer speed.

I rarely see knights, and then I think only on medieval starts. Alot of people play island games, so the need for galleons might send final wars into the medieval era.

My current favorite map for teams is tiny inland sea, 3v3. This is because there are only 2 avenues of attack, and 1 of the civs on each side is back in the corner (not on the frontline). This 'backman' civ is probably the most important to the win, but the frontline civs are generally more fun to play (at least for a warmonger). Average time to finish game on this setting is .5 - 2 hours. Generally, in your team's 3 civs, you want 3 different ancient UU, choose from: Mansa, Cyrus, Shaka, Augustus, Hat, Ram, Alex. Some people are such god builders, that they can play non-ancient UU and still pull more than their fair weight (most wonders work for everyone on the team, rapid expanders can donate/bring alot of troops in mid-game). Things get really exciting when your builder is a frontline, and both UU civs need to get troops to him ASAP, while still setting out LPOP (listening/observation posts) ahead of the other front line. If you are aware of when and where they build wonders, and have decent notice of an invading force, you can probably focus military assets at the builder civ and attack unexpectedly.

As a general policy, as soon as someone hooks up their UU, they send the 1st 1-2 built to the other front, and vice versa. You kind of need to establish which front you will launch your attack from and concentrate assets to one front. If the enemy does not recognize this and fortifiy with full_team assets, or launch a commando force at the other front, you stand a good chance of flat running them over.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Are there any Strategy or Tips in this article?

The style of multiplayer game described sounds about as much fun as eating dirt. There are so many RTS games out there if what you want is multiplayer tactical combat.

 

[Ecofarm]

The article is a tip on how to play a 3v3 inland sea teamer. It seems that anything short of an oracle sling followed by multiple GP lightbulbs, wonders, liberalism, and a space race is not strategy with some of you people. You might think it's like eating dirt, but if you go to the multiplayer lobby, there is always 1 (or more of them) starting. So, apparently, alot of people disagree with you. Multiplayer tactical combat is just one facet of the game, and I enjoy it.

Why dont you take ur bad attitude and....

 

[DaviddesJ]

If you say so. I still can't find any tips in it, except maybe, "You kind of need to establish which front you will launch your attack from and concentrate assets to one front." Is that the essence of your advice?

 

[Ecofarm]

I say so.
Many MP newbies have no idea how to execute the scenario.

Ancient UU diversity.
Distribution of UUs to teamates.
Proper, and planned use of the 'backman'.
Wonders work for every member of the team.
Fast support of your builder if he is frontline.

I'd add: pay attention to starting techs and leader traits, they can work synergistically. Will your team start with scouts or warriors, and what starting techs lend themselves to which later techs (a team researches together).

People often fail to do one or all of these things.

In regard to my interest in civ4 as a MP tactical warfare platform:
People often mention that one weak aspect of civ4 is that the AI has no idea how to wage war. Well, a simple way to fix that is - play against people. If you enjoy warmongering, but get tired of upping the difficulty by giving the AI more troops to mismanage, this is a great way to increase the challange in a more meaningful manner.


There is no need for further response from you, David.

If anyone wants to post tips about their favorite MP maps, civs, ladder (tournament) games, or have strategies - I would like to hear from them.

 

[Galileo44]

Yes, I agree that inland sea 3v3 is my favorite map. I find that when I am the builder I can really control the game. I send units (mostly cats) to my allies when they need help, but I can grow much larger. In a game I played the other day, by the end, my production was 4 times that of the next highest person. They have no chance when you start pumping out that many units. The frontline people are obligated to defend the frontlines to let the backline person build up a great base, while the backline supplies some help. Then, around maces/cats/maybe trebs, the backline player explodes concentrating a 2v1 on one side of the map. This can easily take out an opponent, and if one goes down, then they all will. My team won that game even though one of the frontline guys lost 2 cities only 4 turns before my reinforcements got there. It is the synergy between front and back and the understanding of the dominant period of each civ that wins or loses the game.

EDIT:Another thing is that staying on the warpath can really distract other players. If you attack them constantly, they just automatically queue up more units. A late Hanging Gardens when your team has 15 cities is game breaking. Just the population used in whipping is astounding, as that is equal to about 10 catapults, and with stone, the wonder is only equal to about half of that.

 

[DaviddesJ]

A late Hanging Gardens when your team has 15 cities is game breaking. Just the population used in whipping is astounding, as that is equal to about 10 catapults, and with stone, the wonder is only equal to about half of that.

But you have to build a (not very useful) Aqueduct, in order to build the Hanging Gardens, so that almost doubles the cost.

 

[Ecofarm]

True, this post is lacking in tips and strats, but I needed to get this off my mind and the thread title is Multiplayer. The tip is - try MP.

An SP game just reminded me why taking an MP break can be so necessary.

I DoW an AI. During the war, he leaves units lingering around, for no apparent reason, to be killed by whatever units I have en route / defending cities. Why does he do this? It's not like that unit could not get out of my range in time - it just wandered around until something killed it. Then, I lay seige on a city that is a 10 population. It takes 5 turns to take the city, during this time, the AI does not whip 1 SINGLE UNIT. It could have at least whipped 1 unit every other turn. Heck, with a 10 populaion, he could whip units that weren't started yet. I suppose he was in caste system, and figured that saving his second largest city was not worth slowing down his research on Education. City after city gets razed/captured and not one loses a population during the entire course of the war. I wonder if he ever did get the tech that was so important.

Lastly, my favorite AI tactic. You are at war with an AI and it looks like you will win, unless he starts whipping units and/or gets another civ to join in. Then, without warning, the AI employes one of the most feared counter-attacks known to man! The settler rush. Boy, if I hadn't sent 1-2 units over to kill that settler/city and his 2 archer escort, who knows? Maybe in 10000 years, that city would have overrun my empire. But I guess we will never know, because it's gone and now I have a bunch of 10 pop cities and a new target. You think he would have whipped ANYTHING just so the city I capture isn't ready to whip a ton of troops for me to use against the next guy. Besides, razing 10+ pop cities because my economy can't take it is such a waste of perfectly good slaves - it makes me sad


Trying to make war more challenging with difficulty level just increases stack sizes, or forces you to attack with inferior units because you are outteched (which can be fun, but gets old).

PS. Don't even get me started about the AI declaring war. Instead of that ominous sound that occurs, the sound should be that of an Ice Cream Truck (xp delivery, anyone?). I'm going to try some builder strats, I heard that DoW can actually be a bad thing.

Ok, one more thing. Would it kill the AI to hit me with those cats sitting in the city? Doesn't it know that cats are terrible as passive defenders, but can cripple an invading army if used actively? It seems that unless the AI calculates a landslide victory, it turtles. If the AI would whip a couple cats, and slam them into me, it could stop my seige cold.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Trying to make war more challenging with difficulty level just increases stack sizes, or forces you to attack with inferior units because you are outteched (which can be fun, but gets old).

War is only a minor element of Civ4. I think it's true that, if you want the most interesting tactical wargame on your computer, Civ4 isn't it.

 

[Ecofarm]

War is much fun on MP. As far as Civ4 not being good for MP tactical/strategic combat - go read the thread titled "what I learned from starcraft". Many posts there say Civ4 is better. I like to have to worry about economy, research, and other factors during the war. I like teamates that have different attributes in each of these catagories. I like having to synergize all those characteristics into a team_plan. I don't know why you think Civ4 is such a crappy MP war game. You can change maps, settings, starting era, civs, and countless other things to enjoy the entire scope of the game, even in MP. And guess what? You still have to maneuver the other aspects of the game - even if conquest is the overwhelming favorite victory condition. Using the earth map, I've heard of a several people playing for over 12 hours, and ending in a blazing nuclear war (I'm sure that sounds like eating dirt to a 'play by myself and master a script that beats the code' player). Is it only fun for you by urself? Sounds like a personal problem.


Civ4 rocks as an MP wargame! That's why there are dozens of people in the multiplayer lobby all the time. Besides, I don't have any interest or need to learn a different game and I doubt any other has as much to offer as Civ in regard to environmental variety.


Btw, in SP, War is not a minor element in a conquest or domination victory, which accounts for 1/3 of possible victory conditions. Even in "peaceful" victories, an early war is critical. It is just as important as slingshots, wonder building, and the other aspects of the game - none stand alone. In case you didn't notice, the only expansion thusfar - is almost all about war (note the title). Maybe the next expansion pack will will titled "SlingLords" or "AI behavior lords", but until then...

 

[DaviddesJ]

War is much fun on MP.

Glad you like it. Different people like different things.

Civ4 rocks as an MP wargame! That's why there are dozens of people in the multiplayer lobby all the time.

And, at the same time, there are thousands of people playing Civ by themselves at home. What does that prove?

Btw, in SP, War is not a minor element in a conquest or domination victory

Yes, it is.

 

[Ecofarm]

I never said that SP was inferior to MP, in total. You did say that Civ4 was inferior to other MP games, in total. All those people in the lobby prove that there are those who think otherwise.

 

[DaviddesJ]

You did say that Civ4 was inferior to other MP games, in total.

No, I didn't.

 

[Ecofarm]

War is only a minor element of Civ4. I think it's true that, if you want the most interesting tactical wargame on your computer, Civ4 isn't it.

All those people in the lobby think it is.

Additionally, you can use MP to play as a team against AIs. True, MP can also be about culture and space race victories, but I've never heard of an MP game ending like that - so guess why all those people are there..... let me help you: Because Civ4 is a very interesting MP wargame. This is not the anti-Civfanatics forum, is it?

What's the matter? Do all your perfect scripts fall apart as soon as the opponent does not behave as coded? Why do you hate MP so much. I know it lacks diplomacy, but not entirely. People will often agree to team up (sometimes to my dismay ) - especially if a civ is about to be whiped out and that makes another vurnable. True, tech trading is often turned off, so that people cannot team up too much in FFA (free for all, or "everyone for themsevles") games. Does that bother you? No researching techs you don't even need just to manipulate the trading/AI behavior code?

Perhaps you just have too much time invested in memorizing the AI code to play without it.

 

[DaviddesJ]

All those people in the lobby think it is.

Sure. But they are 1/1000 of the number of players of more popular online multiplayer strategy games. I think they should enjoy it, if they enjoy it. I just don't think it's surprising that it has relatively limited appeal.

 

[Ecofarm]

Popularity is the measure of worth? I find that, more often, popularity is a measure of simplicity.

The cow says: "MOO00oo".

 

[DaviddesJ]

Popularity is the measure of worth? I find that, more often, popularity is a measure of simplicity.

You're the one who is arguing that MP Civ4 is great because of all of the people in the lobby looking to play it. Not me.

 

[Ecofarm]

I argue that it is great for all the reasons I outlined (post #10 this thread, and elsewhere). I offer that the people in the lobby agree with me because you offer only your own, unsupported opinion that it is not. Perhaps if you gave me more than your unsupported opinion, we'd have something to debate. The fact that many people play other games is hardly relavent.

 

[Atlas]

Daviddesj you are not adding anything to this thread, just argument. You don't seem to like MP or this thread so stop posting here.

@Ecofarm- Here is a thread I wrote about Ancient MP http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=203782

tell me what you think?

 

[Ecofarm]

There is another link at the beginning of that one. I'll post it here so anyone who wants to jump in on the discussion can get up to speed. I'm so glad to have found previous threads on MP!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=176505

And then the one that Atlas just posted (no need to repeat it but now they are in order and simple for others to get up to speed)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=203782

My comments are forthcomming. I probably have missused that word, I'm so excited!