Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume II

[tommynt]

oh well your 1. warrior ll help defending - basicly u just need 2 warrior to protect land from 1 - just allways blcok and have 2 nd rdy

sure if u get swarmed or wana play save just chop a bow - its only 1 chop and no more worries from incoming warriors

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think that this ongoing discussion is quite valuable to the strategy thread, because it helps to underscore the precise differences between MP and SP, and should go far in helping SP players who are contemplating MP decide what strategies to employ and which ones to leave firmly in the SP arena. Good stuff!
-=Vel=-

What this discussion has done for me is make it clear I should NEVER play MP. I'd just be lamb for the wolves and I'm not talking about the 1-hit point kind.

I must have had stars in my eyes. I was thinking with Civ4 (having never got what to me would be enough playing time in in Civ3,) I would "work my way up" to MP, through SP "experience" and that MP then would be the "ultimate" Civ experience. Well Baaa, Baaa! I'm a builder, who likes to conduct an elaborate "castle" for defense, build lots of Wonders in it and then, late game, construct a substantial trade empire. I'd be definite "Baaa-Baaa" in the descriptions I've read herein in multi-player. Glad its available for those who want it, glad I'm not in it.

It was heartening to read here and on some of the specialized threads that some experienced players, most notably the moderator, play in a manner similar to what I do. Ditto for specialized cities, I don't overspecialize, retaining some capability in the major areas (commerce, production, GPP; this last I'm paying more attention to specializing in though) in most cities. There's something naughty to the outsider about people "playing alone," ("How can you do it alone?" --The Who, 1981,) but this group activity (forums) definitely enhances that experience and I feel the experience itself builds intellect.

[lastchance]

I think the above is a very interesting and enlightening discussion.

It seems human players win by gaining a small production advantage (Bronze) on the field early and use it to crush you with their Axeman as quickly as possible, while computer players will win through outteching and outresearching you in the long game. In MP, you don't have any time outresearch and outtech people, and in SP, the small production advantage is simply not enough when there is a civ far away using their huge production and commerce edge to massively outtech you.

How to win in Civilization, perhaps, is simply the art of not losing. At the higher levels of MP or SP, there seems to be one common way to lose the game, and that's being outteched or outproduced.

[tommynt]

outteched by ai??

lamo - I was able to outtech ai on god - ai suckz ass in teching - it s just good in teching as thebad diplomacy concept make it alliance with other ais and trade techs like hell -just disable techtrding for once and u ll figure how bad ai techs

btw i still wasnt able to beat ai on god - I played SP on god with 7 ai s - butthey never attacked each other - and cheat just far too much in getting units - i was overrun at some point.

and i really dont understand why i post - MP games are reraly won by the one who got most untis but by the one with most production - when some1 (who never palye MP) thinks afterwards totaly opposite.
oh well teamgames and 1-1 are deceded most times by units - but then the power of catas kcik in which make u ablke to defend with about 1/3 of units from attacker

SP AND MP GAMES ARE WON BY THE BEST PLAYER

[Velociryx]

Total agreement, Tommy.

It's just that, the paramaters that *define* who the best player is, are different for SP and MP.

Different skill set.

By identifying precisely what those skills are, we'll help folks get the most out of the game.

In MP, from my experience, you can go a looooooong ways by mastering 1-2 of the basics, and letting the rest go (ie - learn how to optimize your city outputs, and learn how to maneuver and fight effectively with your troops--choke, rush, counter-punch, etc).

Aside from those to things, can you think of anything that's really critical to MP? I mean...anything that if you don't do, will cost you a game on a regular basis?

I think (and this is just a guess on my part...let me be clear), that anything else you might name will be a) a sub-set of the above, or b) not REALLY 100% critical to the win.

That's what I meant earlier when I said MP was a lesson in reductionism. That's not an insult to MP....just a statement that, for better or worse, it distills the game down to only the stuff that's absolutely critical, and all the rest is either left out, or takes a distant back seat.

Thus, in my opinion, it takes relatively FEWER (not less mind you, just fewer) skills to master MP than it does to master SP.

What makes SP more intriguing for me is the following difference:

* at the start of an SP game, I have a number of rivals. These rivals do not know (or don't act as if they know) I exist, and when we meet, their opinion of me is shaped by the things I do, and the way I interact with them. Granted, this is defined by an arbitrary set of parameters, but nonetheless produces a decently varied set of results. I can make friends and alliances that will last the whole of the game. I can truly build diplomatic bridges and have meaningful relationships in-game.

* at the start of an MP game (this is a "standard" MP game, not a role play or demo, or any of the special variety MP games...just a "regular" ladder MP game), I have a number of rivals who know I exist, even if they do not know where. All of them have an overwhelming, almost psychotic drive to kill me. Why? Because they are aware (unlike the computerized opponents) that this is a game, and that the game has a bounding box. That if I am not dead by such-and-so time, then THEY might be dead, because they cannot take the chance and believe that I might not have the same psychotic mindset that they do.

Thus, from turn one, even tho no one has even met, everyone is pretty much playing the part of raving, blood-thirsty lunatic, and everyone's guard will be perpetually "up." There may be short term diplomatic arrangements, but no one will every truly trust anyone else, and everyone knows that before turn X, there can be only one person standing.

This shades the whole of the game, and renders diplomacy all but a moot point. It renders nearly every builderish aspect of the game a moot point, as the overriding goal becomes a) security and b) force projection. Everything else is pushed aside in preference for these, and the person who can get a "lock" the fastest, will generally score a quick kill, netting more land and more cities, and thus, a comparative production advantage, which will be magnified by the NEXT kill, and so forth, until the win is achieved.

Having said all that...PLEASE do not think I am belittling the skills needed to win at MP. It takes a tremendous amount of skill and patience to pull all that off with reliability.

It does not, however, take a great NUMBER of skills to pull it off. Nor does it use more than 10-15% of the stuff that's built into the game engine as anything but window dressing (if those things put in an appearance at all).

I have played some role play MP games, however, that were mind-blowingly complex, but those are rare, and only as good as the characters you're playing against, and how well the players adhere to the paramaters established in the beginning.

Random thoughts.

-=Vel=-

[tommynt]

quote at the start of an SP game, I have a number of rivals. These rivals do not know (or don't act as if they know) I exist, and when we meet, their opinion of me is shaped by the things I do, and the way I interact with them. Granted, this is defined by an arbitrary set of parameters, but nonetheless produces a decently varied set of results. I can make friends and alliances that will last the whole of the game. I can truly build diplomatic bridges and have meaningful relationships in-game quote end

If it d be really like so I d play more SP - but it s sadly just not like so - AI asked me to trade if it wanted something - I could either accept or destroy relationship - there was no way to say - "hey I like u but this deal suckz", other way round ai was just not interested in trade some things .. they were marked red - I could not even ask for em even as ai had em twice.
Oh well - in the end ai attacked me at the point i was getting stronger (by catching up in tech) - again it just attcked it didnt even ask "hey if u dont gimme this lux i ll attack u in some turns", it just declared war and landed me same turn.

I really wonder how some1 could say this bugged **** gives +85% of game depth as a MP game where everyone1 tries to do as tricky moves as possible - or if u do a FFA game - where u have to have personal emotions in mind.
U really have to thing about cancelling an alliance as u are very unlickly interested in pissing the guy off with whom u wana have fun games afterwards.

[Velociryx]

Ahhh, you have underscored an excellent case-in-point, and pointed out a skill in SP that has no real reason to exist in MP. Namely, diplomacy.

I have played numerous SP games where diplomacy was a pivotal part of mastering the globe. Instead of two choices (trade or ruin the relationship) I see many. I see trade as the deal is offered, broker a different one (negotiate on the points at hand), cash-out of that particiular negotiation (give them a boon to go away happy...usually 5-10g), or change the whole FACE of the negotiation by taking it in a different direction.

The care and feeding of allies (or the creation OF alliances) is a whole sub-set of the SP game that's simply lost to MP, and with good reason.

Likewise, I've NEVER heard anybody talk about how their new GPP strategy was the thing that reliably made the difference in MP, and yet, that very strategy can play a huge (pivotal) role in making or breaking you in SP.

The same can be said of any strategy involving a Faith-Rush (early religions)

Or mid-game religions.

Or culture.

Same with any number of builderesque strategies that get bypassed in MP in favor of the distilled "jugular-or-bust" fast and furious playstyle that reliably wins MP games.

I can't say it enough, that all of this is again, in my opinion Perhaps at some point, we'll see someone with a near-flawless MP win record who doesn't use min-maxing and troop shuffling as the premier way to win, but to my knowledge, that has not happened thus far.

If I had to guess....it won't happen at all, but at the end of the day, it's just my guess.

Games without a strong element of trust (which the vast majority of MP games lack, by their definition) are also lacking in the subtle layers of complexity that make SP games such very different creatures.

A little Zen? Maybe, but if you'll search your own SP games, you'll find the truth of what I'm saying. Trust, on a certain level, is the cornerstone of the complexity we see in SP.

Unless it's a special case game, MP lacks that, and because that component is missing, MP will always remain a more linear game than SP.

-=Vel=-

[tommynt]

u just overrate diplomacy in SP - AI is just too dumb minded - u give em 10 gold and it is happy ....

[Velociryx]

Not at all....all the 10g buys you is an "out" for that particular negotiation A means of preserving the working relationship.

It doesn't stop the AI from asking again, although there are things you can do about that as well.

As I said....a skill not needed in MP.

But I'm guessing that by not commenting on the other elements of the post that you, at least in large part, agree?

-=Vel=-

[Kinjiru]

Vel Writes>

' * at the start of an MP game... ...I have a number of rivals who... ...have an overwhelming, almost psychotic drive to kill me.Why? Because... ...if I am not dead by such-and-so time, then THEY might be dead, because they cannot take the chance and believe that I might not have the same psychotic mindset that they do. '

Yep, classic game theory at work here. Usually known as the Prisoner's Dilemma. In a system of rational actors, each party will choose paths that lead to the collectively worst possible outcome for the group. This is because of a lack of trust. If I cannot trust you to cooperate (that is, to NOT defect), then I must choose to act in a manner that assumes that you WILL defect. Since all parties will act in the exact same manner, the ultimate outcome is that every assumes everyone else will defect, and thus the total outcome is bad for everyone.

The only way to moderate this behaviour (without altering the system rules) is to have unbounded iteration. In terms of Civ, that would be to have the exact same players play many games. Now, reputation comes into play, so there is incentive to NOT defect. Meaning, that if I choose to act in the typical bloodthristy fashion, in the next game no one will trust me. I will know this, so there is some incentive to cooperate.

Of course, the number of iterations must be unknown, otherwise in the final game, everyone will defect because there are no longer any future consequences.

[couerdelion]

Diplomacy more basic in MP

Would it not be fairer to say that the diplomacy in MP applies more basic principles. It still exists albeit ignoring the rules defined in the game engine. To give a simple example, if a player is sandwiched by two rivals, those could agree to co-operate and carve up the one in between. The poor sod in the middle has a simple goal of keeping them from even meeting while trying to meet other rivals on either side of its neighbours.

All that’s happening is that the game engine is being bypassed. There is still diplomacy albeit between two psychopathic rulers who are, in effect, agreeing a temporary cessation in hostilities so that they can each gain some production. In a sense this is a Molotov-Ribbentrop alliance of convenience and we all know what happened there.

[EscapedGoat]

Playing a game of MP civ is not so different from playing an RTS at a snails pace, like Vel said. The game is basically reduced to a slow RTS.

One quick look in the lobby is all you need to confirm this. Most games are played at fast gamespeed, blazing turns and with techtrade off. If you create a game where you have normal turn timers, people come in and say 'BLAZING SPEED PLZ'. As we can see, these people are actually trying to get the game to be as close to an RTS as possible.

It also has the dynamics of an RTS, with the boom>turtle>rush>boom relationship.

The problem for most SP players is that they are 'boom' players: they go all economy and neglect defenses. It just so happens that the rush strategy is the counter-strategy to this type of play, and therefore it makes it hard to be a builder online.

CIV does a horrible job of actually modelling warfare. There are no lines of supply, no attrition to troops in your territory, no shooting town centres(ala Age of Empires), etc. This means that CIV is actually an RTS players dream: Lots of boom players to pray upon with rushes, no penalties or problems related to waging war, and no defenders advantage(except in the actual city square itself. Even most RTS's have better defender's advantage than CIV.

What I would like to see is the cultural defense bonus of cities extending to surrounding tiles. Perhaps not the whole bonus, but a fraction of it. The city defense bonus is mostly useless, because if you can't defend outside your cities, you are dead meat in MP due to mass pillage.

[Bkeela]

It's ironic that those who are interested in social interaction and therefore more attracted to multiplayer games end up becoming antisocial psychos bent upon the destruction of their peers; meanwhile those not greatly interested in fellowship tend to be peaceful builders who avoid war if at all possible.

Confirms many of my beliefs about extroverts and why the world is how it is.

[fed1943]

I think EscapedGoat went right to the point.Nevertheless,I also think that the boom-rush is not the last step but the first.A wargamer can always be defeated by another wargamer backed by a better build.So,the question returns:a little more wargamer strategy/a little more builder strategy(how many archers to defeat your 10 warriors?how many hammers for each side?how many beakers?how many turns?).
The way must be to try play the game from the end to the begining.
Best regards,

[tommynt]

it s so much more simple as u guy think it s is - the best player ll win - this is the guy how can rush, handle a rush and build and attack and tech and defend and .... at same time