Early Game Strategy Discussion

Togas · January 9, 2004, 03:02

First off, looking at the list of teams participating, there clearly are a few more multiplayer-vetran sites involved, and virtually all of the teams have multiplayer experience.

What worries me most are the sites that are dedicated to head-to-head competitions and MP games. Those sites will avoid the colorful details, culture, and finesse of C3C and go straight for the early game rush and other easy-kill strategies that have won them past multiplayer games.

REX is a thing of the past. We are going to have to be ready for early war and we are going to have to pick our friends and enemies very wisely.

Survival is the key to game 1. We just have to be one of the top 3. We don't even have to kill anyone to make it, so we definately should play a more conservative role in game 1, make some good friends, pitch some game-long alliances that we never have to break and do our best to guarantee a spot in the final game. Once there, we play for the win.

Also, our rep is going to carry over into game 2, so let's be careful how we represent ourself. With good diplomacy, agressive military building, and our trademark Apolyton style close building, we should be a formidable match for any team.

--Togas

Paddy · January 10, 2004, 06:33

Thanks for the wrap up of the opposition, and ideas for the two games.

I have been playing a bit of PBEM with a mixed crowd. One of them is a highend fancy like multiplayer. He really did not like the whole PBEM time issue, it really freaked him out trying to keep track of his turns over a long time period.

Have you come across this sort of thing with MP's playing PBEM?

asleepathewheel · January 10, 2004, 13:07

PtS-

I know that the ladder, one of the stronger mp communities (not that I've ever been there) focuses primarily on simultaneous 1x1 duels, so while some of them (Fried) know pbem fairly well, I think we have them at a distinct advantage, mechanics wise.

Beta · January 10, 2004, 15:04

I concur with asleeps assessment.

I also think Togas has the game plan pegged correctly. make friends and survive.

For that reason, and has been mentioned in the civ-choice threads, I think we should be picking a strong early game civ. I like the Greeks - simply for the Hoplite. Although I also think the C3C changes have improved the scientific trait. Romans work as well, but we gamble on iron.

Togas · January 10, 2004, 15:27

I have noticed that the MP players tend to view Civ as a purely conquest game. And given that game 1 will be an elimination game, score will mean nothing. You can almost guarantee that nothing but military units and key military structures will be produced by some of our competators.

Our path to victory, IMO, is going to be strong defensive play and good alliance building. The only way to beat a civ that's entirely dedicated to war is to gang up on it.

Also, I've noticed that we seem to be getting away from the Agriculture trait in our civ selection. I am also worried about resource scarcity, but I must also stress that in C3C the Agriculture trait is clearly the best trait.

Traits that help a civ out more in the long run, like Commercial and Scientific, won't be much of a help to us in the first game. For that reason, I would shy away from Greece, who's only strong quality is the Hoplite. Rome also seems popular, but it's commercial and needs Iron.

--Togas

joncnunn · January 12, 2004, 20:33

Togas, all three of my choices were Agricultral.

I love the affects of Agricultral on deserts.

notyoueither · January 12, 2004, 23:20

I agree that agri is huge. Combine that with horses being the easiest rersource to collect, and I am leaning heavily towards Iroquois as my first choice civ.

Another note. Given the resourse distribution of C3C (there being fewer of each per map and thus more widely flung) The Wheel and Iron Working are huge techs to get. This will effect the trade value of those techs as well as Bronze Working,

re the MP crowd. Don't count on them being the sort to Archer rush. To the contrary, they are more familiar than we how much of a crap shoot an early rush is against humans. The early rusher may eliminate or cripple 1 civ early, but is then easy pickings later for those civs who laid a foundation before looking for war. I expect them to be more balanced than many would assume, unless they are backed into a corner.

re Apolyton Spacing (TM) this is not uncommon at all to experienced MP players. Preferably, we will make use of more camps than we did in game 1, with the overall city grid better able to accomodate their later disbandment.

Last thought. Commercial helps period, especially in C3C. With corruption increased, especially so. Every shield is precious. That not-too-far-off-from-capital city that goes from 4 to 5, 6 to 7, or 9 to 10 spt is a God-send... Right, off I go to cast a vote for the Iroquois as number 1.

Inverse Icarus · January 13, 2004, 02:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas
I have noticed that the MP players tend to view Civ as a purely conquest game. And given that game 1 will be an elimination game, score will mean nothing. You can almost guarantee that nothing but military units and key military structures will be produced by some of our competators.

--Togas

by ELIMINATION, you mean conquest, not elimination (where 1 lost city = death), correct?

notyoueither · January 13, 2004, 02:54

That is correct, Uber, sort of. There are 10 sites involved.

A preliminary round of 2 games of 5 sites each. The top 3 from both go to the final game. 4 of the sites (2 from each game) are eliminated.

Inverse Icarus · January 13, 2004, 03:00

i understood the game set up, but when i heard "the game is elimination", my heart jumped.

notyoueither · January 13, 2004, 03:15

And well it should have.

BigFree · January 13, 2004, 05:50

Elimination is fun in an MP game of Simultaneous play! Games rarely last longer than 3 hours with the turn timer on 'normal'.

GodKing · January 13, 2004, 19:48

All around I agree that we need to be very carefull in this first game. I think that 1 or 2 of the MP sites may be rash enough to try the archer or even a warrior rush, as all they have to do is knock out 2 teams prior to themselves being knocked out. This is a strategy I think we should seriously look at ourselves.

joncnunn · January 13, 2004, 20:10

Can we make this a 999 city elimination game?

Just to keep one civ on the other mass giving a civ a city to perpertuate an eternal war?

joncnunn · January 14, 2004, 20:22

Hum, looks like we're the Greeks.

Excelent defensive UU adviable from turn 1, but is the game going to last long enough to use either Scientific or Commerical traights to their full advantage?

Donegeal · January 14, 2004, 21:12

No.

Inverse Icarus · January 14, 2004, 23:34

commercial won't be used at all, i'm afraid.

we'll be a little more resistant to corruption, but we won't see it majorly impact us.

scientific? no. if we got a SGL i'd laugh my ass off and bow before anyone who voted greek.

starting with alphabet and bronze working is pretty nice though.

MrWhereItsAt · January 15, 2004, 01:08

Although the short-lived polls closed, there have been a few write-in votes starting to favour the Iroquois. FAR better for rushing others with, and I can only hope we choose this over the Greeks.

Hot_Enamel · January 15, 2004, 01:38

The Greeks won, because we would be gambling our survival on the fickle C3C resource allocation if we chose Iroquoi or Rome.
The map makers have not been given permission to adjust resource allocation for an equal start.

All we want to do is outlast 2 other teams.
Can the iroquoi do that if we end up with no horse resources?
Especially when you can expect Poly to be an early target.

With the Greeks, hopilites give us a good chance of survival.
Once this free-for-all is over, we can get into the real game.

BigFree · January 15, 2004, 01:53

I agree with H_E.

Octavian X · January 15, 2004, 02:58

Overall, I believe we've an advantage over other teams. Apolyton, by virtue of it's strong experience in the PTWDGs, as well as through the PTW ISDG, will function very well, I predict, because of this familiarity with this type of demogame.
Granted, some sites do have strong MP communities. However, since they don't often use this team format, they are at a disadvantage because they need to figure out an effective way to work together. They should be especially weak when it comes to foreign affairs, a good reason for us to form a strong diplomatic corp, which will be especially key in a game where deception should be commonplace.

H_E is also right. We can build up a strong defense well into the Middle Ages. If anything, survival should carry us to the next round.

Zero · January 15, 2004, 16:27

Resource maybe harder to find in C3C but horse is the easiest to find among other strategic resources.

BigFurryMonster · January 16, 2004, 11:09

Our strategy seems to be simple: build enough of an army to scare the other teams away ("We are weak compared to Apolyton!"), but not doing anything offensive with it.

rendelnep · January 17, 2004, 07:42

Is that "winging it' or should I never speak of that evil phrase again within the confines of this forum?

GodKing · January 17, 2004, 12:33

Offence is the way to go I think. Sure, we need a good, strong defended core, but still we need to be able to take out one or two of the others, or at lease assist in the process.

Zero · January 17, 2004, 13:42

i agree. Offense is easier to pull off than defense. offense can be stacked easily. defense cant... unless defense has good mobility.

besides we need some offensive unit for defense anyway, if we dont want attackers to just pillage everything at their will.

joncnunn · January 17, 2004, 14:42

Does Commerical still have less distance based corruption in conquests? If so, maybe we can take some advantage form that, particlarly if we thinking of concentrating more on military units?

There's two potiential ways to go, one is horses that run back for potection to tiles with Hoplies and the other is a stack consisting mostly of Swordmen with some Hoplites for defense. The resources near us may determine which of those we use.
I vote if we acquire a MGL to form an army of Swords if possible.

Zero · January 21, 2004, 15:44

I would much prefer to go with horses, given we both have iron and horse to make the choice. I like the flexibility the mounted unit can give (especially when defending your territory in roaded tiles). Plus, the retreat ability is just too cool.

We should also consider being much nicer and flexible in terms of diplomacy in this game. In theory, we can just survive to round2 by being a one city vassal civ as long as the guardian civ is strong enough and they're trust worthy enough. We're not out to win so we dont need to play as aggressive and capitalize on all opportunities.

If we can quickly get previous ISDG teams that liked us to agree on alliance that focuses on allied teams winning and not worrying about balance of power among the allied teams, we can kick out the other 2 teams faster and proceed to round 2. It could also help seed good relationship if our allied teams make it to round 2.

Maybe teams that harbor resentment agst another team in ISDG (Like CDG and GCA) could be used as well. Especially if GCA will resent us for the first ISDG game and that feeling carries onto this one.

This could play out kinda like the reality show: Survivors

Togas · January 21, 2004, 16:46

We should maintain a peaceful stance and use our UU to deter any of our neighbors from attacking us. We make friendships, trade agreements, and generally push for good relations with other teams as our rep will carry over into the second game.

Then we wait. Eventually someone is going to fight someone else, and once that happens, we just have to see where the cards fall and jump in accordingly. It's very likely that we'll get offers from other teams to join in the war.

Once that happens we then will have to consider who we want to fight, who we want to play with in the next game, and which of the two sides gives us the best chance of making it to the next game.

It's entirely possible that two teams could get rushed early and die, thus ending the game before we fight anyone. Our UU should ensure that we're not one of those who falls victim to an early rush strat.

--Togas

GodKing · January 23, 2004, 20:41

I prefer not just being the victtim of an early rush, but being the victimizer in such. Our good relations don't mean crap in the second because everybody will have banded together. The second game I see as being something along the lines of the threee from group A ganging up on the threee from group tB if that were the case.... sorry, not expressing myself well, so will shut up for now.