Some MP musings - Early Game

Solver · March 6, 2002, 12:59

This post was made due to me viewing a couple of others, kinda inspiring those...

I will here assume an Archipelago map start, with probably some 2 civs on an island/continent, or so. I'll mostly assume a two-civ land.

From our current info base, it seems that an early game rush is the best thing to do. It lets you control all of the starting land, thus getting more cities, and also being in control of more strategic and luxury resources. It can't also be omitted that there's a chance of getting leaders in the early game, and that's crucial. You can use the leader to get your Forbidden Palace in a good position, slightly minimizing waste and assuring an easier mid-game.

Now, on to the civs of choice. It seems to me that the Iroquois will be a favorite among all, at least for start. The Expansionist trait is actually useful here, since the Scout gives you a slight upper hand in finding enemies to engage. Generally, you can quickly understand where exactly your rival is, and what are the best approaches to his land, as well as seeing whether he has some really tasty areas within his borders. Also, as soon as you get The Wheel and Iron Working, you will determine the Iron situation in the world, due to the large percentage of world explored by now.

Second, it’s the Mounted Warrior, without a doubt. These guys have nice movement of 2, attack of Swordsmen that is 3, and the retreat ability, if lucky. The only resource required for building Mounted Warriors are the Horses, and from my personal experience the Horse resource is much more common that the Iron one. In most cases, I assume the Iroquois player should go straight for Horseback Riding (Mounted Warriors come instead of Swordsmen), possibly taking Warrior Code. The Expansionist bonus provides a nice chance to grab the Warrior Code or some other useful tech from a nearby goody hut.

Then, it’s just as easy as to mass those Mounted Warriors. Actually, you don’t even need much of a mass. Three Mounted Warriors for a city is more than enough. Take in account, most enemies will probably not have proper defense and wild expansion by now, since the Mounted Warrior comes pretty early, given you have the Horse resource nearby. Consider that, even if defended by two Spearmen, an enemy city stands about zero chance against three Mounted Warriors. And, even though the units will not be retreating always, it’s still a very important advantage and can’t be understated.

Thus, it’s easy to see why the Iroquois will be the civ of choice, mostly. Conquest with them is as easy as sweeping through enemy territory, and should leave you with entire control of your landmass.

Surprisingly, I see the Babylonians pretty much of a good counter to the Iroquois. It’s because of the infamous Bowman unit. While I do still think Bowman is nothing great, and the early Golden Age isn’t too good, vs. the Iroquois Bowmen are of use. First, they’re cheap. Second, they need no natural resources. Third, unlike Mounted Warriors, they have both good defense and offense. Well, the offense isn’t too good, but it is there, as well as defense. Put Bowmen in your cities, and if only the Iroquois player fails to take your city in one turn (or stations troops right outside the city), strike in with Bowmen! They’re likely to kill Mounted Warriors. And the early Golden Age can be of some use here, actually – you should be able to get more Bowmen than he has Mounted Warriors, especially taking in account that Bowmen can be usually build before Mounted Warriors.

Now, on to the Greeks, a very formidable civ, especially during the Ancient Age, where the rush is going to occur, and the ultimate counter to Iroquois. You get the ability to build Hoplites since turn one and that’s the key to your success. Build these guys, build a few more, and then build some more. Consider this: if your enemy has no Iron, he has no hope of conquering you, even with a 2:1 city ratio. Simply put, Archers (attack 2) can’t get through Hoplites (defense 3). Basically, such an attack will even favour you, since you will just get the combat experience upgrade for your Hoplites. It has been my experience thus far that it’s pretty easy to get Elite Hoplites early, if at all attacked, and it has also been my experience that these guys are damn annoying to attack.

Next, Masonry is an extremely important technology for the Greek player. Consider the abilities to wall your cities. Walls are no longer an attack stopper, like in Civ 2, but for the Greeks they are, even with the 50% defensive bonus. Each of your Hoplites has 4.5 defense then, possibly more defensive bonuses added. 3 is Middle Age defense already, while 4.5 is more than Knight’s attack, consider that for a moment. A walled Greek city is nearly impossible to take, and the enemy is welcome to crush his entire army here, and actually lose. And you can always build more of these Hoplites – put two in a city, and if there’s a city the enemy is desperately taking to take, put three there! Not too easy, if in unfavourable terrain, but well worth it. Swordsmen will die to Hoplites quite often, while a walled city will be very hard even for the Swordsmen to take.

If you also build offensive units of some kind, then, once the enemy army is gone, you can skirmish him.

Finally, a few words about the Persians. Personally I love the Immortals a lot, and consider that to be hell of a unit (and a nice graphic, too). If only you get Iron, you’re set up fine. If you have no Iron, actually, you’re pretty much screwed up with any civ, except the Greeks, who can hold on even without Swordsmen. It is obvious that Immortals cut through Spearmen easily. The enemy will have to wall his cities, if he wants to survive, and still, that’s only 3 defense for the Spear-Chucker, while you get 4 offense. Impressive, pretty much, no?

Immortals are also able to get through the annoying Hoplites, generally Persia is the only civ who has a nice chance of beating Greece early one. OK, they get Middle Age defense so early, but you get Middle Age attack now! It still will not be easy, especially since Greek guy is also likely to have high experience for his Hoplites, but that’s at least a fight you can win.

This has been pretty short, and I have notes on early battles in open field in my mind, and that’s something slightly different. But that’s something for another time here…

Jack_www · March 6, 2002, 13:35

Very good post. One thing that I can see that could go wrong is if you rush too much. If you spend all your time rushing your oppents on the landmass you share with them players on different landmasses may be all by them selves or with an ally. So while you are off conquering your landmass, they are building up a techlead and putting pikemen or maybe even better defense units in their cities. Thus all this rushing may hurt you in the endgame. All I would say that you would have to blance the production of millitary units with the production of city improvements and tech research.

Aeson · March 6, 2002, 15:34

I agree that the Iroquios, Persians, and Greeks would all be formidable. I could see the Aztecs, Zulu, Japanese, and Egyptian as all being good MP choices too. On larger maps, Expansionist Civs in general should have a huge advantage.

The Aztecs get a 2 movement unit right off the bat, and at a cost of 10 shields. On smaller landmasses Jag Warriors could overrun any non-scientific neighbors before Bronze Working was available. They also fill the role of Scouts, giving the Aztecs part of the Expansionist benefits as well. Having lots of Jag Warriors running around pillaging your improvements is going to be very frustrating. Once the early damage is done with Jag Warriors, they can be upgraded for a bit of offense, or just continue to harrass the enemy.

I often play as the Zulu, and using Impi in the right way can be deadly. Iron resources are on good defensive terrain, and Impi can get there quickly. If the Zulu ever beat anyone to Iron Working, it's game over. It does take 1 advance before Impi can be built, and 2 before Iron Working, but the Expansionist trait should help tremendously in MP games on standard+ sized maps. Even with Iron though, it takes a lot more resources to displace an Impi than to build one.

The Japanese are the only Civ which can see Horses from the start, which gives them an early resource advantage. Even with the new retreat roll added for 2+ movement troops, Horsemen are still very effective. In MP, mobility should be key. Also if games make it to the Middle Ages, no one is going to want to have to fight Samurai. Having to take out cities defended by Samurai would be close to impossible given any sort of equality in tech and military numbers. Think Horse rush vs Impi which can counter attack.

The Egyptians get "Horsemen" with just 1 advance. On 3 billion year and/or warm/wet settings, the War Chariots will be hindered by movement restrictions, but otherwise should be very powerful. The fact that they are cheaper than Horsemen is more important now that pop-rushing has been adjusted.

Overall I think that military rushes will be less successful in MP than vs the AI. Not being able to use roads in enemy terrain effectively triples defensive unit movement rates. The AI never takes advantage of this, but players will. Not being able to heal while on the offensive also makes for a more viable defensive strategy as well. I think the most effective use of early military will be destroying improvements and denying resources, which the Jag Warriors and Impi should be best at.

Hermann the Lombard · March 6, 2002, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
One thing that I can see that could go wrong is if you rush too much. Thus all this rushing may hurt you in the endgame. All I would say that you would have to blance the production of millitary units with the production of city improvements and tech research.

Ah, but first you have to survive the early game!

If those on distant continents can exist in peace during the early game, they may be able to build a nice tech lead on those trying to kill one another, but should that trust break down...

Swissy · March 6, 2002, 19:11

I see Aztecs being a good choice for MP. It gives you three things you need in the early game; a cheap fast unit, cheap temples to generate culture, and a greater chance of leaders appearing.

I do not see the Persians as having to much of an advantage. Immortals can be countered by having archers/horsemen to attack them as they approach. Remember we are not the AI, we know we should have more than two spearmen to defend our cities.

The Indians could be a darkhorse civ choice. Having a knight strength unit without the need for any resources could be a termendous advantage as you leave ancient times. They also have the cheap temples.

I see MP being a struggle for resources. Anyone with horses, iron, and saltpeter near their start area will have a big advantage over the competition.

Solver · March 7, 2002, 03:33

Jack,

In my post, I assumed that there are only two civs on the starting landmass, as I wrote in the begginning.

Nice to see that people agree Aztecs are formidable. 10 shields is the clue here, really, for you can build it in 5 turns, from a good start location.

Windwalker · March 7, 2002, 05:22

The thing about early war is that you let people who are by themselves gain a huge advantage, as has been said. People will more likely sue for peace early on, if they're being logical or unless they have an overwhelming military advantage (which would rarely happen in MP). And remember, no one is going to want to be a vassal in MP, so that means most people will fight to the death instead of waiting around as a whipping boy civ. I know I certainly will, since the games will likely take so long; why stick around when you only have 3-4 cities left? Thus, when people fight to the death, they will often try to take a player down with them, which in civ can be accomplished by building nothing buy military and destroying improvements like lunatics.

Thus, there is a huge deterrent to big early wars, unless people playing in MP just want to get the game over with quickly, in which case early wars may be common, despite the seeming irrationality of it.

The one thing I don't understand about MP is how would you coordinate 8 people to play for 20+ hours? What if people just don't show up, or if people decide to stop playing after a while? Will the AI take over? How did it work in Civ II?

- Windwalker

DrFell · March 7, 2002, 10:34

Due to these reasons I can see a LOT of people not using UU/special abilities in their games. There is nothing that pisses me and many MP players off than being totally screwed simply by where you start. Imagine you pick say, the Aztecs. Now imagine your opponent is the Iroquois, and they start very close to you on a small landmass. Game over - all you need to do is build plenty of jags, pillage and secure any resources on the island (easy with jags - fortify on resources and cut up their road networks). Or if you start near Persia with Iroquois - you're screwed as well if he's any good and if he gets iron, as you can get those Immortals out much earlier than Mounted Warriors. Bear in mine one other thing - iron working not only gives you a good offensive unit, it give you a good defence as well. It's ok saying go for horse, but you can't forget that the best defence you have in that situation is a warrior, no match for an Immortal.

Basically Aztec kills anyone who starts too close, or the civ he picks on first. After that Persia has a short reign, as the swords dominate the world (assuming Aztecs didn't pick him out). They can also rule in rough terrain. After that right up to the middle ages, the Iroquois are invincible (assuming they didn't get picked on by the Aztec - or perhaps the Japs). It's basically all the luck of the draw as to which civs you start near. Now I can see this creating some entertaining strategies for MP, and perhaps tribes too - but not for duels.

'The Indians could be a darkhorse civ choice. Having a knight strength unit without the need for any resources could be a termendous advantage as you leave ancient times.'

I can't see the Indians being anything more than pathetically weak after facing the potential attacks from Aztecs, Persians, and Iroquois in the early game - remember it will take longer to get to the middle ages without much tech trading. But I'll just love it if my opponent picks India if I'm the Iroquois.

DrFell · March 7, 2002, 10:41

'Thus, there is a huge deterrent to big early wars, unless people playing in MP just want to get the game over with quickly, in which case early wars may be common, despite the seeming irrationality of it.'

Early wars were common in civ2 MP - generally the players give up rather than cause as much inconvenience as possible. And it does get very easy to finish them off after a certain point.

'The one thing I don't understand about MP is how would you coordinate 8 people to play for 20+ hours? What if people just don't show up, or if people decide to stop playing after a while? Will the AI take over? How did it work in Civ II?'

There were problems with this. The best way is to play smaller games - 4 players is a good number. Games will not last 20+ hours either, early war is likely to end the games within 5-10 hours, I'd say (10 hours is a really long game). The best way of playing I believe is tribes - preset teams with loyalty to each other (outside that particular game as well) who play games against other tribes. So for example a 2 on 2 game. Each tribe might have 4-6 players who can sub if one player doesn't show up. The rivalry in the forums outside the game is as good as the games themselves in tribes. I certainly hope tribes takes off in civ3, as it did in civ2 for awhile.

Jack_www · March 7, 2002, 13:37

I was thinking about a way to counter a rush made by a player in the start of the game. If there is anther civ near by to the one that is attacking you, you can try and get them to ally with you. This way the rusher has to fight a two front war, and since the rusher will have the most of his forces in the territory of the person he is attacking, the ally of the other civ could do a lot of damage before reinforcements arive. What do you guys think?

Swissy · March 7, 2002, 21:04

My comment on the Indians being a darkhorse is well founded. You base the early attack rush on civs being near each other. There will be a good number of civs starting on ther own island/continent. A number of civs would work well in that situation, one being the Indians.

In a SP game being isolated is death, you have to save up as much gold as possible so you can buy yourself into the most current tech when you make contact with the AI civs. With tech trading being little to none in MP, an isolated civ will be in a better situation of not having a civ with an early UU bearing down on him.

Another part of my Indian arguement goes to the non-use of strategic resources. I think any civ with a significant UU that does not need resources will have an advatage in MP. I think the Greeks will be very strong, sending hoplites to disrupte the road network. I see alot of players building cities on top of resources just to make sure they have atleast one city that produce a resource critical unit.

Aeson · March 8, 2002, 00:11

I think that if a player doesn't control Horses and/or Iron by the time the Middle Ages hits, they are in trouble (or more likely dead). That means they haven't been able to build Horsemen for upgrade once Chivalry rolls around. The players who have Horses are going to have a large standing army that can be upgraded, giving them a head start. Anyone else has to build their Knights (or UU equivalent) from scratch, which takes much longer. Without Horses it won't be possible to upgrade to Cavalry either.

There are advantages to early war. Leaders and an early golden age can help overcome the loss of productivity. Without a Leader early on, any empire is basically at 1/2 production while the Forbidden Palace is being built. Also the tech rate in MP won't be nearly as fast, giving early military longer to work with.

DrFell · March 8, 2002, 08:51

'I think that if a player doesn't control Horses and/or Iron by the time the Middle Ages hits, they are in trouble (or more likely dead).'

My point exactly. It will be a loooong time before you can get knights without tech trading, which leaves plenty of time to conquer with ancient units, even if the Indians were pretty much isolated. Also take into account that without iron you can't build pikes and various other units...

'There are advantages to early war. Leaders and an early golden age can help overcome the loss of productivity. Without a Leader early on, any empire is basically at 1/2 production while the Forbidden Palace is being built. Also the tech rate in MP won't be nearly as fast, giving early military longer to work with.'

Also - conquering another civ gives you plenty of early despot rush slaves to use. It could easily end in disaster if your opponent goes super-defensive, but that MAY be a risk you have to take. We will have to see (I'll adopt the strat that works best for me).