Strategy Library on fastmoves.de
- Thread starter real_jobe
- Start date
And hear you are telling me it is not about fast thinking!
Anyway, I think you are mistaken to claim that everything, all the differences between SP and MP are because of AI. I'll give you one counter-example: Starting units.
The AI has no choice regarding what units it starts with. In MP you don't have to deal with another playing starting off with 2 settlers like a Deity AI would. If you were to be pedantic I suppose you could argue that the rule differences between SP and MP are because of the AI.
What about the cheat-vision range of AI units? That is actually an advantage for AIs in single player so when you go from SP to MP you would need to remind yourself that the destroyer 7 tiles away can't actually see your loaded galleon (yet!
).To make my position a bit more clear... I originally said to not attribute too many of the differences between SP and MP to AI properties that you can exploit in SP that you can't in MP. There are things in MP that you can take advantage of that you can't in SP.
In other words, it's not fair to generalise and say that all those switching from SP to MP gameplay need to adjust solely because they were playing a game where they enjoyed more privileges and securities. Some of the things they've gotten used to having to deal with in SP they no longer have to deal with in MP and so it is actually the experienced MP players exploiting the unique rules of MP to outplay the SP-veteran-MP-rookie. Don't get me wrong - I agree that many of the reasons the SP player needs to adjust to MP is that he was playing an inferior opponent before where he no longer can, and that this is probably the most important part of the adapting process. I'm just saying the AI failings being exploited is not the whole story.
One more thing. If the only differences between simultaneous turn MP and turn based SP were because of AI, then it would follow that PBEM MP and simultaneous turn MP would play out the same. I don't think that's accurate.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Not a single bit, even if because of the time constraints. I have passed dozens of hours discussing strats for a single pitboss game with allies, to the point of discussing other people MMThey would if they same players were involved.
That is simply impossible in more fast paced games, as it is impossible to do most of the squeezing you can do from the interface via external calculations if you only have 45 s per turn 
On the SP-MP stuff: I guess that a
post I read in the Civ III area applies well: SP is like playing chess against a 6-year old that has all the pawns replaced by queens .... while MP is basically common chess. It is true that you can take advantage of the AI dumbness, but the AI has the bonus of not being smart enough to be decieved like humans can be ( and the AI will not enter in panic as well ). This alone makes SP and MP completely diferent beasts.
They would if they same players were involved
If you saw the way I played PBEMs I don't think you'd agree. As a quick example, if I was playing a time-limited turn do you think I would go around signposting various things like the amount of culture on a tile (so I can calculate how fast an opponent is accumulating culture) or how many rival units I spotted on tile X on turn Y? Heck would I even go around naming units like Barb butcherer to instill fear into my enemies? Would I use a lot of spies and espionage that require extremely tedious micromanagement (getting them to the 50% stationary discount)? Would I manage all my cities each turn, occasionally noticing that I can grow a city a turn earlier by switching one tile?
If your point is that regardless of how much fiddling I do in turn-based MP I would still beat the same people and lose to the same people in simultaneous MP then you may be right, but it doesn't change the fact I play a time relaxed and a time constrained turn differently.
No, PBEM MP and simultaneous turn MP are not the same thing. In the former real time doesn't count while in the last counts and much.
In non-simultaneous the player has time to think and can play the turn the way he likes; in simultaneous little time to think and must play first the things he cannot do later; combat is truly real time, the faster to act does his move the other player don't.
Believe me I lost enough simultaneous to know they are different.
In non-simultaneous the player has time to think and can play the turn the way he likes; in simultaneous little time to think and must play first the things he cannot do later; combat is truly real time, the faster to act does his move the other player don't.
Believe me I lost enough simultaneous to know they are different.
I really wish you could see the amount of microing done in a mp game. There is no way i could micro more in a PBEM with 10 hours per turn then I do with 2 minutes per turn in an Ironman. Every city is microed every turn, all of the aspects you mention and many more are kept in mind without using any signs on the map. It´s all a matter of trainign and overall skill. Sure you can argument that there is a 2,3 or maybe 5% difference in the micro level after all, but that is true for both sides in the game. Overall a high-level Ironman would look almost the same, no matter whether played live or via pbem.
as a simple example take this 5v5 Ironman game - the micro level couldn´t be any higher if it was PBEM or Pitboss.
@fed1943: You know that you are not exactly the fastest, nor the skillfulest player - you had trouble keeping up with the timer since you started - which is nothing to be ashamed of, but don´t generalize that and its effects to all nor even a majority of players.
All I´m trying to say is that timer, simultaenous turns etc. almost don´t play ANY role once you play high level mp civ. Its role is that marginal that I´m really reluctant to let statements to the contrary stand unchallenged here, evne if I seem obtrusive or pushy through stating that over and over again.
Indiansmoke
Deity
Jobe already explained it and believe me it is like that. All the things you need hours to do, experts do it in seconds...but most importantly they come up with things that don't even cross your mind even if you have all the time in the world...
It is all about experience...how many PBEM's have you played? Top players in the league have more than 2.000 -3.000 games...
How many discussions have you had with others about your choices in PBEM's...how many arguments have you had about whether this or that was wrong, how many times have you analysed your games with others? Top players are in clans, they think collectivelly, they exchange ideas and discuss them. Many experienced minds mingle together to find optimal strategies and tactics!
That is something I could agree with because you've now included an important qualifier, which I bolded above.
Reaching high level simultaneous turn MP requires you to be quite skilled at playing well under very real time constraints. Whether that be through natural talent or through a long (or short!) process of learning and gaining experience doesn't matter - it's still needed.
For those people who are able to play well under (for example, 2 minute) limited turn times, it is quite natural to expect them to also play well when they have no turn timer at all. At worst, they would do just as well as if they were playing a turn timed game.
The same cannot be said for the other direction, of course. For those who cannot comfortably play in such short turn times it is not always reasonable to expect them to just play more games so they get more experienced. For one, not everyone has unlimited time available to train as much as is required to reach high level MP. People learn at different speeds too.
I think it is a fair point to raise that the extra MM that is possible in a turn based game is of marginal benefit (most single player micromanagers including myself concede that many types of micromanaging have little effect - almost certainly less than 5%) but that is actually missing the point.
Some people are just slower than others at any mental task. Putting them under any time limit at all can be enough to put them under pressure and cause them to not think as clearly as they'd like. You seem to have great faith that these people can become fast enough with practise. That I too could agree with but that fact they have to practise at all could be the obstacle, for time reasons I mentioned earlier.
I think you may be exaggerating just a tad
. What's something that would take me hours that would take an expert seconds?Experience is very obviously an important part of determining who is most likely to win a game. I've never disputed that and I'm not sure why it's relevant. How many PBEMs I've played is not relevant either because I'm not claiming to be at the top of any ladder. It is not a valid argument to claim that because the best players in a league can compete equally well in time limited games and turn based games that any players would compete equally as well as well (weird combination of words there!, sorry).
Yes, and what's your point. That just because there are good players who are smart in their learning and indeed privileged in having the means to be a member of a clan that everyone can be just like them? How many times do I need to say that high level MP players are very talented? That isn't enough evidence to prove that turn based and simult turn gameplay is the same.
This seems like an argument that never gets anywhere. It seems to be partly because, as with many arguments that go on and on, the two parties actually have points of view that if you examine closely and correctly qualify, probably aren't incompatible anyway!
Phew, sorry for writing so much!
r_rolo1
King of myself
I still say that you can't discuss for hours IBT in a FFA Ok, players that are used to team up can overcome that with hive mind tricks , but for most of the games you can have in MP in general, where you don't team up before the game start ( even because it might not be feasible or desirable in game terms ) that is not a option. Discussion is needed for those cases and time constraints make a diference in that...
Ok, players that are used to team up can overcome that with hive mind tricks , but for most of the games you can have in MP in general, where you don't team up before the game start ( even because it might not be feasible or desirable in game terms ) that is not a option. Discussion is needed for those cases and time constraints make a diference in that...Indiansmoke
Deity
I still say that you can't discuss for hours IBT in a FFA
I did not understand a word of that
r_rolo1
King of myself
Ok, let me rephrase it
If you don't know the other players enough, you can't rely on "hive thought" ( aka read between the lines to get what they are planning to do and act accordingly ). Thus you need to speak with them , thus you need time to talk with them, even if to coordinate things. And you can't do that in 45 seconds.
If you don't know the other players enough, you can't rely on "hive thought" ( aka read between the lines to get what they are planning to do and act accordingly ). Thus you need to speak with them , thus you need time to talk with them, even if to coordinate things. And you can't do that in 45 seconds.
Indiansmoke
Deity
Ok I get it...sorry I was thinking in league games terms that are always war with communication between players banned. That is what keeps games interesting and unpredictable IMO.
Games with diplomacy have an interesting component to them, but if you want to play the game competetively in any way, always war is the only option. FFA with diplomacy is still multiplayer, but I guess it´s what comes the closest to being a "gateway" between single and multi player.
As for the difference between ffa and anything else, read here .
As for the difference between ffa and anything else, read here
.
FFA with diplomacy is probably more difficult than team MP. At least in 2 way teamers 1 team has to win. In FFA with diplo you've got the potential for shifting alliances and you always have to sort out your friends from your foes.
In PBEM games with diplo permitted I've found quite some thought needs to go into how you conduct diplomacy. The biggest problem with this type of multiplayer is how SLOW it is compared with any other type. I doubt many of your competitive MP'ers would have the patience for even a single such PBEM game.
In PBEM games with diplo permitted I've found quite some thought needs to go into how you conduct diplomacy. The biggest problem with this type of multiplayer is how SLOW it is compared with any other type. I doubt many of your competitive MP'ers would have the patience for even a single such PBEM game.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Optimal play variance is not great between SP and MP. Aside from diplo issues the only true difference is what overlying strategies work the best. The micro, and the kind of thinking that leads to those strategies does not change.
Examples:
1. SP with tech trades ---> AIs generally won't prioritize philosophy ---> liberalism, giving the player high incentive to pursue this route and trade techs with the AI, possibly ostracizing one for easy pickings (although trade alliances can functionally do this in MP too, when allowed).
2. MP, no tech trade, always war ----> As you can't do anything diplomatically in terms of tech or resource trades, non-aggression or dogpiling is about the theoretical limit. Tech path would prioritize 1) survival (which is now a much more pressing issue than in case 1!) and 2) fastest economic returns. Suddenly construction and things like feudalism/machinery aren't such poor tech choices...
But ultimately most true power in this game still comes from worked tiles and the ability to survive is still the #1 ability. The means to the end change but can be reasoned out logically if you know the game mechanics.
And personally I think the blazing timer is slow.
Examples:
1. SP with tech trades ---> AIs generally won't prioritize philosophy ---> liberalism, giving the player high incentive to pursue this route and trade techs with the AI, possibly ostracizing one for easy pickings (although trade alliances can functionally do this in MP too, when allowed).
2. MP, no tech trade, always war ----> As you can't do anything diplomatically in terms of tech or resource trades, non-aggression or dogpiling is about the theoretical limit. Tech path would prioritize 1) survival (which is now a much more pressing issue than in case 1!) and 2) fastest economic returns. Suddenly construction and things like feudalism/machinery aren't such poor tech choices...
But ultimately most true power in this game still comes from worked tiles and the ability to survive is still the #1 ability. The means to the end change but can be reasoned out logically if you know the game mechanics.
And personally I think the blazing timer is slow
.Similar threads
- Locked
