How playing against humans will be different...

CiverDan · October 9, 2002, 20:08

Everyone will have to cover their settlers with units. I'd like to find one person who wouldnt attack a settler by itself, since u greatly hinder your opponents expansion and get 2 captured units at the same time.

You will need to know where horses and iron are immediately. If not you will be early targets for elimination (except with civs with certain ancient units that have the 1 resource needed). Even then, your still in trouble when you enter the middle ages. That is why expansionist civs are important in MP. So you know immediately where you must settle, or in some cases, fight, to get one or both of these resources. Since no one will trade their map, scouts become even more important. (true some ppl say they will kill any scout they see but at least you will know where they are first if they attack you).

Luxury trades will probably be easier. Why just keep 5 extra wine laying around when I can trade it for another luxury...

Trying to steal someones map will be something tried a lot (see above)

"Dirty Tricks" like ROP backstab could be tried only once...but I wouldnt suggest doing it even once. You will be sorry when you need that ROP in another game.

WarpStorm · October 9, 2002, 20:56

The strategy of not researching anything and buying tech from your human opponents just won't work.

Rapid expansion without defense is probably a recipe for disaster (this is similar to guarding the settler).

People will actually believe me when I say Expansionistic is good.

You'll get l33t 5p33|< diplomatic messages.

More players will be fighting to get Hoover's

Nobody will vote for you in the UN (Maybe this isn't different)

The other players will actually speak to you using voice chat.

You will actually be able to trade cities.

Inverse Icarus · October 9, 2002, 21:08

you won't be able to "subjigate" a person. they wouldn't like to be your vassal state the whole game. they'll build up and fight (even if they have weaker weapons).

trade deals will get into insane amounts of money. Imagine someone with a monopoly on oil.

the entire world would probably ally against that monopolizer in an effort to take the oil.

there won't be any "partial wars" in multiplayer. if you take a human's city (or a bunch of them), the human will remember the entire game (and perhaps BETWEEN games), and that player will be plotting against you the whole time.

you (probably) wont have someone trying to colonize every square on the godforsaken map.

alva · October 9, 2002, 21:23

Quote:

You'll get l33t 5p33|< diplomatic messages.

&

there will be more emphasis on defensive units, I personally don't think the early archer tactic will work in MP. (at least not against me

)

Nyl · October 9, 2002, 23:52

I'll lose a lot more.

notyoueither · October 10, 2002, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by CiverDan
Everyone will have to cover their settlers with units. I'd like to find one person who wouldnt attack a settler by itself, since u greatly hinder your opponents expansion and get 2 captured units at the same time.

Not if they fear you, or your ancient UU.

Vengeance is ours sayeth the Legions.

Lord Zalzabad · October 10, 2002, 01:24

It would be a lot more difficult. The AI can be relied on to follow certian stratigies preprogramed into it, while (most) human minds are a lot better than the AI. They can play dirty tricks and Ruses on you, they can use stratigey (somthing absent from the AI). The world will be a very difficult place

alva · October 10, 2002, 07:41

But since this goes for everyone, the world can become a lot easier. Just need to figure out how

jim_steer · October 10, 2002, 09:55

There will be a lot of arguing over who gets to be the industrious civs mainly France, Persia and Egypt.

Guarded worker stacks will be a necessity (hopefully there will be automation to do this).

There will be more plausable, nasty and vicious backstabbing with long running grudge matches too.

There will be a much better feeling when you wipe out human civs though conversely you will feel\be much more humiliated when you are wiped out.

I wont be able to load the game to remove the occasional stupid runs of bad luck you get. I have to do this in the office cos my boss gets suspicous when I start screaming at my monitor and a quick reload lowers my blood pressure.

Multi-player in the office may get interesting, it adds a whole new dimension to office politics.

alva · October 10, 2002, 10:12

Quote:

Originally posted by jim_steer
There will be a lot of arguing over who gets to be the industrious civs mainly France, Persia and Egypt.

not really, it hasn't been proven yet, what the strong traits are in MP.

I think money will be very important since resources are going to be a lot more expensive. So commercial could be very strong.

Same goes for scientific, and eug religious, ohh yes and offcourse religious..........

WarpStorm · October 10, 2002, 10:20

...and don't forget the best for MP, expansionisitic

jim_steer · October 10, 2002, 10:25

I intend to give the french ago in my first multiplayer game even though this will mark me out as the first civ to kill in my office, for some reason everyone ganged up and wiped out the french as soon as they found them in our civ 2 multiplayer games.

Industrious will always be a required trait for me though as I always seem to start in jungles.

WarpStorm · October 10, 2002, 10:32

I'm sure that there will be a lot of random civ games set up so that these types of fights won't take place. Instead, you'll get the after game whining. "Well, I would've won if only I'd been..."

FrantzX · October 10, 2002, 10:37

In si-move mode, feints and diversions are going to be VERY useful.

alva · October 10, 2002, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
...and don't forget the best for MP, expansionisitic

Sure, that's what I meant, they all have there pro and cons

.
Wich I guess is how it should be.

And if not, the weaker civs can act as a sort handicap.
In good player (read: Aeson) versus weak player (read: Ming

)

J/K Ming

aahz_capone · October 10, 2002, 11:56

The conundrum of everyone attacking settlers at first sight is a good one. Workers will be thieved from eachother day and night too.

But is this REALLY warfare? Before WW1 for example the Paris shipping treaty of 1850 (or ther abouts) made rule of engagement for sea battles (letting survivers abandon merchant ships before sinking, etc). In war (and especially nowadays) it was frowned upon to attack civilians. I think that that should happen in PTW alswell, to keep MP a little more civilized. For example, diplomatic penalties for stealing workers and attacking settlers.

But what am I dreaming about? Firaxis will never make the diplomacy as sophisticed at it should be...

WarpStorm · October 10, 2002, 12:11

In the game currently, you get a diplomatic hit with any teams whose workers (other than your own obviously) you are using, as these are slave labor. This applies even if you purchased them.

aahz_capone · October 10, 2002, 12:19

EVEN if I purchase them? Thats dumb, what if their just migrant low paid workers? I think there should be a change in that.

What if I have lots of workers from a civ which is dead? do I suck in the eyes of other civs too? And the foreign nationals in my cities, do they think I'm a jerk?

WarpStorm · October 10, 2002, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by aahz_capone
EVEN if I purchase them? Thats dumb, what if their just migrant low paid workers? I think there should be a change in that.

What if I have lots of workers from a civ which is dead? do I suck in the eyes of other civs too? And the foreign nationals in my cities, do they think I'm a jerk?

Only in the eyes of the civ whose slaves you use. If they are a dead civ, nobody cares. Nobody minds foreign nationals in your cities (but they bring their own set of problems, especially if you later go to war with the mother country).

ArmaGeddin · October 10, 2002, 13:10

You will need to actually DEFEND your borders.

I usualy put one spearman in all my cities, but after that nothing. Now I will need to keep a "Fast Action Force" available on each border to repel invasions.

Dis · October 10, 2002, 14:43

I'm scared to play humans. But am looking forward to it.

Admiral PJ · October 10, 2002, 19:13

There should be some Code of Laws written up ( a constiution) to create laws for playing MP games.
This would say maybe: 1. Cities cannot be traded over size 4 and if during peacetime 200*pop size has to be paid for a trade.
2. Breaking a pact means no one makes a similar pact with the cheater for 10 turns, unless they forfeit a town or money to the victim.
3. Nuking an ally or someone with MP or peace pact will mean everyone must become their enemy.. even if it means breaking pacts. (could be abused, if its useful for the tyrant nuker to war with everyone) Alternatively everyone has to break off trade with the Nuker.

Punishments could include Mass Trade Sanctions for 10 turds (turns) - everyone can't trade with them.. trade embargoes set if they are discovered.
Abusers could have to pay money to make up for bad behaviour/etiquette too, maybe 25 per turn to everyone, or a bulk sum of 1000... like a debt.

statusperfect · October 10, 2002, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
There should be some Code of Laws written up ( a constiution) to create laws for playing MP games.

The rules are in the game. There is a saying i sweden that is some what like: "If you join a game you have to take the consequences." Backstabbing kicks!

kolpo · October 11, 2002, 05:36

I have in many games seen that MP is TOTALY different then single player. Many things that matter in single player do no longer mather at all in MP(high culture will no longer make you more liked, even the opposide might be true) and others that don't mather in single palyer and that will suddenly mather in MP.

My experience is that MP is often played much more offensive and much faster then single player, every turn mathers, being 3 turn behind on a military key tech can cost you 2 cities(it can take 1 turn to rush buy them, 1 to get them with rail near and one to attack).

But how it actually will turn out is impossible to predict and will we only know when we have tetsted it, but I think that it will be a totaly different type of strategy, most currect single player startegies will be simply wothless and suicidal in MP.

Athitis · October 11, 2002, 05:45

Why to buy PtW, when my little civ nukes the hell out of a superpower in MP????

alva · October 11, 2002, 06:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Athitis
Why to buy PtW, when my little civ nukes the hell out of a superpower in MP????

hmmm, ok

but eyg, you'd have survive quite long before you can use these, and I'm not sure you will

Flandrien · October 11, 2002, 06:52

I think there will be fights over who can get to play the Aztecs.
Their UU (jaguar warrior: available immediately, 2 movement points) acts as a scout that can actually defend itself.

Randolph · October 11, 2002, 07:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Maestro
I think there will be fights over who can get to play the Aztecs.
Their UU (jaguar warrior: available immediately, 2 movement points) acts as a scout that can actually defend itself.

Although I'd probably want my golden age sooner in MP than SP, I'd rather not have it *that* early. This does bring up the interesting question of how best to use GA in MP...

how important? how offensive?

ruby_maser · October 11, 2002, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Randolph
This does bring up the interesting question of how best to use GA in MP...

Good point... your probably not gonna get to leisurely put it off when it might mean the difference between being ahead or behind vs. a human opponent.

Of course there is a third option to the clear cut peace and war... the idea of extortion. Bullying another human who is sorely behind (maybe who never had the experience you had to get off the ground quickly) and making them pay for peace.

... there will be all kinds of changes. Ultimately, I think the purist strategies of straight builder or warmonger are gonna be replaced by a need to be much more balanced in all areas of the game. And trust will be a hard thing to come by.

alva · October 11, 2002, 12:41

there is a bonus side-effect of having a possible early
GA:
in the way, that your neighbours will not really be enthousiatic to set if off (in a war against them).
Therefore it might very well be good tactic to bluff/bully your nextdoor civ.
And my guess is, that he/she

wil
be inclined to give in!

Damned: I shouldn't tell you all this!! You should figure it out on the battlefield

[return to normal mode]