What is the best civ/leader combo for MP?

[wodan11]

Yeah though I'd probably go for Archery at that point. Even if you also need Hunting, it still costs less than IW, plus you'll get a discount on Hunting (because other civs know it) making it even cheaper (best case is 60 beakers vs 130). Archery is a sure thing and doesn't require you have Iron and hook it up. Archers cost 25 while Swordsmen cost 40. Archers aren't vulnerable to Axes (which most everybody is going to have) while Swordsmen are.

All this takes time. It takes more time to research IW, more time to mine/road the iron, more time to make or upgrade enough Swords to have a difference (1 or 2 isn't going to matter much). Time is what you are already short on! So, Archery.

[rah]

Unless I'm the mali or NA, i have a tendency to try and cheat it and avoid archery and concentrate on other things early. But again, only if I think I can get away with it. (either a slightly isolated start of near players that are not always aggressive early) Now if I start next to a trev or snoop, and have no copper or horses, archery is my next priority.

[wodan11]

But again, only if I think I can get away with it. (either a slightly isolated start of near players that are not always aggressive early)

Do such players exist?

If so, point me in their direction as I have some axes or war chariots who need something to do.

[Ming]

Sure, archers are better than warriors, and can at least defend against most barb attacks. But they really aren't all that much of an upgrade unless you are protective. Now, if my UU is an early archery unit, or I'm the Native Americans, that's another thing

But overall, you must have some "metal" so that you can build spears and axeman. It's not really about swordsman. I enjoy nothing more than somebody who only has archers. Two chariots are usually goood enough per archer. And you claim Archers aren't vulnerable to Axes? Not the case... it's just a matter of numbers needed. If somebody is aggressive, it's even worse. And if somebody gets swordsman and all you have is archers, game over

[rah]

Yeah, if you have no metal at all, you're screwed anyway so you might as well find out as soon as possible. Yeah yeah feudalism and gunpowder but those are pretty far in the future.

[Dinner]

Yeah, if you don't have bronze or horses then I'd skip archers and go straight for Iron Working. You're dead anyway if you don't get metal so you might as well minimize the amount of time it takes to see if you have iron or not.

[Ming]

I rarely research archery early in an MP game. The exceptions are if my UU is the skirmishers of if I'm the NA's. Now they are worth building. Even the Bowman UU won't tempt me since they suck

[wodan11]

Sure, archers are better than warriors, and can at least defend against most barb attacks. But they really aren't all that much of an upgrade unless you are protective.

what?!?

It takes 4 warriors and 60 lost hammers to kill an axe. It takes 2 archers and 25 lost hammers to kill the same axe.

Given that Axes are the most likely opposing force, by far, this is hardly "not much of an upgrade."

I enjoy nothing more than somebody who only has archers.

They probably aren't using them intelligently.

Two chariots are usually goood enough per archer.

Interesting. I would say two archers are good enough per chariot.

And you claim Archers aren't vulnerable to Axes? Not the case... it's just a matter of numbers needed.

Exactly! Except the other way around. Enough archers will kill any early invading force, no matter what it's composed of. For most enemy units, all it takes is N+1 archers.

And if somebody gets swordsman and all you have is archers, game over

Why would they bother waiting to get IW and Swords when they can clearly see that all they face are Warriors?? Your opponents will kill you with their Axes. Swords actually would be a *worse* choice as they're weaker than axes are (vs warriors).

If for some bizarre reason you end up facing Swords with Archers, it's certainly not game over. It takes 2.5 archers (sometimes 2 sometimes 3) and 37 lost hammers to kill a Sword at 40 hammers. After Archery you could still decide to get IW, or Cats, or whatever.

[Ming]

It takes 4 warriors and 60 lost hammers to kill an axe. It takes 2 archers and 25 lost hammers to kill the same axe.

Given that Axes are the most likely opposing force, by far, this is hardly "not much of an upgrade."

You are missing the point... if a stack of axeman or chariots come at your capital, it doesn't really matter much in the end if you have warriors or archers. Either way, you are toast. Sure, he will lose more units, but you will still be DEAD! So yeah, not much of an upgrade because dead is dead.

They probably aren't using them intelligently.

If you are out manned, there is only so much you can do... They can also just pillege everything, because you won't be able to successfully attack out with archers. They can then totally crimp you, and then come at you later with better units, while you are doing a slow death and still only have archers.

Interesting. I would say two archers are good enough per chariot.

In most cases, two chariots will take out one archer. The two to one ratio is pretty consistent. Granted, hill defenses and promotions can change it, but on average, I will happily give up two chariots to kill an archer. You can talk all you want about number of hammers and whatever, but at the end of the day, you are still dead.

Exactly! Except the other way around. Enough archers will kill any early invading force, no matter what it's composed of. For most enemy units, all it takes is N+1 archers.

But nobody is stupid enough to attack with the equal number of units unless you are so superior it doesn't matter. So in most cases, when you are under attack, you will be seirously outnumbered.
I would much rather attack somebody limited to archers than somebody who can bring combined arms into play.

Why would they bother waiting to get IW and Swords when they can clearly see that all they face are Warriors?? Your opponents will kill you with their Axes. Swords actually would be a *worse* choice as they're weaker than axes are (vs warriors).

As I said... warriors, archers... you are still dead. And that is why you beline to IW if you don't have metal or horses. I'll tell you what, why don't we play a MP game where I get metal and you don't. Then we can test your archer theory

If for some bizarre reason you end up facing Swords with Archers, it's certainly not game over. It takes 2.5 archers (sometimes 2 sometimes 3) and 37 lost hammers to kill a Sword at 40 hammers. After Archery you could still decide to get IW, or Cats, or whatever.

By then, it might be too late. Unless you give up on everything else, and only build archers, and more archers, you will be toast. And if all you do is build archers and nothing else, you will lose in the long run. If you have a large army, you have to use it. Sitting on defense with a large army is not a good thing. And, it's not so bizarre to be facing swordsman early. We are talking mp.

[Blaupanzer]

In SP, my pattern is to get a couple of mil techs, then go for the Oracle with supporting techs to make it worthwhile. In MP, I would be more inclined to go for IW, then Construction. So if you had to divert to archery, I would bring my swords, axes, and chariots to "visit" with your archers. Then you can watch what I do with my cities and yours too.

I'm saying I agree with the IW next tactic. Even in SP I would go for IW before archers if no copper or horses in reach UNLESS my Civ had Hunting as a starting tech. In that case, at least, the archers hold off the barbs long enough to let me develop without a cultural territory full of black flags.

[Dinner]

If I start with a civ which gets mysticism at the start then it makes sense to go for a religion and priesthood to get the oracle. But you have to worry about not getting bronze working until after everyone else got it and maybe until after all the bronze sources have been grabbed. Then when you're militarily weak you have to face strong neighbors who might just fancy your holy city and wonder city. :\

I think the biggest difference between SP and MP is that in SP you want to get alphabet pretty quickly so you can start trading techs before everyone else already started tech brokering while in MP tech trading is almost always turned off so alphabet becomes pretty useless.

[Blaupanzer]

I think he meant Writing. Alphabet is really only an SP priority, if there. But spies come from there as well as the capability to select all beakers as a option in a given city.

[One_more_turn]

I would say Sitting Bull is a quite interesting choice for MP games.

Not even praets like to mess around with his enhanced protective archers and dog soldiers.

Philosophical on the other hand really helps with developments.

[One_more_turn]

wodan11, if you do not have a capable field army, the other side will completely destroy your infrastructure and keep you in stone age forever!

In SP games, you know the AI won't come after you before 1000BC (epic speed); but in MP games, attacks can come at any time.

[Ming]

Yeah... in MP games, the attack can come on the turn they find you

In SP games, it's safe to build a worker, work boat or even settler first... That's NOT a very safe thing to do in MP and can be considered risky.