Top Civ choices for MP.

[Dominae]

Assuming multiplayer Civ3 will be here one day, I just wanted to know what your thoughts were on what the most popular civs will be (so that I can come up with counter-strategies!). My own list below assumes that the maps will be fairly small (Standard or smaller) and culturally linked starting locations will be disabled.

1. Mounted Warrior, uh, I mean Iroquois.

For obvious reasons, everyone will want to play the civ that most convincingly decimates all opposition in the early game. Scouts will ensure Horses will be secured, and cheap Temples will keep the growing empire together.

2. Aztecs

The Jags took a hit with 1.17f, but the early swarm and resource-denial capabilities of those little guys has not been forgotten. Also, the fact that goody huts will most likely be disabled in MP means that the Aztecs don't mind not being Expansionist anymore (if ever they cared in the first place).

3. Egyptians

For those MP players that will want more of an economy, this civ will certainly shine in the middle game. A very cheap UU will keep this civ in contention until then (not to mention fast Workers).

Note that it's no mistake that the top 3 civs are Religious.

4. Zulus

With fast units dominating MP play (again, see the top 3 civs), the Impi will be a perfect foil against most opponents. The Expansionist trait will surely prove its worth for resource-denial (the Impi support this strategy perfectly as well).

5. Persians

This civ is lower on the list than might be anticipated simply because the top 4 civs will usually trump the Persians with their speed. Persia can't really play the resource-denial game very well either (although it is very close to Iron Working), which means it may not keep Immortals at all. Of course, if left alone long enough to amass an army of Immortals, they will be powerhouses.

6. Babylonians

Speaking of being left alone, the Babylonians may be a viable civ if they manage to hide until around 0 AD. Just like the Morganites in Alpha Centauri, the longer the Babs are out of war, the scarier they become; a hefty dose of diplomacy will go a long way here (although some Warmongers will just pick on the Babs as a matter of principle). This civ's UU may be prove more useful than people think for those cases when early war is inevitable.

7. Americans

The Americans can play the resource-denial game relatively well, but where they shine is expansion. Their Industrious and Expansionist traits wil ensure that they have a whole bunch of cities early, more than any other civ. If left alone for a bit, this civ will Borg anyone else out of the game.

8. Greeks

A lot of players won't be able to resist the early Pikemen. Unfortunately, this civ's two traits are very average in MP play, so those Hoplites will have to work double duty to put this over the top.

All the other civs I consider to be second-rate, from a purely strategic perspective. I'm sure a lot of players will want to play the Romans and Germans (apparently the most popular civs for casual play), but I just don't think they can compete with (at least) top 5 above.

To be honest, I put some Builder civs in this list with no real idea of how powerful Culture will be in MP; the Babs could easily suck for all I know. So, don't flame me too much on this, please.

What are your thoughts?


Dominae

[DrFell]

The Japs are likely to be a good one too - they start with the wheel, thus they can see horses right from the start. Ideal for early resource denial against both the Iroquois and Egypt.

The Zulus are best when picked against the Aztecs... those Jags aren't nearly so scary when they can't retreat at all. Plus one Impi could easily take out 3-4 jags.

Persians will be better on small maps as you are more likely to get iron nearby and of course with less travelling time and the warrior to immortal upgrade, they become more deadly.

The Babs archers could actually be good for early attacks... if your on a crowded map just go for warrior code, build barracks and then pump out the bowmen. Counter-attacks will be more common in MP so the 2 defence will certainly shine that early on. If they can get up to a good size then the culture will make it difficult to take and hold cities too (raze only against these guys), and give them some advanced warnings of sneak attacks (more visibility round cities, plus the enemy units move slower while you can use your roads). Nice peacetime civ, great if you start on an island.

I could see the English being fairly powerful on island maps. This civ is the closest to mapmaking at the start, and loading a few offensive units on a galley then sending it for a cruise around the world could give some of the other players some nasty suprises. Otherwise they are weak.

The Romans might be nice if you want to play a defensive game, they have all round hard to kill units which would be a good counter to units such as Mounted Warriors, War Chariots, and Immortals. Their civ attributes aren't so good though, so you'd best rely on the UU to protect you whilst you try to out-expand everyone else.

The Greeks will be nice for builder type players, the cheap pikeman which is still very viable in the middle ages ensures that. Plus they need no resources to build them either. The civ stats are not so good though.

Aztecs will be very powerful early on. Not much to say about them really, the reason why is obvious. They won't work so well on island maps but on all continent maps they will be deadly. Basically they just need to pick a civ to kill off early on and they've got a good chance of achieving it.

[Dominae]

DrFell, I agree with most of your observations, especially about the Japanese. As you pointed out, they start with The Wheel which is sure to be critical. They're Religious, a great trait. This is enough to keep them competitive in the early game. If piloted by a capable player, by the time Chivalry rolls around the Japanese should dominate.


Dominae

[petey]

I think that in most MP games, things will devolve quickly into warmongering. This makes the Iroquois the best choice, IMHO, as their Mounted Warriors outdo anything else in the Ancient era and that's what'll be needed to succeed in an MP game

[punkbass2000]

If you ask me, most MP games will likely be played without civ-specific attributes, as it will skew the game. "Damn, you picked the Iroquois first!" and so forth.

[Swissy]

Ever wonder why when Firaxis started hyping up the civ specific attributes and UU's, the phrase "fully integrated multiplayer system" dropped from the game description.

The game we have is SP pure and simple. I would not want MP simply overlaid over the SP game. Perhaps MP with the generic units and the ability to choose two civ attributes would be best.

[Jaguar]

I wouldn't pick the Iroquois first. I wouldn't pick them second. Hell, I wouldn't even pick them third. On a culturally linked map, there arent ever any mounted warriors. Second, I'd pick Persia. In SP the Zulu civ can park an Impi on the Persian iron. In MP, the Persians will have their first 8 immortals before anyone even knows where there iron is. Third, I'd pick Japan. The ability to see the locations of the horses from the start, get archers in one tech, and horsemen in two is just invaluable. I'd pick the Iroquois as 4th, just ahead of Babylon.

[player1]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
If you ask me, most MP games will likely be played without civ-specific attributes, as it will skew the game. "Damn, you picked the Iroquois first!" and so forth.

There is always one option: remove specific abilities

[DrFell]

Which is what he just said, wasnt it

[punkbass2000]

Yeah, that is what I said.

Admittedly, not everyone will want the exact same civs, but if you get further down the list to the clearly mediocore civs, some people will essentially be at a disadvantage, and you know there's gonna be a lot of complaining, like there always is.

I do, however, think the idea of having no UU's and having everyone pick their own attributes is a good idea.

[player1]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
Yeah, that is what I said.

Admittedly, not everyone will want the exact same civs, but if you get further down the list to the clearly mediocore civs, some people will essentially be at a disadvantage, and you know there's gonna be a lot of complaining, like there always is.

I do, however, think the idea of having no UU's and having everyone pick their own attributes is a good idea.

For game with up to 4 human player everyone can find good balanced civ to play.

For games with 4-8 player things get a little diffcult but not too much.
There is still a lot of room for choice.

For games with 8-12 things get problematic, some player are forced to get less usefull, or out of their style civs.

For 12+, someone forces you to play English. (blah)


Games with up to 4 human players are most common so getting Civ is NOT the problem.

[Dominae]

I agree with the suggestion that for MP to be balanced, UUs need to be disabled. Disabling UUs will put another 4-5 civs on the "playable" list (downgrading a few along the way, i.e. Iroquois), so players will have an ample selection.

The option of picking two attributes is sort of neat, but the Aztecs just won't be Aztecs if they're Commercial and Scientific. Also, it takes a lot of the charm away from the game, in my opinion. Then again, most MP players will have been charmed by SP long enough already...


Dominae

[DrFell]

Well as I said there are situations where the English would be useful They'd be a nice civ on island maps.

I couldn't imagine many 12 civ games ever happening though.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by DrFell
I couldn't imagine many 12 civ games ever happening though.

Yes, if you consider internet connections and the free time everyone has to play (that is, assuming the game dies if the server quits, like most other games). There might have to be a special save feature to restore games with other people that have not finished in MP.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
On a culturally linked map, there arent ever any mounted warriors.

I think it's silly to know who your starting next to. I don't like the culturally linked starting locations for that reason. Each game will play out nearly the same way with the culturally linked stuff. That's why I don't really care about an earth map with correct starting locations.

My opinion, of course, it's a nice option. I did play Civ I and II with the earth map sometimes.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Thrawn05 Yes, if you consider internet connections and the free time everyone has to play (that is, assuming the game dies if the server quits, like most other games). There might have to be a special save feature to restore games with other people that have not finished in MP.

Even getting 12 people together in the first place would be a nightmare. More work than it's worth IMO. You'd need subs etc. and it would all have to be very well organised. Diplogames like that might work. In civ2 the game didn't always die when the server quit - the host would sometimes transfer, but 90% of the time it didn't and the game hung. Not sure what you mean by special save feature - surely it would work ok as it is right now, and I'd be shocked if they set it so you couldn't save MP games.

[Swissy]

If they include a pbem option, I could see a twelve civ game on a gigantic map. I play CTP pbem games and most move at a good pace of a turn every day or so. I find more diplomacy in those games than in online MP games, maybe because of the time investment players seek to make peace with at least one nearby player as insurance against early elimination. Also, playing on larger maps allows a richer game playing experience; time to build adequate forces before your neighbor desends upon you with a couple dozen archers, area to settle your core withour butting up against someone else.

[Inverse Icarus]

how are you people overlooking germany? sci/mil is the best combo (IMO).

sure, you'll never see their panzers in a zone game, but i love the combo!

[punkbass2000]

One thing that occurs to me is the fact that it seems just about everyone gies the 0 science route in the ancient era. But, if there are no AI in MP, then this strategy may not work, and you'll end up with a bunch of rich dumb civs. I think this factor may play out well, because someone will decide to go for science, and sell to everyone. Exciting

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
One thing that occurs to me is the fact that it seems just about everyone gies the 0 science route in the ancient era. But, if there are no AI in MP, then this strategy may not work, and you'll end up with a bunch of rich dumb civs. I think this factor may play out well, because someone will decide to go for science, and sell to everyone. Exciting

#1 I do not go the 0 science route, but thats just me.
#2 I wouldn't sell to those stupid civs and I'd roll over their warriors

[punkbass2000]

OK, not everyone, but I doubt it will be uncommon to find games with four players or less who all use that strategy. (I use it)

[notyoueither]

I Claudius...

can't get no respect.

That's OK. We'll just hide here in the weeds. Us with our cheap barracks, lower corruption, and band of killers.

No seriously, never mind us. We're just collecting your silver for the War Orphan's charity drive. Well be gone soon. Say in a couple thousand years or so. Hey, nice temple. How many of those does it take to garrison your capital?

[Jaguar]

No, Claudius. I respect you. When roman legions first set foot in a conquered city, you never get it back. An archer counterattack just doesn't work. By the time you get three swordsmen that you need to beat down a legion, the romans have built three more legions in the same time frame. Legions cost 50% more than the hoplite, and the same amount pop-rushing,but they have three times the attack. They can beat all non special units of the age on attack and defense.

On the other hand, the roman traits are crap.