How playing against humans will be different...

[CiverDan]

Everyone will have to cover their settlers with units. I'd like to find one person who wouldnt attack a settler by itself, since u greatly hinder your opponents expansion and get 2 captured units at the same time.

You will need to know where horses and iron are immediately. If not you will be early targets for elimination (except with civs with certain ancient units that have the 1 resource needed). Even then, your still in trouble when you enter the middle ages. That is why expansionist civs are important in MP. So you know immediately where you must settle, or in some cases, fight, to get one or both of these resources. Since no one will trade their map, scouts become even more important. (true some ppl say they will kill any scout they see but at least you will know where they are first if they attack you).

Luxury trades will probably be easier. Why just keep 5 extra wine laying around when I can trade it for another luxury...

Trying to steal someones map will be something tried a lot (see above)

"Dirty Tricks" like ROP backstab could be tried only once...but I wouldnt suggest doing it even once. You will be sorry when you need that ROP in another game.

[WarpStorm]

The strategy of not researching anything and buying tech from your human opponents just won't work.

Rapid expansion without defense is probably a recipe for disaster (this is similar to guarding the settler).

People will actually believe me when I say Expansionistic is good.

You'll get l33t 5p33|< diplomatic messages.

More players will be fighting to get Hoover's

Nobody will vote for you in the UN (Maybe this isn't different)

The other players will actually speak to you using voice chat.

You will actually be able to trade cities.

[Inverse Icarus]

you won't be able to "subjigate" a person. they wouldn't like to be your vassal state the whole game. they'll build up and fight (even if they have weaker weapons).

trade deals will get into insane amounts of money. Imagine someone with a monopoly on oil.

the entire world would probably ally against that monopolizer in an effort to take the oil.

there won't be any "partial wars" in multiplayer. if you take a human's city (or a bunch of them), the human will remember the entire game (and perhaps BETWEEN games), and that player will be plotting against you the whole time.

you (probably) wont have someone trying to colonize every square on the godforsaken map.

[alva]

You'll get l33t 5p33|< diplomatic messages.

&

there will be more emphasis on defensive units, I personally don't think the early archer tactic will work in MP. (at least not against me )

[Nyl]

I'll lose a lot more.

[notyoueither]

Re: How playing against humans will be different...

Originally posted by CiverDan
Everyone will have to cover their settlers with units. I'd like to find one person who wouldnt attack a settler by itself, since u greatly hinder your opponents expansion and get 2 captured units at the same time.

Not if they fear you, or your ancient UU.

Vengeance is ours sayeth the Legions.

[Lord Zalzabad]

It would be a lot more difficult. The AI can be relied on to follow certian stratigies preprogramed into it, while (most) human minds are a lot better than the AI. They can play dirty tricks and Ruses on you, they can use stratigey (somthing absent from the AI). The world will be a very difficult place

[alva]

But since this goes for everyone, the world can become a lot easier. Just need to figure out how

[jim_steer]

There will be a lot of arguing over who gets to be the industrious civs mainly France, Persia and Egypt.

Guarded worker stacks will be a necessity (hopefully there will be automation to do this).

There will be more plausable, nasty and vicious backstabbing with long running grudge matches too.

There will be a much better feeling when you wipe out human civs though conversely you will feel\be much more humiliated when you are wiped out.

I wont be able to load the game to remove the occasional stupid runs of bad luck you get. I have to do this in the office cos my boss gets suspicous when I start screaming at my monitor and a quick reload lowers my blood pressure.

Multi-player in the office may get interesting, it adds a whole new dimension to office politics.

[alva]

Originally posted by jim_steer
There will be a lot of arguing over who gets to be the industrious civs mainly France, Persia and Egypt.

not really, it hasn't been proven yet, what the strong traits are in MP.

I think money will be very important since resources are going to be a lot more expensive. So commercial could be very strong.

Same goes for scientific, and eug religious, ohh yes and offcourse religious..........

[WarpStorm]

...and don't forget the best for MP, expansionisitic

[jim_steer]

I intend to give the french ago in my first multiplayer game even though this will mark me out as the first civ to kill in my office, for some reason everyone ganged up and wiped out the french as soon as they found them in our civ 2 multiplayer games.

Industrious will always be a required trait for me though as I always seem to start in jungles.

[WarpStorm]

I'm sure that there will be a lot of random civ games set up so that these types of fights won't take place. Instead, you'll get the after game whining. "Well, I would've won if only I'd been..."

[FrantzX]

In si-move mode, feints and diversions are going to be VERY useful.

[alva]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
...and don't forget the best for MP, expansionisitic

Sure, that's what I meant, they all have there pro and cons .
Wich I guess is how it should be.

And if not, the weaker civs can act as a sort handicap.
In good player (read: Aeson) versus weak player (read: Ming )

J/K Ming