On Theseus, Mixed-Armies, and Multi-Play

Beta · December 30, 2003, 17:18

To start with - my hats off to Theseus who in umpteen different threads has made such a fuss regarding mixed armies that I just had to try a couple.

And in my latest MP game, mixed armies of two MI's and a Pike did just dandy. Two Mi's were more than sufficient to bring down the best entrenched defender, and the pike gives it staying power if it gets caught by itself - which in the more turbulent world of MP, it often does.

So - thanks Theseus! Maybe I will try it more often in SP and PBEM.

And now - the second reason for this thread: that "turbulent world of MP."

I have now played two rather lengthy MP games - with enough combat to get my fill. And I feel like such a noob when I am fighting. For single unit battles - especially when timing is important - I am getting the hang of moving first. But in the latest game - in a number of cases - I was not able to move units to safety before they were attacked. Any suggestions?? Or is this just a matter of being quick on the draw?

Now - in large stack battles - it is a real muddle to me. Is it documented anywhere what the rules/protocols/criteria are for multi-unit battles? Some questions - If you attack with a catapult, will it fire on defense? Can you simply move the whole stack into the attack, effectively freezing any defender moves until all those attacks are resolved? Or can you be counter-attacking at the same time, and moving additional defenders in? Can you have two stacks attacking from two different tiles at the same time? If one stack is attacking a city, and enemy counter-attackers from outside the city hit the stack - what happens? I'm sure others - like myself, who are new to MP, have similar experience and questions.

It all appears to be somewhat chaotic when it occurs in the game, but there clearly has to be some logic governing what is happening. Can someone help out - or if the rules of engagement have been documented somewhere, please direct me. Many thanks.

Arnelos · December 30, 2003, 18:16

In the MP tournament, I've been playing so far turn-based rather than simulplay. Quite frankly, simulplay can come down to who is host and who has the better ISP and who is quicker at clicking their mouse. Not a very good way to decide battles.

So turn-based it is, as it should be.

Are you guys really playing simulplay?

Beta · December 30, 2003, 18:26

Hi Arne. No - I'm pretty sure we are playing turn-based. We have a turn timer, and it plays like regular civ. Then again - I just consulted the manual, and yes - it does look like simulplay. ??????

Snotty or Mo.. what did we actually play??

*Beta scratches his head.*

Taian · December 30, 2003, 22:23

I'm with Arnelos on this one...I prefer the turn based version. However (not sure if this can be done or not...) it would probably be better in the early game to go simulplay until you make contact with other humans. So that when your moves start to affect each other, it goes turn based.

notyoueither · December 31, 2003, 00:15

Simultaneous is great! It adds another dimension, and it vastly speeds things up when there is no contact/war going on. I prefer Simultaneous with no clock to anything else for MP.

Turnless? Now that was shite, I think they ditched it.

Beta · December 31, 2003, 00:28

Ok - well then this raises a question. What format of MP are we suppose to use for this tourney? Or is that up to the two contestants? May I suggest that for the next tournament, we specify in advance.

Fried-Psitalon · December 31, 2003, 01:49

MP was intended for simultaneous - they even made changes to combat in MP specifically to account for that.

(Yes, I'm biased. I also wouldn't be willing to wait around while someone else moved. I have a life to get on with.)

MotownDennis · December 31, 2003, 05:52

OH NO! Some of you are playing turn-based? Yuck!

Yes Beta, we were playing simultaneous turns just as in every other MP game I've ever seen played. No way in heck I have time for turn-based. No way in heck I would've entered the tourney if it had been advertised as turn-based.

To answer some questions posed here:

Arnelos - as far as I know, being the host or having an ulta-fast ISP gives you no advantage. The game pretty much plays at the speed of the slower internet connection for ALL players in the game. However, you are correct when you say that sometimes it comes down to "whoever is quicker at clicking their mouse". I don't really think this is a huge factor, though. You can be "the quickest click in the west", but if you don't have proper strategy, you're going to lose the game.

Beta - here is how stack-attacking works: If you want to attack with ALL units in a stack, you use the "J" key. When one of your units in the stack is highlighted, press J and select your target. All units in the stack will then attack. To attack with all units of a particular type, you use ctrl-J. Using the example of your mixed army, if you'd like to attack with all the MI's but not the pikes, you'd make sure an MI is highlighted, then press the cntl key, then J, then select your target with the mouse. All the MI's will now attack, but the pikes won't.

Furthermore, if a stack has started attacking, nothing else can attack the stack until the entire stack has finished it's attack. Example - your stack of 20 MIs attacks my city. You use the stack attack command that I have outlined above. Let's say I go to counterattack your MI stack. Your entire MI stack will resolve it's attack first, then my units will attack your stack. In short, a unit cannot be attacking and defending at the exact same time.

Also, you can move units into a city as it's being attacked. The most effective way to do this in my experience is to use g (goto command) then select the city as the target with the mouse. For some reason, this doesn't seem to work well if the unit is right next to the city. It works better if the unit is 2 or more spaces away. And lastly, yes, if you bombard with your catapult before you are attacked, your catapult will still fire automatically using the auto-bombard feature on defense.

There - I think that just about covers it all. Whew!

Beta · December 31, 2003, 11:49

Mo... Gracias!

I'm sure I will come up with more questions, and now I know who to ask.

And in answer to my above point about specifying - it would look like we may want to define the tourney parameters. Maybe a poll.

Arnelos · December 31, 2003, 16:31

Since my MP experience is almost exclusively turn-based LAN play and PBEM, I'm going to be heavily biased toward playing turn-based in MP games.

I've played two simulgames over a LAN and that did speed up play, but I honestly just don't like how it warps warfare.

MotownDennis · December 31, 2003, 18:58

You're welcome, Beta.

Arnelos you are right - the warfare in Simultaneous MP is a little bit different breed of animal. I personally wouldn't call it warped, just different. It does take a little getting used to if you haven't played it much.

But again, I've never really known it to affect the outcomes of games. I would say that 99 out of 100 times, the end result of the game will be the same either way.

I guess either you like it or you don't.