Most Stupid stratergy encountered in MP

[Carolus Rex]

Now I'm really confused!

ROTFLMAO = Run Over Those French Lads, Measly Attack Organizer?

Oh well...

Carolus

[Ming]

ROTFLMAO = rolling on the floor laughing my ass off

MWHC
I've been in a few large battles including 20 plus units, but it is a rarity.
And yes, given normal circumstances, I generally use a similar strategy, becuase it works. There have been a few games where the situation dictates a different strategy.
But those are far and few between.

[VaderTwo]

I was playing a game a few months back that was thoroughly amusing because of the antics of a human player who joined rather late in the game. The guy joined around 1400 AD and within 2 turns declared war on me by attacking and sinking one of my transports carrying caravans, and promptly started chatting how he was going to crush my civ like butter. Obviously he was a warrior - type civ player.

I saved the game at that point to see after the game had ended what his situation was for him to be so boastful.

His situation: 17 cities, 68 units - researching machine tools - army was mostly cavalry, musketeers, a few riflemen
and cannons with a cruiser and a couple of destroyers, ironclads and transports. Only had a few factories and no city with more than 50 shields production per turn.

My situation: 26 cities, 94 units - researching fusion power (my last tech before the future techs)- # 1 power -I had almost every modern wonder except women's suffrage which my close ally (the #2 power) had and manhattan project (hadn't been built yet). I had over 12 cities with production over 80 shields per turn.

Well, I quickly destroyed most of his fleet and sent stealth bombers to wipe out his coastal forces. My ally, who was itching to get into the war (he also found this guy's attitude considering his dire situation laughable), got his chance when his cruiser was attacked by one of this guy's cruisers.

After that it was game over. We both sent large forces against him (I had over 150 units by that time having switched to fundamentalism). After we had conquered 6-7 of his cities, he quit. (After saving it, I found out that he had more partisans left than all of his other units combined)

I have been puzzled ever since why the guy never bothered to find out how his civ stood tech-wise versus the others before attacking.

[Blackbane]

Hi.
I am very new to this sight, though I've spent way too much time playing Civ and Civ 2 over the years. But I hav ealways played solo. Recently, I bought Test of Time and Fantastic Worlds, both of which allow multiplayers. Ok great, but I don't know anyone to multiplayer with. Is there an email list for such purposes? Or do people play on a game sight? Please help, I have a yen to get crushed by all you experts. :-)

[Sten Sture]

There is a thread on the next board up Civ2-Multiplay where you can find a list thread called ICQ player numbers or something like that. There are also a couple of threads that may be buried that give pretty detailed instructions on how to get everything set up.

[Superstar]

Vader,
Sounds like you've met the dumbest Civer, congrats. What else could he really do tho? He joined half-way through, he was an ant surrounded by giants, and had absoloutly no chance of winning.
If I was in that situation, I guess I'd go around with my begging bowl or raise taxes, steal a few important defensive techs and then attack the next weakest civ.
He was in a pretty hopeless situation, but he sounded like a pretty hopeless player.

[Sparrowhawk]

Carolus, thanks, you made me laugh too.

Let's see you're from Sweden, I'm from Canada and most of the people criticizing your "peacefull warmongering" are from the states. I'm not suprised. It's great to see, both their methods and your's and I don't criticize either as both have a place not only in the civ world but in the real world as well. Personally I think the opinions are generally representative of the nations each of us are from (IMHO).

I was reading a post on favourite/least favourite wonders earlier and was suprised at how many people dislike the eiffel tower. As someone that likes to finish the game with a spotless reputation I generally like to at least conquer the city that has built it with enough time left in the game to restore my rep. (I know it doen't affect score or anything I just like the idea of being a world conqueror whom everyone believes has done no wrong). Thanks again.

[Ming]

And thank you Sparrowhawk for bringing one of my favorite new threads back to the top.

The other week I was playing in an MP game.
The first human civ I met, I asked (well demanded) an alliance. Early partnerships in MP can make all the differences in the world.
All he wanted was a peace treaty. Well, early peace treaties mean only a few different things to me in MP...
First, they already have an ally, and he is just coverning his butt.
Second, it's a prelude to war.
Third, the person is so far ahead, that he thinks he can win all by himself (a strange notion in an MP game)

After many demands for an alliance, the answer was no. So, I attacked his warrior with my warrior... as luck has it, my warrior won, and became a vet... (later, he bribed the warrior, but then it died to barbarians)

I assumed he had an ally, and started building boats in case I was pinned in.

Later on, I find out that a few other civs are kicking everybodies butt. And he and I were the only civs NOT in an alliance. (at that point, I could have strangled him for not accepting the original deal)

So fine, we make an alliance.
And then... HE WOULDN'T TRADE MAPS OR ANYTHING. By this point, I was tearing my hair out. All I could get out of him was "I have a plan, trust me" After that comment I reached for the malox

I'm not calling his plan "stupid", but I really expect more than that from an ally


Anybody else have some good ones?


[This message has been edited by Ming (edited October 12, 1999).]

[rah]

Yes Ming there is nothing worse then meeting that first civ and when you ask for an alliance and the response is, how about a peace treaty? And you're thinking, damn he's already met somebody, I'm doomed. The only guy left to ally with is stranded on an island and the only hope of meeting them is through MPE.

If there are alliances early in MP and you're not in one, you are at a big disadvantage. Science leap frogs are too important. But most importantly, it gives you someone to chat with to pass the time while you're waiting for your turn. I've had some great discussions this way and helped develop some decent camaraderie. I have fond memories of typing so hard my fingers hurt to MWHC "EXPAND DAMN IT EXPAND" while the return messages would be "ATTACK ATTACK".

I guess I like being part of team when I play games. Which brings up by last point. If you're not going to go all out for an ally, i.e. trade maps, trade sciences, give money to the other when it's needed, discuss strategies and work like a team, PLEASE don't ally with me. I'd rather wait to find someone else. We do do this for fun. I can never ever remember betraying an ally. I've broken peace treaties before, but that's what they are for.

RAH

[ottok]

ok.
peace is ok.

[carnide_]

hmm...
As I always say: you learn a lot with MP.
---
To Ming, with
I was that guy, the one who wanted to make a peace just a peace treaty.
why?
This was my rationale:
Was the first time playing with you. I did'nt knew if you could be trusted (or not). So I only wanted a peace treaty because with that, control zones are in effect. Then I would find out about you, and your gameplay style: if you bribed my warrior, if you try to penetrate my lines with a horse-diplo combo, ...
Only then I could make a good decision.
---
But you decided to attack me.
Your mistake, not mine.
You were stoped were you were,
and no more tech trade for the near future!
---
I was just being cautious.
You were just making true my worst fears about your true intentions.
---
Why did you attacked?
Who made the stupid move?
---
he he he

[rah]

having watched that exchange as an observer, I think I can see both sides. You are correct you were unfamiliar with that sytle. You were unsure if trust was there. But on the other side of the coin, You were given multiple opportunities before he attacked, more than you probably deserved. And granted he was not the strongest person when everyone left for the night, he surpased you greatly. He was more mad at the lost opportunity of teaming with you to beat everyone else. Teams win, period. I would have done the exact same thing he did, maybe portrayed differently, but your response would have led to the same conclusion.
If you had played with him before, you would have known that his word is good.

Both of you lost that night.

I hope that exposure to playing in other games with me will give you the experience that my word is good also. It would be very beneficial if we meet in a game and the teams aren't already decided. But I do expect full commitment among allies. Please post if you don't expect the same thing, because I would rather be dissapointed here than in game.

It has been fun watching you work. And I still believe that raging hordes is the true equalizer.

RAH

[Matthew]

And who was the great power that day? The strongest civ, leader of the great alliance?

MATTHEW, PHYSICS DUDE of the HOUSE of BUBBA !!!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!

[Ming]

carnide_ You will notice I didn't name you in my post The post was meant to discuss my feelings on what an alliance is. Total trust and sharing. Or as Rah says, don't bother allying with me if you don't feel the same way.

But since you brought it up...
No it wasn't a mistake. After I took my stance, I had no choice but to attack.
A man is only as good as his word. If I didn't, you would have thought me weak. If you were allied with somebody else, the attack didn't matter. If not, maybe you would waste time building a defense because we were at war. Either way, I win. Now, if you had accepted the alliance, maybe Matt wouldn't be crowing in this thread

[Sitnam]

If you want to play an online game easily go to www.zone.com
the games are not always dependable though.