Strategy for Civ3 mp

[Jack_www]

I dont know if it is too soon to be talking about strategies for Civ3 mp, since it will most likely be a few month more before it comes out, but I wanted to talk about it now since it would help me through untill Civ3 mp comes out.

I know for sure many people are going to try is rushing an oppent early in the game. It happens in almost every mp strategy game I know of. People would try to use Civs who get uu early on in the game. All though One civ of the top of my head that would be pretty good to pick if you were playing against a rusher is the Greeks since they have the hopilte with a defense of 3 it could easly fight off wariors.

Anther thing I was thinking about was tech trading. How doees anyone here think that would work out? I know when one is trading lux. resouces that we would finally get some fair deals, but the only way I see how one would be able to trade stragetic resoucers is lets say you have extra coal and the other player has extra rubber, then you could probelly make a trade, or people would ally with anther human through the game and they would trade with each other only.

Anther thing you could do in mp is to resreach tech collectively. You could have one of our allies research one tech while you research anther, that way you get two techs it takes a person on there own to get one. They more people you have to help you the faster you can go through the tech tree and get a lead on your oppents.

What do you guys think?

[Swissy]

I see only one way to fairly play Civ3 MP. You must have teams of either 2 or 3 players. I see very little trading of strategic resources otherwise. Why give the enemy the means to destroy you? Only with teams can you have tech and strategic resource trading.

Teams could chose complimentary abilities, set research priorities, possibly even engage in wars to try and generate leaders. Of course they'd have to find each other first.

Without teams I see one player being the Persian, finding iron, and steamrolling any civ he can reach until knights appear.

[DrFell]

You know what teams civ2 play was called? It was tribes, and ws one of the most entertaining ways to play (many think THE way to play MP). But I can see other ways of playing like 1vs1 (the famous duels, the best way of playing a quick game and the staple ladder play in civ2), and standard games, after all, luck was a big factor in civ2 but that didn't stop people playing it. But I agree I can't see resource trading in standard games.

As for being Persians, just disable UU. They're imbalancing anyway. By the way, there are other powerful UU in those eras. Think of the Mounted Warriors (few casualties and very powerful), War Chariots (earler and cheaper=MORE, and less casualties), Hoplites and Legions (powerful defenders) and others. Remember, it is harder to kick a humans ass, because they can use intelligent defensive strategies, or they will be building up to rushing you.

Tech rates will probably have to be sped up for MP as people won't tech trade unless they are allied. And as for strategies - well, I am one of the best civ2 MPers, and I have no doubt I'll kick ass at civ3 MP. But as to how I'm going to do it? That's going to have to remain a secret until it comes out

[Jack_www]

Anther thing I was thinking about is using trade embargos to there full effect.
ALl though I realize that most trading will be done amoung allies, rarely ever with someone you considered an enemy. But in the rare case that you were strading a strategic resource to anther player that if you felt that they were getting too powerfull you could use trade embargos on them. I can never get the computer players to enage in a trade embargo with anther civ unless they are not trading with them in the first place, which makes it pointless any ways.

Of course in this game you could ally with someone to get a resouce you need, then turn on them when you are ready to attack and take them out. One question I would like to ask everyone out there is do you think a peacefull builder could win at this game? Or at least someone who likes to wait in till the late industrial and modern age to fight a war?

[Solver]

Great point, Jack_www, with embargos.

But what I'd like to see is when I trade another guy some Rubber, thinking he's pretty loyal, but then he allies with the one who has Oil and attacks me. That no doubt will happen, as can anyone with MP experience say. Interesting to see what will be going on with strategic resource trades. Firaxis must have thought about this, so MP isn't going to be screwed up.

[DrFell]

I think builder strategies would work better on island type maps (good chance of people playing these) or huge/large maps (not much chance of people playing this much, too slow). On these types of maps you'd probably have a large warning of anyone trying to rush you (look at what their civ looks like). On island maps the rusher will need ships to get to you if he's alone on a continent or island - and you can build your own fleet to take his out (and cost him dearly if he loses his army). Also, If UU are on pick the Greeks and you're immediately going to make early rushers try to avoid attacking you too early.

As for embargos, 'unofficial' embargos could well take place. And as for allies turning on each other, it happens all the time in civ2. I'd watch out though, you really will screw up your rep if you keep doing it and eventually everyone you play with won't ally or trade with you for that reason. Also if tribes appear for civ3 then you won't want to be attacking your tribemates unless you want to get thrown out.

[Jack_www]

Anther thing one can do with trading recouses is give one to a person who is fighting your biggest enemy. I know that many players already do this with the computer players, and I think that this might work well in mp. I think that maintaining a balance of power would be the best thing, because you dont want one of your rivals to get too powerfull, and if you cant commit to a war with the person who is trying to take out a weaker civ, you can aid them by giving them gold and recouses like I already said. Even if this effort fails, you will most likely prolong the war between the two players, and if the other person is in a democracy they will have massive war warriness and will have to change to more corrupt form of government. You might even be able to weaken their army enough that you could attack them right when the strenght of their fighting forces is at it lowest.