MP strat vs. SP strat

[rah]

Thinking this would be a good thread to discuss the differences in STRAT from SP to MP.

Early military. Unless you're doing a rush in SP, you can slack on you military real early. In MP, unless you're playing islands or map too large, a lack of military means you'll soon be playin your SP game while the MP game continues without you.

Early religions. There's more competition for them, (in some games)

Wonders, the same thing.

What do you feel the differences are?

[Robert]

I always wonder, in SP games I beat the AI on Emperor/Immortal level but in the MP games (diplogames) I'm only a mediocer player.

The difference may be that in SP games I'm quicker to restart while I play a bad MP game out till the end. (Diplogames are like that )
The problem with MP games is that an early war can break you (as in my current game)

So far I don't really play different in MP then in SP, apart from the diplomacy obviously.

[rah]

I would bet that's why you're mediocer as an MP player.
They're not the same.

Your early enemy city is not defended with just archers.
But that's the purpose of this thread, what do the experts do differently.

[snoopy369]

Indeed. MP gaming is inevitably more warlike, because the AI is predictable (Even if more predictably warlike), while the human player could do anything at any time. Also, the fact that MP games are typically shorter means you're not as likely to win by space race if the option's even turned on.

MP strat is more about quick expansion while maintaining an adequate defense, and entering wars when appropriate. A mediocre MP player avoids early wars. A successful MP player enters them when appropriate, but pursues only wars that he/she can win, and can win without expending too much at home. For me, the early war is called "choke" (unless the enemy has too little at-home defense".

[Robert]

Originally posted by rah
I would bet that's why you're mediocer as an MP player.
They're not the same.

Your early enemy city is not defended with just archers.
But that's the purpose of this thread, what do the experts do differently.

Well, it's defenitely true that I may be too peaceful for multiplayer games, but diplogames aren't as warmongerish as normal mp games though.

[Toni]

CS peaceful

You were the only one who dared to jump the most powerful civ in HOTW7

[Robert]

Originally posted by Toni
CS peaceful

You were the only one who dared to jump the most powerful civ in HOTW7

I AM a peaceful player, but some MP games just need some war. Perhaps I'm a warmonger compared to the other diplogame pussies :P

You must be the most peaceful player I know, btw. I think that I've never seen you starting any war

[Ming]

Combat is a big difference... in SP, it's your standard SOD by the AI's. While in MP, SOD's are still the thing, but it's how humans use them vs the AI approach (or lack of approach) that is different.

Granted, the AI fights better in Civ IV than in any earlier version, but it's still pretty dumb. When you get taken by a master in MP, it's truly something to see.

[Toni]

Yea people always tend to jump me, i wonder why

[rah]

Being at the top of the leader board doesn't have anything to do with it.

Toni, peaceful, yeah right, just when he thinks he can get away with it. He'll flash that stack like a pro to discourage you.

Another difference. The Flash actually sometimes accomplishes something in MP.

[Ming]

So true... In MP, flashing an Elie in the early game near your boarder actually might discourage an attack. In SP, they change religions, go from bud to enemy in one turn, and attack even when it's obvious you will chew him for lunch.

[rah]

Yes, the diplomacy in MP is much more interesting.

Reputation makes a big difference.

If you don't keep your end of the bargain most of the times, you'll feel quite lonely more often.

[Ming]

Carry over feelings from one game to another amoung a regular group is important, and might even justify it's own thread

My approach is simple. Keep my word, support my allies as long as it's the right thing to do, and make people pay for messing with me. You might not be able to kill them, but you can sure keep them from winning.

[Robert]

In SP games all your enemies may declare war on you.
In MP games it's mostly your neighbour. Only an AI is silly enough to try to capture cities far away.

[Ming]

It makes me wonder in SP games why some crappy civ who is far behind you on the power graph, and half way around the world suddenly thinks it's a great idea to declare war on you. I have to think that they got paid to do it... since it really doesn't make much sense.

In MP games, the diplomacy makes it real interesting. It's key to make a buddy on at least one of your boarders. But it better be somebody you can trust.
There is nothing worse than having a "friend" on your boarder who has been waiting for you to have your army locked in battle on the other side of your empire, and then declares war on you and guts you like a caught fish