Strategy for MP

[New Weird Order]

I have yet to play an MP game because I have trouble finding info on the dynamics of MP vs. single player play.

This is all I know:

An MP game is usually played on quick speed and usually plays out to about 100-120 turns and 2-4 hours.

This is what I would like to know:

Is MP essentially just a war game? (no culture, science, or diplomatic victories)

What SP habits are bad in MP?

Does a general MP game involve AI's as well, or more than 2 players?

Any advice at all would be appreciated. Once I gain a better understanding of MP, I hope to play ladder games at civplayers.com.

 

[wapamingo]

It all depends.

If you join CivPlayers League, then this is more on the competitive/aggressive side. Mind you, even though I joined I am yet to play a game (biz.trips). But have played many MP games with friends, on a non-competitive basis (so no rushing).

Since MTG is at the top of that league, try and dig out some of the strat articles he wrote as they appear to work.

From the bad habits in SP that you must avoid in MP: you are playing against SMART opponents. AI is very bad, so do not neglect military nor military base policies. You will not be able to hold off the human with only a few units.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

The best way to learn is to just jump in in the Civplayers lobby, yes reading our forums is good, though Civ5 strats are still developing, no doubt more will appear.

And while we do have some very competitive players, we have almost 200 ranked players, so most are not yet any more of an expert than anyone else

CS

 

[ddd123]

Is MP essentially just a war game? (no culture, science, or diplomatic victories)

yes
even though ofc some strategies involve outresearching the opponents

What SP habits are bad in MP?

well the usual "i get friends with everyone till i build what i have to build and research what i have to reserach then i stop my neighbours"

i think also expanding is sorta bad unless you have to really get some important resources

and ofc having no army like you do in single is bad, you have to be always ready for an attack

Does a general MP game involve AI's as well, or more than 2 players?

not ai ofc
and more than 2 players ofc
1 v1 is boring as hell

Any advice at all would be appreciated. Once I gain a better understanding of MP, I hope to play ladder games at civplayers.com.

well just start with what you find fun and try out

 

[New Weird Order]

Thanks guys. I guess I just need to get my feet wet!

 

[Meeber]

"Does a general MP game involve AI's as well, or more than 2 players?"

Well this depends on the group your playing with. In my experiance there are both players and AI's int eh game. These type of games are just more fun unless you can max out the game slots with players which is usally hard to do. But then I never play on small or medium maps. I only play large or huge.
Personally if it is just players and no AI it tends to be a bit more boring but that is just my opinon.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

In competitive MP we rarely play with AI, they are just to stupid and prove nothing, co-op MP games can be fun for some people though, but not in a competitive league.

SP in general is not good training for MP outside of just getting familar with the interface and game nmechanics, after that playing the AI just trains you to exploit the AI's weaknesses to win, something that is completely useless in MP.

CS

 

[tommynt]

U have to think about ANY mp game as if its a game of chess - the reason to play:
have fun
mess with some1 else
be fair
win

U cant neglect 1 of these 4 things - and 1 of em is winning - so dont forget - the other guys(s) WILL try to make u loose aka, kill your units, conquer cities and take workers.

Ai usually is just sitting there to wait till its gets beaten up - thats just a major difference.

Thats why most people dont stand the presure and quit mp - they are used to be the wolf - in mp they are the sheeps.
I ll eat you

 

[New Weird Order]

Well, I tried a couple of MP games. I have nothing but disdain for simultaneous turns. Gonna wait for Pitboss or PBEM.

My only ladder game I had to quit, just could not take the simultaneous turns. I did report my loss, and I am very sorry for quitting. It is not my style.

How does the strategy between simultaneous turns and say Pitboss differ? Other than the clicking party at the beginning of each turn?

 

[ddd123]

well the real difference is you know it could be a matter of "clicks" so in a normal mp game you try to avoid putting units you dont want to lose at risk

while in a pbem or something you know EXACTLY what your opponent can and cant do, so you can leave a unit in plain undefended if no one can catch you


i dont really understand what s wrong with simultaneous

i do understand ppl wont like the speed at start
i know it, ppl just dont like to be forced to move in a certain time etc etc, but its just a matter of abitude
its a matter of accepting this is the best way to do it

 

[New Weird Order]

Imagine a game of Chess with simultaneous moves. I say that due to the many comparisons to Chess that CiV players have made.

Turn based and Simultaneous turns are two completely different types of games requiring different logistical paths. One is careful planning and strategy- the other also requires these things, but is determined more often by clicking speed and the ability to maintain a furious pace.

The over 40 generation of players (me) aren't as fast and furious as the younger players, but we are smarter. I challenge ANY simultaneous player to a turn based game.

Youth and skill are no match for old age and treachery.

 

[tommynt]

u can be assured that the best mp players of league d just WTH pawn all those guys around here also with non sim moves.

The difference in beating a dumb ai where u could build up as u wish and a human player who ll move his units right into your land is just major and needs time to adapt.
And sadly not many want to adapt.

 

[New Weird Order]

I'm all for somebody coming at my first city early with 2 archers and 3 warriors or what have you. I'm all for early combat. I'm all for killing each other in the first 100 turns. I'm all for always war. I'm even all for raging barbarians.

I just don't want it to boil down to how fast I click.

 

[Cytral]

The turnbased system has its advantages

however

in mp that would take to damn long

 

[tommynt]

well its simple - u have to adapt - it not like the game isnt civ anymore just cause its sim moves - just as civ5 is still civ even when its dumbed down.

Go try it - join us as civplayers.com - and dont worry - u ll meet lot of guys who play the game in a more "casual" way - but if u want u ll meet the best of the best - and once maybe even me

 

[Slvynn]

There is logical play, psychological play behind sim moves... you cant everywhere click 1st - so you must prioritize.

Also such thing exist - called Fast move, when you give order after u press skip turn. then game performs this action automatically at start of next turn, but you should be fast with skipping turn, and that gives some vulnerability to other type of move - end turn move, is when most important actions being performed at end ot turn timer, so it hard to react for them.
But its not fast clicking it all. It is knowing game mechanics, and prioritizing moves and keeping eye on vital moves.

Toughtest players like say tommy know how to use game mechanics , and playing calm games, without trying to "click 1st". It works differently than you imagine, NWO.
'
Sorc

 

[Alphard]

.. Still think that the MOO solution was better - everyone gives commands at the same time but the commands get executed at end of turn simultaneously.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

.. Still think that the MOO solution was better - everyone gives commands at the same time but the commands get executed at end of turn simultaneously.

Just out of curiousity, how did MOO handle conflicting combat moves? ie one player moves to attack a unit, and the other player moves the unit to the next tile to avoid a possible attack. Who does MOO decide who wins?

CS

 

[Tabarnak]

The early game can be decided by fast clicking much more than later because if you have, for example, 2 cities in the beginning and you lose 1 while having 3-4 units for defence, you just lost 50% of your civ instead of later while u have 8-10 cities and much more units, and having much more decision of which one to click first. On duel map the early stage is important but on small or larger maps with more opponents you have normally more turns to expand and get a better preparation for war coming up, and fast clicking is somewhat less important if u are well prepared.

 

[Alphard]

Just out of curiousity, how did MOO handle conflicting combat moves? ie one player moves to attack a unit, and the other player moves the unit to the next tile to avoid a possible attack. Who does MOO decide who wins?
CS

Well in MOO actually the player moved whole fleets. All moves were carried out and if the units ended up at the same location, combat ensued. Same mechanics are also used for example in Sword of the Stars, andother turn based space strat.

Of-course combat was a bit different from Civ. In MOO2 once 'combat started' the participants went into a different game mode where a battlefield was opened up and they took turns in moving their ships in the fleet.

In MOO3 and Sword of the Stars the combat part was in real time (pretty slow and comfortable pace, no clickfest).

While this set-up makes for some longer turn times due to an additional phase it makes up for it with additional depth of tactical combat and greater fairness (just in my opinion) when compared to civ simultaneous moves.