Most Stupid stratergy encountered in MP

[Bird]

rah/matt/carnide/berz: was I the only one who couldn't rejoin Wednesday? I didn't get knocked off line, but icq wouldn't work, I couldn't rejoin the game, and I couldn't even load the forum to see if messages were here. Was it my IP? Is my civ still alive? I tried for half an hour, but finally went to bed.

[Lancer]

When I was playing in the zone I was always expanding my 'zonefriends' list which I told ppl they could get on by being dependable and get kicked off of by being otherwise. So I had a bunch of ppl that I would play and bs w/ and just generally be friendly with and friends of.
Well it's no hard and fast rule but I'm usually fairly beligerant and often downright agressive w/ the 2nd person I meet.The first person I try to team w/ and get the sci going and cover each other's back. Well in one game I met a friend of mine first. We had a grt time,traded everything and kicked butt until the game fell apart.The next game we were also both in,but this time I met him second.He imidiatly started gifting me maps and sci even though I didn't go the alliance route.When I hit him w/ everything I had...

Well he was shocked. I never felt so guilty marching into anyones capitol in my life.Hey,he set himself up to be a sucker and I just did what I had to do to win.In a wargame,don't be surprised if you end up in a war.

His was the worst strategy of all.Trust based on a prior game's alliance.

Don't read this and think you know what I'll do if we ever play. This is a trend in my play,not a rule.

[Ming]

That's why I always figure that a peace treaty is just the first step toward war.

An Alliance is one thing... anything else is meaningless. I NEVER trust anybody that I'm not allied with

[Eddy]

On the topic on allies -

When I play MP and take an ally I always feel like I have to be friends in later games....

It is fun to co-ordinate attacks though

One thing to add about playing, when your off exploring and you meet another MP civ, if you have a better unit do you ;-

1) Attack mercifully
2) Make peaceful first contact
3) Bully him

Even if I'm playing a duel I firstly offer peace, then depending on my situation attack or offer alliance.

What does everyone else think?

Eddy

[Matthew]

When I ally it is until only my ally and myself are viable contenders. And this doesn't mean just that we are far ahead in the power graph. That can change wildly.

When I make a peace treaty early on I intend to keep it for quite some time, or irreconcilable differences arise. But it isn't eternal.

I see no problem with violting a peace treaty made 40 turns earlier. But an unprovoked attack 3 or 4 turns after the treaty was signed is, IMHO, bad ettiquite.
There are exceptions, of course, such as provocative actions on his part, supporting an ally, etc. But a peace treaty should mean something.

[Eddy]

In duel, when you know you will be at war with each other, should you kill on sight or wait.... standoff....

then if you stand off who should attack first and is it bad show to attack first?

In the duel I'm playing now, we stood off and prepared to fight. We drew a line and said not to cross it. The war started because he played with diplomats in my cities! I didn't start it!

Eddy

[rah]

General thoughts.....


peace, duels, EXCUSE ME. If you're in a duel, attack attack attack.


If you have a superior unit and they are not your allies, you must attack or risk being attacked back.

Never broken an alliance. (because the games usually end in concession and not destruction so it's never been down to the final two.)

RAH

[Eddy]

Ok, duels attack but other game types? 3-4 players?

The way I play is to try and find the top civ and make allies and attack anyone inbetween

What if I'm in the lead? Anybody will do!

Eddy

[Ming]

In a multiplayer game that is not a duel or arena match... I will always try to make an alliance with the first person I've met that doesn't already have an alliance. I will never settle for just peace... that's like kissing your sister If I think the other person is already in an alliance, I will attack 9 or of 10 times. If I have an alliance already, I will test the waters on a peace treaty with anybody else I meet. I never expect them to say yes, but I will ask.
Sometimes, in a large game, I don't mind having a peace treaty with members of other alliances if we are trying to catch up to somebody that has a big lead.

[Superstar]

Peace Treaties can work if you are already at war with another civ and don't wish to be in an alliance or at war with the player. As long as borders are respected then peace treaties can work.
As for alliances, limiting yourself to just one can be problematic in a big game.
The best game I played in had a tri-party alliance that cut down the number one player to number 3. Although the number 1 player had an alliance and was very strong, he knew that ultimatly the 3 countries in this alliance were by far and away the most dominant force on the planet.
When the alliance began to crumble, so did the game unfortunatly, and now a state of unrest and uneasy alliances dominate world stratergy.
I have never broken an alliance, and rarely break Peace treaties, but find other players break Peace treaties like they didn't exist.
My advice, be wary of peace treaties and make sure you're well defended, or at least make sure you can trust the opposing civ player.
Once someone has broken my trust, there's little chance of me trusting them in any other game.

Also, any treaty or alliance can only be applied to a single game. I got caught ince by believing that the tremendous help I gave a player in one game meant that he'd be eager to continue our diplomatic friendship. I left myself poorly defended as he was near by and he promptly kicked my arse and wiped me off the face of the planet.
He remains a good ally in one game, yet every other game is different.

As for the better unit idea, I think bullying is a great tactic.

[Lancer]

If you want a peace treaty to stick establish a time when it will end. "Lets make a treaty for 200 years,then talk about it again". You might still be surprise attacked but I see it as less likely. A 'non agression 'agreement',not 'treaty' should be an option that is not as binding as a'peace treaty'."Lets have a non aggression treaty for 200 years,if that works to our mutual satisfaction then we could consider peace"

Also the most boring game is often the one that is all tied up in alliances. Particularly duels Anyway something to limit alliances a bit without curtailing freedom of action might be interesting. Maybe 'alliance points'. You recieve 2 points per turn. An alliance costs 50 points for the person who suggests it and 25 for the other player. Both expend one point per turn to keep it going,thereby making the next alliance tougher to make and reducing the eagerness with which some players jump into agreements. Perhaps a peace treaty should cost something,or the breaking of a peace treaty should cost.
If Civ 3 increases the # of Civs perhaps it will keep 'alliance lock' from occuring,turning the alliance game into an oriental bazzaar with lots of choices and action like in real life instead of the sparse planet of Civ2.

[Smash]

If someone attacks you I think it wrong to distrust that player for the next game.You should play a variety of "styles".It keeps you from becoming predictable and it livens up the game.I find if left alone most players will develop well.If they are harassed by someone then its a different story.

In the game I have going now,I went ai hunting early and wiped out 3 ai civs and captured a bunch of cities as well as the Collosus.
Meanwhile,the 3 human civs have allied begun working together.I have slowed one down but have left the others,who have not attacked me,alone.In fact I was trading caravans with 1 of them until I recently discovered the existance of the "Great Alliance"The one I am harrassing was in the lead tech wise and doing very well.Now the other 2 are emerging.

Its not likely I will win this game,but I have had a profound effect on the course of events and it has been a gas.Now the next game I may be the threatened member of an alliance.

[rah]

Alliances from previous games mean nothing to me in new games. If betrayed in a previous game, that's different. That takes me longer to get over, if ever. If I am in an alliance early and find another person early, the board will determine what I do. But in most cases, I like to harrass and force the other team into building defenses. It's hard to send settlers out to found new cities if they have to worry about an agressive enemy on top of Barbs. Limiting others early expansion is always a good strategy.

RAH

Raging hoards rock.

[Sparrowhawk]

I don't have anything further to add to this as I have yet to play multiplayer (but will be soon ) I just wanted to bring this back to the top as it has been one of the more interesting threads.

[Sergeant Sheets]

Eddy- attack. And make sure you have enough units to take his city. Twice in a dual with Matt if I had just one more unit or [in the most pathedic case] one more movement, I would have captured some cities. Go militarist right away and explore like your nuts. Find him and [attempt] to destroy him.

But make sure you don't fall behind technologicly.

Dumbest civ strat? Trading cities for techs- if its that one tech that gets you funde or robotics that one thing...if it gets you like mathmatics, then your a fool. And never trade cities for techs early in the game.