No, we don't want the Iroquois!

[Theseus]

Someone remind me, what do the AI civs get on Monarch?

[asleepathewheel]

from the editor

2 defensive land units
1 offensive land unit

unit support bonus:
additional free support:4
bonus for each city: 1

max govt transittion time: 4
cost factor: 9
ai to ai trade rate: 140

[Theseus]

I say we hit humans, and hit'em hard.

[DeepO]

Well... I'm not particularly fond of the iroquois either. And after reading all the arguments here (which I agree too), my only new one is that I never had any luck with them. Sure, their UU is good in most cases, sure they have easy huts which can be good in some maps, and sure they are religous, but still, I never had any luck with them, so that I was able to use their traits to the best possible.

I agree with the power of industrious civs here, not because your workers work at double speed (this you only see before 1000 BC, after that you can compensate), but because their slaves are 'normal' workers. If you are lucky, you can disband all your original workers around 1 AD, and go only on slaves... which will save you a lot of cash each turn, better spent on research or troops.

Religious and scientific are almost equal in MP I think, the anarchy doesn't matter much (or is balanced with the free tech), and the only difference is the timing at which you start building up culture. You need culture, so depending on your choice you either build libraries everywhere, or temples. IMHO we need one of the two traits, just for the cheaper buildings.

Militaristic is the last of the important traits, but if we go for one of these, we should really focus on it. Cheap barracks are nice, but not overly important, what is important is constant warfare to have the GLs shine. IN a situation where you have 4 human and 3 AI neighbours, this means that on average we have to oscilate wars between at least one human player and a couple of AIs, most likely even more. Defense is going to be important in MP, but you don't gain that much GLs on defense, and it is very rare to use elite defenders on the attack just to be able to gain some GLs.

I agree with Theseus here, that super early expansion will make MP life a lot easier, but not every map suits this approach... with militaristic we should be going for a purely military goal in the first 2 eras.

DeepO
(off to read some of the other threads in here)

[Arrian]

*One point, Vel, I think you are a patch or two behind - the chariot -> horseman upgrade no longer exists. WC's can be upgraded to Knights, of course, but you can't build WC's and then upgrade to horsies to avoid a GA. Not that I'd want to anyway, actually.

It has been my experience that the best trait for expansion is actually Industrious. It gets your production (and growth, if you have some irrigatable food specials) going, and allows you to build roads out to where your cities will be. Having our cities connected by roads ASAP is important for defense. There's just so much that happens faster for industrious civs in the beginning. And imagine if we're the only human industrious civ on our landmass!

Right now, it looks like we'll be up against Carthage, the Ottomans, the Celts (I thought the Glory of War guys were leaning that way), and the other depends on who wins out on Carthage. I know one of the backups is Egypt (man, I hope that team gets Carthage... I can handle not being Egypt ourselves, but I'd really rather not face a human-controlled Egyptian opponent).

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Here's a thought I had kicking around just before MP came out: Zulus. As a metagame decision, I can think of no finer civ. Basically everyone expects early fast-movers to shape this game, right? Impi just completely demolish any fast-mover strategy. And, given Theseus' very insightful comment that most of the opponents won't have a production advantage, there will more Impi in the field than fast-moving attackers (or at least as many as Egypt, forgetting the Industrious trait for now).

But, then again, Expansionist-Militaristic with an early UU lacks a little substance in case the game drags (!) beyond Ancient era.


Dominae

[DeepO]

I'd prefer Greeks over the Zulus to break their fast mover strategies, but the focus of the two is a bit different. Zulus make great disturbers, where you can move in and pillage a lot of land fast, instead of really capturing it. Greeks are more a deterrant though.

DeepO

[alva]

VEL
Religious
Industrious
Militaristic
Expansionistic
*I have seen ZERO evidence in support of commercial in my reading here!

One off the questions, we should ask ourself is how long we anticipate this game will last, personally I don't see it reaching modern for several reasons; 1. we won earlier,2. inter-site game taking priority, 3.lack of interest,etc,...


Commercial although usefull in early and midgame, it's strenth surfaces more towards modern (more and bigger cities, etc...)

IMO commercial isn't a bad thing in MP (everything will be more expensive, ) but it just doesn't cut it.

I think the key here is , how long we/you think the game will last. Wich can influence other decisions too btw , city placement to name one.

[DeepO]

It won't take very long, with one exception: archipelago maps. I seriously doubt that it will take onto the modern age, and most likely it will be lost or won before railroad. Tanks? Nah... we'll never get to that, or we should get into a position where 2 humans divided the whole map amongst each other.

DeepO

[alva]

Agreed, so that's we should look to short term gain as much as possible (without neglecting long-term completely)

-again one more reason to go with an early UU.
-might make REL./SCI. slightly less important.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DeepO
I'd prefer Greeks over the Zulus to break their fast mover strategies, but the focus of the two is a bit different. Zulus make great disturbers, where you can move in and pillage a lot of land fast, instead of really capturing it. Greeks are more a deterrant though.

DeepO

The Impi's 2-move is superior to the 3-defense of the Hoplite in two respects: first, it prevent fast movers from retreating, essentially making Horsemen expensive Archers on the attack; second, it allows "fluid defense", which is critical when defending against unpredictable humans. As you mentioned, the beauty of the Impi is that it can also be used aggressively.

However, this discussion is mostly academic, as I don't think we all want to play the Zulus...


Dominae

[DeepO]

Dominae, you are only partly right here, but it depends on who is playing you and what time it is. I will gladly attack a bunch of Impi with archers if I for some reason don't have horsies or swords (yet), but so far I only archer rushed the Greeks once, and it was out of pure necessity. And that hurts, I can tell you.

But the biggest point is the fear hoplites bring onto other players, I know it isn't fully justified, but nearly all humans will go for Zulus before going for Greeks. Playing the Greeks will mean you either go for a builder approach and want to be left alone, or it is pure psychological warfare. That's the reason why I think that they won't be very bad in MP in the hands of experienced players -- n00bies will stay away from you, leaving them open for attack.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Oh, and sure this is an academic discussion, but hey, sometimes speculation on one strategy can bring some other ideas as well

DeepO