Does SP Brilliance Make for MP Excellence

[Robber Baron]

Personally, I haven't ventured into Multi-Player realms yet with CivIII. Too many bugs for games outside of local LANs, I gather. In any event, the Single Player experience is what I love about Civ III.
Still, like any student of human psychology, I am intensely interested to learn whether the people who have shaped our understanding of the SP game are killer MP'ers.
I would assume they are highly effecient, wringing every scrap of production and trade and gold out of their cities. (They've taught me a huge amount along these lines.)
But are they flexible enough to adapt to quirky, less predictable human tactics and strategies?
Be honest, and let us know. Tell us about MP games that went wonderfully right, or weirdly astray, as the constantly unpredictable elements of human nature pushed and pulled on your games.

[ducki]

I think MP will see a lot of two things in pickup games.

1 - Massive military buildup very early. Imagine Arrian playing against himself times 3. Archers and Horsemen and Bloodshed, oh my!

2 - Lots of frustrated "builders" leaving (or being eliminated from) games very early.


For LAN games or games with buddies, I think you'll see more flexibility - where the Horde and the Builder agree to work together against the AI, or agree to no ultra-early Archer/Chariot rushes against each other.

[DaveMcW]

I don't think there is any relationship between players who are "brilliant" at SP and MP.

Running an efficient empire certainly helps in both games, but to reach the top of your class you need to dedicate a lot of time to playing games and learning strategies. Many excellent SP players simply won't dedicate the time needed to become great in MP. Similarly, some people who never played SP much will love MP and play enough to become very good at it.

And then there is the difference between being good at turnless MP and hotseat MP and PBEM MP...

[Brizey]

I think the buddy games may be the most fun. Put the AI on emperor or diety, and cooperate with a buddy to beat it. I like team games, especially when one of the teams is an AI that derserves all the hatred I fling at it!

[Catt]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
I don't think there is any relationship between players who are "brilliant" at SP and MP.

Running an efficient empire certainly helps in both games, but to reach the top of your class you need to dedicate a lot of time to playing games and learning strategies. Many excellent SP players simply won't dedicate the time needed to become great in MP. Similarly, some people who never played SP much will love MP and play enough to become very good at it.

And then there is the difference between being good at turnless MP and hotseat MP and PBEM MP...

I agree with DaveMcW and couldn't have said as clearly. Great SP skills will help in MP (particularly around efficiency and resource allocation), but will not equate to great MP skills. MP will be a very different game.

Catt

[FrustratedPoet]

Re: Does SP Brilliance Make for MP Excellence

Originally posted by Robber Baron
Personally, I haven't ventured into Multi-Player realms yet with CivIII. Too many bugs for games outside of local LANs, I gather. In any event, the Single Player experience is what I love about Civ III.
Still, like any student of human psychology, I am intensely interested to learn whether the people who have shaped our understanding of the SP game are killer MP'ers.
I would assume they are highly effecient, wringing every scrap of production and trade and gold out of their cities. (They've taught me a huge amount along these lines.)
But are they flexible enough to adapt to quirky, less predictable human tactics and strategies?
Be honest, and let us know. Tell us about MP games that went wonderfully right, or weirdly astray, as the constantly unpredictable elements of human nature pushed and pulled on your games.

You've been reading the PTW-DemoGame forum haven't you?

To answer your question in one word: No.

Good SP play will be very different from good MP play. Success in SP is based on exploiting AI weaknesses, human players have very different weaknesses.

[vmxa1]

I think DaveMcW is partially correct. I have no doubt that peple that can master SP could and will master MP. They will do so as they are able to think logically and will recognize the things that are need for each type of game. Sure there will be bumps in the road for all.
Catt I suspect you could say it just fine.

[FrustratedPoet]

When I get PTW I'll try to post a thread about how my poor SP skills translate into poor MP performances.

[Catt]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I think DaveMcW is partially correct. I have no doubt that peple that can master SP could and will master MP. They will do so as they are able to think logically and will recognize the things that are need for each type of game. Sure there will be bumps in the road for all.

I think you're right. Good skills at SP will probably translate to to a good chance at solid MP play (after some bumps). But I suspect that a lot of SP players enjoy a SP game but won't have enough interest to invest the time in MP to develop solid MP skills (as DaveMcW alludes to).

Catt I suspect you could say it just fine.

Thanks.

Catt

[notyoueither]

SP skills matter. Believe it. Wringing every last shield out of that crappy start is even more important. Growing your cities rapidly is critical. Never forget that much of what beats the AI is the underpinning of any good empire.

But then it comes to war... Sorry Soren, but you never will scare me the way most any human could on any given turn. Now the game comes into its own.

Diplomacy? Ohhh yeah! Worlds away now. Head games will never be the same as they are with any AI.

So it boils down to one-third is the same as SP. The most important one-third, but one-third none-the-less.

[Chemical Ollie]

I have never played MP on turnbased games, but a lot on RTS (mostly StarCraft BW and Age of Empires). My experience is that the strategy is totally different in MP compared to SP.

In MP, you can put everything on one card, like making an early rush, while games against AI tends to be more balanced.

The unit characteristics in Starcraft and AoE makes it possible to change tactics and win even if you fall behind, especially in team play where your team buddies can protect you during your transition. The units in these games have bonuses and weaknesses against certain enemy units, so if you see that an opponent is using a certain unit a lot, you can build counter units and beat him. Coordinated attacs with combined arms gives you huge advantages.

Other RTS games are simpler, like anything in the Command & Conquer series. The one who is the fastest rusher will win, and smart tactics will not help you to beat him. OK, there are some dirty tricks with stealth units, but they only work on newbies.

I am afraid that MP in Civilization works more like CC than Starcraft: The one who is the fastest rusher will allways win. This due to the lack of unit bonus/weakness and combined arms. Can anyone who have tried it confirm?

I think Notyoueither is right. The SP skills will help you a lot in the civilian part of the game: terrain improvement, building order etc. But you will have to adapt completely different war strategies.

[jshelr]

ducki writes,

1 - Massive military buildup very early. Imagine Arrian playing against himself times 3. Archers and Horsemen and Bloodshed, oh my!

Here's a thought.

Based on no experience whatsoever, but looking at the characteristics of civ III military, it seems to me that we are in a WWI situation -- good defense will beat offense.

I don't necessarily mean defensive units will beat offensive units. I mean that surprise is hard to achieve and that the defense has a huge mobility advantage on its home turf and road (even RR) system.

So, I wonder if some players will build a nice, compact, defendable civ and then build / research, making the diplomacy window the real place that the game gets fought out.

Again, this speculation is completely unencumbered by any experience or facts.

[joncnunn]

Well, SP Brillance won't neccesary lead to MP Excellence, but someone who can't win against the AI on Regent certinately can't expect to win a MP game against humans.

[vmxa1]

I agree that being a knowledgeable SP player will not mean you will automatically be a good MP. The things that got one to be a good SP player are the traits that could allow one to master MP. Traits like dedication to studing the game, adaptability, creativeness and knowledge of game functions. Anyone really think that most of the top players here will not be formidable opponents in MP?

[DeepO]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Anyone really think that most of the top players here will not be formidable opponents in MP?

Well, I do. or at least, there is no garantee... I can't imagine a good MP player who is bad at SP (e.g. beating all humans, but can't get past regent on SP), but the other way certainly isn't true. I played some MP games before (not many, and not PTW (yet)), and even if I consider myself decent on SP, I know I totally missed the mark in MP... I got rushed by fellow n00bies, even knowing what to expect. In PTW, you know the rules, but the unpredictability of humans messes all those nice AI strats up, and it will take a while to adapt. Indeed, like NYE (and others) said: if you're good on SP, you know how to squeeze the last drop out of a bad situation, you know how to rush the AIs, but the largest part that is missing is the defense needed in a human game. Add to that the diplomatical options who go a lot farther then the few scripted ones in SP, and you get a whole other game in which you might not do so well.

DeepO