Retooling Thought and Strategy for Multiplayer: An Early Musing

[Nakar Gabab]

I wrote this on a sort of whim this afternoon. I was just thinking about all the things we've been considering on the art of war and the best ways to prosecute a game plan in Civ 3 single player. How are things going to change in MP? Sure, your UU (presuming you're using civ-specific abilities, which hopefully won't be utterly rejected by the MP community) is still your UU, but your opponents are going to be acting VERY differently from the AI, and that throws into question a lot of the strategies that have been used in the past, in addition to challenging prevailing opinion on just what civ traits are the best. Religious is great, maybe the best - in SP. But against a handful of human opponents, might you want to trade it for expansionist? Don't laugh just yet!

A HUMAN OPPONENT

1) Humans do not behave in predictable patterns.
2) Humans do not receive differing levels of bonuses.
3) Humans are emotional, sometimes irrational, and always want to win.

For #1, I think things explain themselves. Human players aren't going to do the obvious. Their troop movements will not always be indicative of an imminent attack; indeed, an obviously telegraphed move from a human opponent should be HIGHLY suspect! Human players will find ways to get around the thickest blockade, will rarely sell you resources and luxuries without hefty guarantees and rewards, and will almost NEVER sell certain techs (Horseback Riding in the ancient era? Forget it! Chivalry and Military Tradition? Dream on! Steam Power or Electronics? Pssh! Space Flight and Synthetic Fibers? Not in *this* game!). On the other hand, maybe they will. You don't know for sure. Maybe he's drunk. Maybe he wants you building cavalry because he knows you'll be using it against a weaker opponent, leaving your flank aside.

Similarly, you can expect human opponents to be far more likely to violate agreements that don't benefit them. If I don't want you getting my incense, you won't have it anymore. And you can't always presume this will strain relations with the rest of the world, if the rest of the world are human too! Especially true if you're ahead; he could INCREASE his standing with the other players by pulling the rug out from under you.

On the other hand, if you play with someone long enough, you may just discover that they do certain things. This forms an interesting counter-advantage; he thinks you don't know what he's doing because he's human, you know what he's doing *and* that he's underestimating you precisely BECAUSE he's human!

For #2, I think we can all put to bed the "annoying" AI production bonuses. Human players start with one settler and no offensive units, just like the rest of us. They'll pay just as much for any unit or improvement as you will, will develop terrain at roughly the same rate that you will, and will research tech with the exact same modifiers. They'll also suffer the same happiness issues. To that end, I see resource and production denial as being far more critical to MP strategy. Since everyone is on the level, it becomes all the more powerful to knock someone down a peg.

Also notable is lack of information; a human player CAN'T see your entire army. He can't tell what cities are guarded without probing through diplomatic action (costing him money) or scouting (which won't happen if you don't let him do it). His only information on your relative power is what his advisors tell him, and we KNOW how useful THAT is (read: not very). Do I have 300 spearmen in my army, or 200 riflemen and 100 cavalry? If you're clever, you might be able to keep your 'real' defensive units just within reach (via roads) of your border cities, presenting your opponent with false information. Of course, other players will be aware of this, and I think that will make Espionage a far more important advance! Anyone familiar with SMAC knows the importance of probe team datalink infiltration above all else; installing a spy is similar, giving exact number and quality reports on an opponent's military. Further, a single espionage action (someone using an espionage action, fancy that), if successful, will tell your opponent WHERE all your troops are. Better take care about massed tank/cavalry rushes in the industrial age. Or just make sure the game never gets that far!

A final note on information: Human players don't have the foresight and hidden knowledge players get. You think maps are pricey early in the game now? They'll be priceless in MP, especially if someone has found choice real estate they don't want you to know about. More on that later.

On the other hand, human players are going to be FAR more intelligent about production than the AI. They will prioritize military and improvements, and may use 'training camp' cities exclusively for the purpose of unit production. They'll have efficient build orders and will almost certainly have culture to rival your own. Imagine trying to take on a "Killer AI" Babylon that's been firmly entrenched for thousands of years. Now double the threat, and you have your typical human player. Ancient war will mean more than ever; many games will most certainly end without the middle ages on the tech docket, simply because of the constant warfare. Should the game proceed to the late game, you may as well raze everything, 'cause it's not likely to stay yours for very long.

#3 is a bit less clear. Basically speaking though, it can be summed up like this: Human beings are just as stupid as they are smart. The "stupid" behavior of an AI can't even compare to the mistakes a human player can make. Even if it's as small as accidentally moving units the wrong way (moving a worker onto a hill instead of mining can almost double the number of turns it takes to improve the square the worker was originally on) or as big as completely forgetting that there are no defenders in a vulnerable coastal city, these are things you can exploit that almost never happen to the AI. The problem is, of course, that human mistakes will be random and of varying levels of exploitability, as opposed to AI flaws that can pretty much always be exploited.

Additionally, don't expect a human player to make a conscious effort to undermine themselves. Don't expect critical military techs to be sold; don't expect territory maps to be pawned off 'for no reason.' Don't expect small gifts of gold to be taken as anything as free money. Human players wanna win, and the only way they're going to help you is if you fool 'em!

But there's more! We're definitely emotional creatures, and that allows us to employ...

PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

Breaking down into tears in front of Hammurabi isn't going to get you those spices. But you never know with a human being. MP will bring up a whole new avenue in strategic diplomacy.

Of course, the idea of flexible, complex agreements between human players has been discussed at length. Nonaggression and noninvolvement will probably be big sellers (until you realize how unreliable they are!), promises to not settle land could be interesting, or grants of technology with the understanding that the tech WILL NOT be traded further. Human beings might even trade away their last iron resource to build hundreds of spearmen and upgrade them in one fell swoop, or swap out saltpeter to build horsemen and blitz-upgrade to cavalry. Two like-minded human allies could form a formidable force that way, and distance will hardly matter; if they're so inclined, they can trade each other a coastal city on the other's continent and grant ROP, allowing for projection of power in ways the computer can only clumsily try to emulate.

More to the point though, human beings have feelings, and changes in mood are sure to follow with changes in game conditions. If losing, a human will often get desperate; if winning, a human will sometimes get overconfident. Impassioned pleas and flattery might even convince someone not to attack one target in favor of another, with no tangible reward offered for doing so. I'm even amused at the thought of avoiding elimination from a game because the guy who beat you is a softy on the inside. As above, human beings do want to win, but they're also pretty self-conscious and care about what other people think. Am I suggesting you put on the teary-face and try to finagle deals with pity points? Well... maybe... like I said, you want to win, don't you?

People also get really attached to the things they've built. Everyone likes a city they founded in 2000 BC and have cultivated for centuries. It might not matter that a new one can be built in 1/5 the time; if you raze it, it's going to hit hard. The same is true of pillaging improvements. Not only does this deny resources, but it also deals a pretty hefty blow to the ego. I can see cunning Zulu players using swarms of impi to pillage every improvement they can in your territory and squat resources, luxuries, rivers... anything they can. And not with the express purpose of defeating you (though that would be the overall goal); sometimes they just want to tick you off. Goading someone into war might be easier than ever - and so might goading them NOT to go to war ("He's just trying to get me to waste my time, I'm not gonna take the bait...")!

THE TRAITS IN MP

I definitely think, therefore, that we'll see a new way of looking at civ traits after PTW comes out. Here's a brief re-evaluation, and whether I think a trait will prove more or less useful than it does currently.

Religious: The much-vaunted "best trait" in Civ3 is the one that, I think, may wind up being one of the hardest hit in MP. There's still the anarchy benefit, which can be nice and can save you several turns of production, but if your opponent only switches once they aren't losing much. Cheap temples and cathedrals are useful, but you're not going to get the huge cultural head start that you would against the AI; many of your opponents will probably be religious too (mostly for UUs, I think, like Japan), and everyone is going to keep their culture adequate. That's the critical kicker in this case; religious offers all that it did before, but nothing particularly new against human players, and could potentially be worse thanks to human players' greater prudence in constructing culture/happiness structures.
CONCLUSION: Less Useful

Commercial: Not much to be said here. A few extra cities? A little less corruption? A little bit more cash? Not so great. Changes to Commercial are coming, and while they could make this a better trait for MP, I somehow don't think it will. Not any worse, but not any better.
CONCLUSION: Roughly the Same

Expansionist: Talk about more powerful! This may be the trait that stands to gain the most in MP. Tech trading in the early game is going to be notably stunted as everyone tries to beeline towards their pet techs (GL, Horseback, Iron); if there happen to be barbs on the map, and therefore huts, you stand to get a leg up right away. Even without huts, expansionist gets some nifty benefits. Knowledge will be power when it comes to the MP game, and scouts give you tons of knowledge before anyone else can get it. Furthermore, scouts can be used as suicide recon during times of war, letting you see garrisons, note troop movement, and pillage vital resource links. Having a better map than anyone else is key as well, since a black map to a human player is a complete mystery. Scouting for resources and luxuries allows for early denial strategy plans, and even the slightest leg up in city placement means that much more efficiency over the next guy. You can argue that the benefits taper off in the late game, but any good Zulu player is going to blink and ask "What late game?" while they bulldoze you with impi and horsemen.
CONCLUSION: More Useful

Militaristic: Boy oh boy, it's already a good trait. How can it get better? Well, cheaper barracks means an earlier archer rush, and being militaristic means you can rush with archers in the first place. Definitely won't be good for the unlucky souls that start next to 'em. And don't expect that human warmongers WON'T archer rush you, particularly if you're non-scientific. Still, there's an even better - some might even say DARKER - application here: fake wars. You go to war with an ally, tossing cheap warriors/swordsmen into the path of your ally's rampaging cavalry. He does the same for you. Suddenly you're breaking out on two sides with hordes of elites, easily trained up thanks to the contained "war" you've been waging. It's training of a very different sort, and probably a huge exploit, but two nefarious allies might make it LOOK real enough. Lots of elites means lots of leaders. About the only thing that'll stop two teamed militaristic civs is their own greed... because eventually one must fall.
CONCLUSION: More Useful

Industrious: Humans like to be pains in the ass. Blowing up your improvements and worked tiles at every opportunity is one way to do it. How do you minimize the production hit you take? By rebuilding faster. How do you rebuild faster? More, faster workers. When you need a road to the enemy, when you need to patch up the ruins of a blitzed city, when you need that luxury hooked back up to the trade grid RIGHT NOW, industrious will save you. It's the obsessive perfectionist's only link to sanity!
CONCLUSION: More Useful

Scientific: At first I figured scientific was just another trait, liken to Commercial in terms of MP usefulness. But upon reflection, it really isn't. There will be a lot of self-researching going on in MP, because some techs simply WILL NOT be traded by anyone who wants to win the game. Getting your research facilities up to speed ASAP will lessen that load. It doesn't hurt that you'll boost your culture too; and when EVERYONE is building culture at least nominally, you can't afford to fall behind. That free tech at the start of every era? That doesn't suck either, especially when you're racing for Chivalry or the Sistine Chapel. Or need Riflemen ASAP to repel a cavalry blitz. Or when you want to find the aluminum BEFORE they get Modern Armor and finish off every other civ once and for all. Odds are you won't get to the last one, and probably not Nationalism in a really bloodthirsty game, but you are VERY likely to get Monotheism, and it WILL help you out no matter what path you're on. Finally, being scientific means you start with bronze working. Starting with bronze working means spearmen. Spearmen means "I'll take my archer rush somewhere else, have a nice game."
CONCLUSION: More Useful

In light of that, I'm sure we've already said which civs we think we'll be using to great effect in MP. Most of 'em are militaristic and/or expansionist, a lot of them are religious, and a few are scientific. My sleeper pick: the Germans. Early archer rush *and* early spearmen. Great offensive and defensive start in an environment that will inevitably turn to bloodshed.

Hopefully, we'll find out more about PtW in the next month or two, enough to know how to incorporate new improvements and abilities into our MP strategies. Outposts will likely prove a requirement (you DO want to know when they're coming, period), and airfields might finally make flight a critical juncture for artillery freaks. And then, of course, there's the naval element; some people are going to be REALLY into ships. How helpful that actually is is one of those things I'm not sure anyone can predict. How do *you* expect to execute your game plan against human opponents?

[Theseus]

I've just read this after a night out... I can't fully process it all and extend to all implications.

I'll give Nakar the best compliment that I can: I expect to read this at least 10 times before PTW arrives.

Worthy of Lermentov.

[monkspider]

wonderful post Nakar

I think that Commercial will distance itself from the rest of the traits as the worst if it isn't improved.

[jshelr]

I wouldn't rush to judgement on trading of key techs. We may find human players will pay through the nose for key techs and that the seller can then leverage the proceeds of selling to all competitors by further moving out in front on tech. Trading away short-term advantage in order to cement a long-term lead could be smart.

Let me ask if others agree that human players will be much, much better defenders and that the game could turn out to be much more defensive in nature. I think I can outfight anyone with equal tech and reasonable numerical equivalence on my home road system with city defense bonuses. We may be overconfident about offensive capabilty given the simplicity with which a little concentration of forces overcomes the AI quickly.

[Harovan]

Concerning tech trading, I think it could be even smart to refuse to buy a tech, while the prices are forced by one seller. I could wait a couple of turns, and then buy the tech from the lowest bidder.

Overall, an excellent thread!

[Papa Chubby]

Very interesting thread, really gets me itching for the expansion pack. Hope it will arrive soon so we can find out if we humans are really as smart as we believe we are.

[Austin]

I think the Germans are going to be killer in Multiplayer; half price science buildings and barracks, you can early archer exterminate any non-scientific civ that starts near you, you are one tech away from iron working, rapid promotions and more leaders, and the cream of the crop is of course the Panzer.

The only problem is that during the Middle Ages you are going to be the civ everybody else is going to want to kill off.

Austin

[foo12]

Great thread --

re: Early-Ancient warfare, the Scientific trait, and the much maligned Commercial trait:

Ancient era rushes are going to make early defensive strategy (walk softly and carry a big stick) far more important. I think a lot of people will take a second look at the Greeks as the Hoplite, at 1.3.1, is available right from the start and unmatched till the Middle Ages when pikemen come into play. Even then, the Greek player has no reason to upgrade his defensive capability until gunpowder if even then. I often play as the Greeks and choose to delay upgrading my Hoplites till Nationalism. (Having Musketmen can be life or death, but usually I'm on good terms with my immediate neighbors and/or have minimised the big threats early: Roman and Persia.) Play the Greeks against the AI on emperor or deity; try defending a hilltop city with 4 hoplites and a catapult or two, and see if the AI can make a dent against your city-state-citadel

Now let's see how Soren boosts the Commercial trait... it might just make the Greeks a major contender in PTW.

[jshelr]

Austin

Wait 'til your Kraut archers stumble across my Bab bowmen and we'll see who gets exterminated. Admittedly, they are scientific. But I'll pay for the barracks to get the two defense. My bet is that the Babs rise in the ranks of desired civs due to their offense/defense flexibility very early, and thier scientific / cultural flexibility later. To say nothing of the one turn anarchy.

[miccofl]

Let me ask if others agree that human players will be much, much better defenders and that the game could turn out to be much more defensive in nature.

That is an understatement! Multiplayer can't come soon enough!

Fantastic analysis Nakar! Are you a psycologist or just a student of human nature? I copied and pasted your post into a word.doc for future reference. Hope you don't mind.

[W4r_Machine]

I agree Austin, however, what's preventing the neighboring CIV from churning out defenders/offensive units. Human player doesn't know which city is the least defended so a human player will be able to thin out it's defence* to counter the failed german rush.

*Take out offensive units from defending.

[DrFell]

Tech trading won't occur much in MP. In fact I'm not sure how much trade will occur at all... I don't remember selling off techs in civ2 anyway. Thing is, very few players will be willing to sell off their tech advantage, would you like to trade off your hard-earned 20 turn margin over say, chivalry (powerful units), or gunpowder (first chance to claim saltpetre), for a few hundred gold? Most players will be forced to research all of their techs themselves, apart from to 'allies', as one thing I am sure of is the unofficial alliances which will spring up in any games but duels.

Maps will be priceless too, as most players won't want their opponents to get a view of all the strategic targets in their empire I love it when people give me their maps in civ2, after that you can be sure there is an invasion coming up. Even more so in civ3, as knowing where an opponents iron resources and luxuries are can help you plan which targets to strike first to cripple him.

Civ2 MP strategies often involved keeping yourself as well defended as possible with as few units as possible until a war breaks out (or until you start planning for a war). This meant a lot of undefended cities, etc. In civ3 the basic generic early military strategies will likely involve building up a small mobile offensive force to counter any rushes your opponents might try to pull on you, as well as keeping some scouting units around on hills or mountains to spot any units coming in your direction. The mobile offensive force will be necessary because choke points are much harder to hold in civ3 when compared to civ2, the enemy force can walk round nearly any defence you set up. I also predict cities will still be poorly defended, with spearmen or whatever being rushed in only if the city is certain to be attacked and if a counter attack is not possible. Greeks and Zulus will likely be the only civ to regularly pump out spearmen type units.

As for Germany, I'm not sure how powerful they would be. Certainly they would have big problems against say, the Aztecs, but any civ can counter an archer rush if they are expecting it with a vast number of warriors, of which they can afford in a 2 to 1 ratio. True the Germans have their spears right away, but it doesnt take that many warriors to take out a couple spearmen on grassland. After that it's 1 attack vs 1 defence, 50-50 death ratio. Of course if the land is hilly then it's much more difficult to counter.

[Nakar Gabab]

I have absolutely no doubt that human players will be better defenders. Not only will they have more defense units (provided you give them the means to build them!), they'll have, if they're sharp, offensive units as well. Longbowmen may seem useless now, but they're cheap and easy to upgrade from archers... one or two longbowmen in a city along with the garrison is going to be a nightmare for horseman-line lovers. Sure, your units will sometimes retreat, but what happens when your weak units standing directly next to a city are forced to spend a turn after failing to take the town?

MP wars are going to be much longer and more grueling than any SP war. Remember: You can pretty much always make peace with the AI. A human might NEVER forgive you. Ever. You'll *always* be at war. A perpetual state of war is something we'll have to get used to.

This might make for an interesting practice game: Pick a few civs to go to war with, and never make peace with them. If they call you up to offer a treaty, dismiss them.

DrFell's got a pretty good point... some people are going to be tragically stingy with their tech and maps. Isolationism fails in Civ3 because of rampant AI collusion. In MP, you have a bunch of competitive human beings locking horns. Turtling just might be viable; you might not extinguish the tech tree (in fact, tech will probably be amazingly slow), but odds are the other folks in the game aren't buddy-buddy either.

I honestly believe Civ3 will be a better MP game than SP. Obviously, most games are better when you allow for human opponents, but Civ3 definitely seems MADE for this. The things we complain about not having enough importance (tech leads, diplomacy, etc.) will change drastically with PtW.

I should also point out: While I said that culture will be important in MP, it may not be AS important as early in the game. Early on, you want to ensure survival. That means LOTS of warriors, archers, spearmen, and later horsemen and swordsmen. Only when you feel comfortable (or just plain NEED the unhappiness/research benefits) can you get started on your cultural base.

Pop rushing will be interesting too. Do you dare to rush in despotism to get more improvements/units, while at the same time stunting your growth rate and production capabilities? As I said, everybody's got the same production at the start, and Vel will tell you how important turn advantage is. I think pop rushing in general will turn from an advantage to a gambit; pop-rushing in your training camp city *might* get you quicker units, but the resources you spent building the city might harm your empire overall. It's gonna take some thinking.

[DeepO]

Has anyone played SMAC MP? I did it only twice, as the game was not really stable (), but both times the same thing happened: The very first thing everybody did in the game was calling every other player, and exchange all of his techs to all of the other's techs. And nearly all maps were exchanged immediately as well. Only a few players were able to keep their maps because they had, through better trade, more techs then the rest...

I'm not that sure that tech isolationism will occur, because you risk that the rest of the world is not isolationist, and yu risk that the game takes hours before anything interesting occurs. Of course, a lot depends on when you can contact other players: do you have to find them in-game, or can you contact everyone at the start?

Other than that, a superb thread!

DeepO

[W4r_Machine]

I agree with DeepO.

Ultumately, the goal is to win and you're not gonna win if you do not trade with others. It will just result in resentment. Trading is all the more important in PtW. When a human player sees that you're lagging in techs chances are you'll be his/her b!tch from cell block C Weaknesses are exploitable. Trading makes you freinds and that's the bottom line.

One last note,
Be extra carefull in the later part of the game. This is where people become crafty and systematically devise a plan for conquest.

[DrFell]

I'd be suprised if in 4-way games, everyone will trade with everyone else. That would be foolish at best... it's only to your advantage preventing other humans from reaching government techs and denying them resources. 4-way games tend to get 'polarised' but if someone is exchanging techs with their opponents then it would only hurt them.

I'd trade some techs, but never maps. Trading maps with non-allies is a sure way of getting yourself killed.

[DeepO]

I'm not saying it happened all the time, but in the 2 SMAC MP games I played it surely did. And there were some very seasoned MP players in there, it was not my idea... the first game I was lucky that someone contacted me, and, surprised as he was that I only had my starting techs, he offered half of his tech for my map (which, at that time, only revealed my starting position). Out of pure compassion, I guess (the human factor!)

It was a lucky move of his: I was playing the Spartans, got lucky with the first datapod I opened (rover), and discovered he was my closest neighbour. If he hadn't shared his tech with me, I would have slain his university city in the first 10 turns of the game. Now I returned the favor, and just asked for the rest of his techs

It was too bad that SMAC MP was so unstable, I never played more then 30 turns before crashing out of the game. So I can't comment on how later tech swapping happened... but speaking personally, I'll gladly exchange ironworking for horseback riding with every Civ that doesn't start right next to me. If two players reason like that, the others can't stay behind.

DeepO

[colinf]

Sounds like a variation on the 'prisoners dilemma'

....if you're going to trade with someone else then I cant afford not to since I'll be left behind in tech.

Since I don't know if you're trading with someone else or not, I'll have to trade just in case you are.

Ergo - everyone will trade.

Turtles will lose to alliances.
The fun bit comes when you stab your partner.....

(I used to LOVE across the boad Diplomacy (the game) - pure strategy and psychology).....

[jshelr]

Yea -- we're all going to have to read John Nash's work. Maybe just seeing the movie will be enough.

[Franses]

I played many CTP Internet and PBEM multiplayer games. Tech trading only happened between alliances and than only with utmost caution.

Because researching a tech gets cheaper when everybody else has it, tech trading in CIV3 will even be less popular, I guess.

I do expect luxury resource trading like "you get me silk, I give you spices".

[Nakar Gabab]

Of course, it depends on the climate of the game. Get 4-8 warmongers on one map, and you'll see tech trading over someone's dead body. Get 2-3 of those people as amiable traders, and suddenly EVERYONE will pretty much need to trade.

It's an interesting variation on tech whoring - playing the tech spoiler in MP by shopping techs around to those that don't have them. It not only keeps people out of the lead, but it also forces their hand and creates the need for trade (or the need to shut you down, if they think they can pull it off).

And of course, the guy who starts the trading racket profits immensely. *Unless*, of course, people refuse to BUY his tech...

[W4r_Machine]

If trading with everybody else doesn't work, try the opposite. I guess it depends on who you play it with.

I'll gladly give up tech for tech+/-cash as I see no problem with it. I may think twice trading tech that leads to GW or "powerfull" units, but other than that, I see no problem.

Worst case scenario is, you trade a tech that provides GW which you started building a couple of turns ago and you got beat by the one you sell it to.

Or two, you sell a tech that is a steping stone to a more advance unit and the buyer mass upgrades his older units to invade you.

[DrFell]

Or three, he builds thirty advanced units with the tech you just gave him and takes over your whole empire

[Nakar Gabab]

But here's the rub, folks, look at where some of the techs bottleneck!

Iron Working - Gotta have IW for Construction. Gotta have Construction for Aqueducts and to get out of the Ancient Era. Are you honestly gonna trade IW to someone, unless they have NO iron? Think on this for a second.

Horseback Riding - On the way to monarchy. Warmongers take heed. Trade this one? Maaaaaaaaybe.

Literature - You don't "need" it. Yeah right. GL won't be as useful, but everybody's gonna need the libraries. Expect this one to be hard to get, PARTICULARLY because it's not a prereq.

Theology - Bottleneck for Education and the Democracy branch. Also lets you build the Sistine Chapel. Who in their right mind is going to trade this one (unless they already have Sistine and a comfy lead)?

Feudalism - Everybody's going to research this, probably on their own. Pikemen, Sun Tzu's, and the bottleneck for Chivalry. I can't see myself trading this one.

Invention - Leo's, and the path to Military Tradition. This might be more salable, but not by a lot.

Steam Power, Medicine, Nationalism - You've gotta be kidding me. When the Industrial era hits, all bets will be off. Do you want to give your opponents railroads? Let him get that much closer to hospitals? Give him the riflemen he needs to stave off your cavarly? Suuuure you do.

[punkbass2000]

IIRC, Horsebacking riding is not on the way to monarchy; it's a dead end tech. Perhaps you mean Warrior Code.

[FrustratedPoet]

This is a fantastic thread!

Originally posted by Nakar Gabab

Expansionist: Talk about more powerful! This may be the trait that stands to gain the most in MP. Tech trading in the early game is going to be notably stunted as everyone tries to beeline towards their pet techs (GL, Horseback, Iron); if there happen to be barbs on the map, and therefore huts, you stand to get a leg up right away. Even without huts, expansionist gets some nifty benefits. Knowledge will be power when it comes to the MP game, and scouts give you tons of knowledge before anyone else can get it. Furthermore, scouts can be used as suicide recon during times of war, letting you see garrisons, note troop movement, and pillage vital resource links. Having a better map than anyone else is key as well, since a black map to a human player is a complete mystery. Scouting for resources and luxuries allows for early denial strategy plans, and even the slightest leg up in city placement means that much more efficiency over the next guy. You can argue that the benefits taper off in the late game, but any good Zulu player is going to blink and ask "What late game?" while they bulldoze you with impi and horsemen.
CONCLUSION: More Useful

Something else that should be mentioned here is that, as ever with the Expansionis trait, the importance of map-size.

I agree with you that Expansionist will be a more desired trait in MP than it is in SP, but I think it will become a must-have trait on large and huge maps (maybe standard too?).

There won't be many simultaneous MP games on the big maps because of computer speed issues, but it would be quite possible via PBEM.

If you're playing a PBEM game on a large or huge map against several other human players then everyone will want to be expansionist. The other great Civs such as Japan, China, Germany and Egypt could find themselves relegated to the 'second division' of desired civs because everyone would want to be an expansionist civ - especially the Aztecs and Zulu's for their good UU's.

just my £0.02.

[Transcend]

If my trading partners are on a far away continent, why won't I sell them these techs for a bunch cash and let them slug eatch other out?

The multi-player civ game reminds me of China before the first unification in 221BC, where one kingdom had to defeat at least six other almost equally powerful kingdoms. How Chin managed to achieve that should be a very interesting lesson for winning the game.

[DAVOUT]

FrustratedPoet,

How are allocated the civs to the players in a MP game ?

[FrustratedPoet]

good question DAVOUT.

I'm not sure, but I suppose that each perosn simply gets to pick what Civ they want to play in the same way they would for an SP game.
This raises the problem of having more than one person picking the same Civ.
Maybe in MP there is no restrictions on the number of people who can play as a single Civ.

I hadn't really thought about that issue, though.

Does anyone know the answer to this?

[W4r_Machine]

So the croud is somewhat devided: traders and non-traders.

Trading importants techs are out of the question, it simply wont happen 'cept for those rare occurances.