Tweet
I wrote this on a sort of whim this afternoon. I was just thinking about all the things we've been considering on the art of war and the best ways to prosecute a game plan in Civ 3 single player. How are things going to change in MP? Sure, your UU (presuming you're using civ-specific abilities, which hopefully won't be utterly rejected by the MP community) is still your UU, but your opponents are going to be acting VERY differently from the AI, and that throws into question a lot of the strategies that have been used in the past, in addition to challenging prevailing opinion on just what civ traits are the best. Religious is great, maybe the best - in SP. But against a handful of human opponents, might you want to trade it for expansionist? Don't laugh just yet!
A HUMAN OPPONENT
1) Humans do not behave in predictable patterns.
2) Humans do not receive differing levels of bonuses.
3) Humans are emotional, sometimes irrational, and always want to win.
For #1, I think things explain themselves. Human players aren't going to do the obvious. Their troop movements will not always be indicative of an imminent attack; indeed, an obviously telegraphed move from a human opponent should be HIGHLY suspect! Human players will find ways to get around the thickest blockade, will rarely sell you resources and luxuries without hefty guarantees and rewards, and will almost NEVER sell certain techs (Horseback Riding in the ancient era? Forget it! Chivalry and Military Tradition? Dream on! Steam Power or Electronics? Pssh! Space Flight and Synthetic Fibers? Not in *this* game!). On the other hand, maybe they will. You don't know for sure. Maybe he's drunk. Maybe he wants you building cavalry because he knows you'll be using it against a weaker opponent, leaving your flank aside.
Similarly, you can expect human opponents to be far more likely to violate agreements that don't benefit them. If I don't want you getting my incense, you won't have it anymore. And you can't always presume this will strain relations with the rest of the world, if the rest of the world are human too! Especially true if you're ahead; he could INCREASE his standing with the other players by pulling the rug out from under you.
On the other hand, if you play with someone long enough, you may just discover that they do certain things. This forms an interesting counter-advantage; he thinks you don't know what he's doing because he's human, you know what he's doing *and* that he's underestimating you precisely BECAUSE he's human!
For #2, I think we can all put to bed the "annoying" AI production bonuses. Human players start with one settler and no offensive units, just like the rest of us. They'll pay just as much for any unit or improvement as you will, will develop terrain at roughly the same rate that you will, and will research tech with the exact same modifiers. They'll also suffer the same happiness issues. To that end, I see resource and production denial as being far more critical to MP strategy. Since everyone is on the level, it becomes all the more powerful to knock someone down a peg.
Also notable is lack of information; a human player CAN'T see your entire army. He can't tell what cities are guarded without probing through diplomatic action (costing him money) or scouting (which won't happen if you don't let him do it). His only information on your relative power is what his advisors tell him, and we KNOW how useful THAT is (read: not very). Do I have 300 spearmen in my army, or 200 riflemen and 100 cavalry? If you're clever, you might be able to keep your 'real' defensive units just within reach (via roads) of your border cities, presenting your opponent with false information. Of course, other players will be aware of this, and I think that will make Espionage a far more important advance! Anyone familiar with SMAC knows the importance of probe team datalink infiltration above all else; installing a spy is similar, giving exact number and quality reports on an opponent's military. Further, a single espionage action (someone using an espionage action, fancy that), if successful, will tell your opponent WHERE all your troops are. Better take care about massed tank/cavalry rushes in the industrial age. Or just make sure the game never gets that far!
A final note on information: Human players don't have the foresight and hidden knowledge players get. You think maps are pricey early in the game now? They'll be priceless in MP, especially if someone has found choice real estate they don't want you to know about. More on that later.
On the other hand, human players are going to be FAR more intelligent about production than the AI. They will prioritize military and improvements, and may use 'training camp' cities exclusively for the purpose of unit production. They'll have efficient build orders and will almost certainly have culture to rival your own. Imagine trying to take on a "Killer AI" Babylon that's been firmly entrenched for thousands of years. Now double the threat, and you have your typical human player. Ancient war will mean more than ever; many games will most certainly end without the middle ages on the tech docket, simply because of the constant warfare. Should the game proceed to the late game, you may as well raze everything, 'cause it's not likely to stay yours for very long.
#3 is a bit less clear. Basically speaking though, it can be summed up like this: Human beings are just as stupid as they are smart. The "stupid" behavior of an AI can't even compare to the mistakes a human player can make. Even if it's as small as accidentally moving units the wrong way (moving a worker onto a hill instead of mining can almost double the number of turns it takes to improve the square the worker was originally on) or as big as completely forgetting that there are no defenders in a vulnerable coastal city, these are things you can exploit that almost never happen to the AI. The problem is, of course, that human mistakes will be random and of varying levels of exploitability, as opposed to AI flaws that can pretty much always be exploited.
Additionally, don't expect a human player to make a conscious effort to undermine themselves. Don't expect critical military techs to be sold; don't expect territory maps to be pawned off 'for no reason.' Don't expect small gifts of gold to be taken as anything as free money. Human players wanna win, and the only way they're going to help you is if you fool 'em!
But there's more! We're definitely emotional creatures, and that allows us to employ...
PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE
Breaking down into tears in front of Hammurabi isn't going to get you those spices. But you never know with a human being. MP will bring up a whole new avenue in strategic diplomacy.
Of course, the idea of flexible, complex agreements between human players has been discussed at length. Nonaggression and noninvolvement will probably be big sellers (until you realize how unreliable they are!), promises to not settle land could be interesting, or grants of technology with the understanding that the tech WILL NOT be traded further. Human beings might even trade away their last iron resource to build hundreds of spearmen and upgrade them in one fell swoop, or swap out saltpeter to build horsemen and blitz-upgrade to cavalry. Two like-minded human allies could form a formidable force that way, and distance will hardly matter; if they're so inclined, they can trade each other a coastal city on the other's continent and grant ROP, allowing for projection of power in ways the computer can only clumsily try to emulate.
More to the point though, human beings have feelings, and changes in mood are sure to follow with changes in game conditions. If losing, a human will often get desperate; if winning, a human will sometimes get overconfident. Impassioned pleas and flattery might even convince someone not to attack one target in favor of another, with no tangible reward offered for doing so. I'm even amused at the thought of avoiding elimination from a game because the guy who beat you is a softy on the inside. As above, human beings do want to win, but they're also pretty self-conscious and care about what other people think. Am I suggesting you put on the teary-face and try to finagle deals with pity points? Well... maybe... like I said, you want to win, don't you?
People also get really attached to the things they've built. Everyone likes a city they founded in 2000 BC and have cultivated for centuries. It might not matter that a new one can be built in 1/5 the time; if you raze it, it's going to hit hard. The same is true of pillaging improvements. Not only does this deny resources, but it also deals a pretty hefty blow to the ego. I can see cunning Zulu players using swarms of impi to pillage every improvement they can in your territory and squat resources, luxuries, rivers... anything they can. And not with the express purpose of defeating you (though that would be the overall goal); sometimes they just want to tick you off. Goading someone into war might be easier than ever - and so might goading them NOT to go to war ("He's just trying to get me to waste my time, I'm not gonna take the bait...")!
THE TRAITS IN MP
I definitely think, therefore, that we'll see a new way of looking at civ traits after PTW comes out. Here's a brief re-evaluation, and whether I think a trait will prove more or less useful than it does currently.
Religious: The much-vaunted "best trait" in Civ3 is the one that, I think, may wind up being one of the hardest hit in MP. There's still the anarchy benefit, which can be nice and can save you several turns of production, but if your opponent only switches once they aren't losing much. Cheap temples and cathedrals are useful, but you're not going to get the huge cultural head start that you would against the AI; many of your opponents will probably be religious too (mostly for UUs, I think, like Japan), and everyone is going to keep their culture adequate. That's the critical kicker in this case; religious offers all that it did before, but nothing particularly new against human players, and could potentially be worse thanks to human players' greater prudence in constructing culture/happiness structures.
CONCLUSION: Less Useful
Commercial: Not much to be said here. A few extra cities? A little less corruption? A little bit more cash? Not so great. Changes to Commercial are coming, and while they could make this a better trait for MP, I somehow don't think it will. Not any worse, but not any better.
CONCLUSION: Roughly the Same
Expansionist: Talk about more powerful! This may be the trait that stands to gain the most in MP. Tech trading in the early game is going to be notably stunted as everyone tries to beeline towards their pet techs (GL, Horseback, Iron); if there happen to be barbs on the map, and therefore huts, you stand to get a leg up right away. Even without huts, expansionist gets some nifty benefits. Knowledge will be power when it comes to the MP game, and scouts give you tons of knowledge before anyone else can get it. Furthermore, scouts can be used as suicide recon during times of war, letting you see garrisons, note troop movement, and pillage vital resource links. Having a better map than anyone else is key as well, since a black map to a human player is a complete mystery. Scouting for resources and luxuries allows for early denial strategy plans, and even the slightest leg up in city placement means that much more efficiency over the next guy. You can argue that the benefits taper off in the late game, but any good Zulu player is going to blink and ask "What late game?" while they bulldoze you with impi and horsemen.
CONCLUSION: More Useful
Militaristic: Boy oh boy, it's already a good trait. How can it get better? Well, cheaper barracks means an earlier archer rush, and being militaristic means you can rush with archers in the first place. Definitely won't be good for the unlucky souls that start next to 'em. And don't expect that human warmongers WON'T archer rush you, particularly if you're non-scientific. Still, there's an even better - some might even say DARKER - application here: fake wars. You go to war with an ally, tossing cheap warriors/swordsmen into the path of your ally's rampaging cavalry. He does the same for you. Suddenly you're breaking out on two sides with hordes of elites, easily trained up thanks to the contained "war" you've been waging. It's training of a very different sort, and probably a huge exploit, but two nefarious allies might make it LOOK real enough. Lots of elites means lots of leaders. About the only thing that'll stop two teamed militaristic civs is their own greed... because eventually one must fall.
CONCLUSION: More Useful
Industrious: Humans like to be pains in the ass. Blowing up your improvements and worked tiles at every opportunity is one way to do it. How do you minimize the production hit you take? By rebuilding faster. How do you rebuild faster? More, faster workers. When you need a road to the enemy, when you need to patch up the ruins of a blitzed city, when you need that luxury hooked back up to the trade grid RIGHT NOW, industrious will save you. It's the obsessive perfectionist's only link to sanity!
CONCLUSION: More Useful
Scientific: At first I figured scientific was just another trait, liken to Commercial in terms of MP usefulness. But upon reflection, it really isn't. There will be a lot of self-researching going on in MP, because some techs simply WILL NOT be traded by anyone who wants to win the game. Getting your research facilities up to speed ASAP will lessen that load. It doesn't hurt that you'll boost your culture too; and when EVERYONE is building culture at least nominally, you can't afford to fall behind. That free tech at the start of every era? That doesn't suck either, especially when you're racing for Chivalry or the Sistine Chapel. Or need Riflemen ASAP to repel a cavalry blitz. Or when you want to find the aluminum BEFORE they get Modern Armor and finish off every other civ once and for all. Odds are you won't get to the last one, and probably not Nationalism in a really bloodthirsty game, but you are VERY likely to get Monotheism, and it WILL help you out no matter what path you're on. Finally, being scientific means you start with bronze working. Starting with bronze working means spearmen. Spearmen means "I'll take my archer rush somewhere else, have a nice game."
CONCLUSION: More Useful
In light of that, I'm sure we've already said which civs we think we'll be using to great effect in MP. Most of 'em are militaristic and/or expansionist, a lot of them are religious, and a few are scientific. My sleeper pick: the Germans. Early archer rush *and* early spearmen. Great offensive and defensive start in an environment that will inevitably turn to bloodshed.
Hopefully, we'll find out more about PtW in the next month or two, enough to know how to incorporate new improvements and abilities into our MP strategies. Outposts will likely prove a requirement (you DO want to know when they're coming, period), and airfields might finally make flight a critical juncture for artillery freaks. And then, of course, there's the naval element; some people are going to be REALLY into ships. How helpful that actually is is one of those things I'm not sure anyone can predict. How do *you* expect to execute your game plan against human opponents?
A HUMAN OPPONENT
1) Humans do not behave in predictable patterns.
2) Humans do not receive differing levels of bonuses.
3) Humans are emotional, sometimes irrational, and always want to win.
For #1, I think things explain themselves. Human players aren't going to do the obvious. Their troop movements will not always be indicative of an imminent attack; indeed, an obviously telegraphed move from a human opponent should be HIGHLY suspect! Human players will find ways to get around the thickest blockade, will rarely sell you resources and luxuries without hefty guarantees and rewards, and will almost NEVER sell certain techs (Horseback Riding in the ancient era? Forget it! Chivalry and Military Tradition? Dream on! Steam Power or Electronics? Pssh! Space Flight and Synthetic Fibers? Not in *this* game!). On the other hand, maybe they will. You don't know for sure. Maybe he's drunk. Maybe he wants you building cavalry because he knows you'll be using it against a weaker opponent, leaving your flank aside.
Similarly, you can expect human opponents to be far more likely to violate agreements that don't benefit them. If I don't want you getting my incense, you won't have it anymore. And you can't always presume this will strain relations with the rest of the world, if the rest of the world are human too! Especially true if you're ahead; he could INCREASE his standing with the other players by pulling the rug out from under you.
On the other hand, if you play with someone long enough, you may just discover that they do certain things. This forms an interesting counter-advantage; he thinks you don't know what he's doing because he's human, you know what he's doing *and* that he's underestimating you precisely BECAUSE he's human!
For #2, I think we can all put to bed the "annoying" AI production bonuses. Human players start with one settler and no offensive units, just like the rest of us. They'll pay just as much for any unit or improvement as you will, will develop terrain at roughly the same rate that you will, and will research tech with the exact same modifiers. They'll also suffer the same happiness issues. To that end, I see resource and production denial as being far more critical to MP strategy. Since everyone is on the level, it becomes all the more powerful to knock someone down a peg.
Also notable is lack of information; a human player CAN'T see your entire army. He can't tell what cities are guarded without probing through diplomatic action (costing him money) or scouting (which won't happen if you don't let him do it). His only information on your relative power is what his advisors tell him, and we KNOW how useful THAT is (read: not very). Do I have 300 spearmen in my army, or 200 riflemen and 100 cavalry? If you're clever, you might be able to keep your 'real' defensive units just within reach (via roads) of your border cities, presenting your opponent with false information. Of course, other players will be aware of this, and I think that will make Espionage a far more important advance! Anyone familiar with SMAC knows the importance of probe team datalink infiltration above all else; installing a spy is similar, giving exact number and quality reports on an opponent's military. Further, a single espionage action (someone using an espionage action, fancy that), if successful, will tell your opponent WHERE all your troops are. Better take care about massed tank/cavalry rushes in the industrial age. Or just make sure the game never gets that far!
A final note on information: Human players don't have the foresight and hidden knowledge players get. You think maps are pricey early in the game now? They'll be priceless in MP, especially if someone has found choice real estate they don't want you to know about. More on that later.
On the other hand, human players are going to be FAR more intelligent about production than the AI. They will prioritize military and improvements, and may use 'training camp' cities exclusively for the purpose of unit production. They'll have efficient build orders and will almost certainly have culture to rival your own. Imagine trying to take on a "Killer AI" Babylon that's been firmly entrenched for thousands of years. Now double the threat, and you have your typical human player. Ancient war will mean more than ever; many games will most certainly end without the middle ages on the tech docket, simply because of the constant warfare. Should the game proceed to the late game, you may as well raze everything, 'cause it's not likely to stay yours for very long.
#3 is a bit less clear. Basically speaking though, it can be summed up like this: Human beings are just as stupid as they are smart. The "stupid" behavior of an AI can't even compare to the mistakes a human player can make. Even if it's as small as accidentally moving units the wrong way (moving a worker onto a hill instead of mining can almost double the number of turns it takes to improve the square the worker was originally on) or as big as completely forgetting that there are no defenders in a vulnerable coastal city, these are things you can exploit that almost never happen to the AI. The problem is, of course, that human mistakes will be random and of varying levels of exploitability, as opposed to AI flaws that can pretty much always be exploited.
Additionally, don't expect a human player to make a conscious effort to undermine themselves. Don't expect critical military techs to be sold; don't expect territory maps to be pawned off 'for no reason.' Don't expect small gifts of gold to be taken as anything as free money. Human players wanna win, and the only way they're going to help you is if you fool 'em!
But there's more! We're definitely emotional creatures, and that allows us to employ...
PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE
Breaking down into tears in front of Hammurabi isn't going to get you those spices. But you never know with a human being. MP will bring up a whole new avenue in strategic diplomacy.
Of course, the idea of flexible, complex agreements between human players has been discussed at length. Nonaggression and noninvolvement will probably be big sellers (until you realize how unreliable they are!), promises to not settle land could be interesting, or grants of technology with the understanding that the tech WILL NOT be traded further. Human beings might even trade away their last iron resource to build hundreds of spearmen and upgrade them in one fell swoop, or swap out saltpeter to build horsemen and blitz-upgrade to cavalry. Two like-minded human allies could form a formidable force that way, and distance will hardly matter; if they're so inclined, they can trade each other a coastal city on the other's continent and grant ROP, allowing for projection of power in ways the computer can only clumsily try to emulate.
More to the point though, human beings have feelings, and changes in mood are sure to follow with changes in game conditions. If losing, a human will often get desperate; if winning, a human will sometimes get overconfident. Impassioned pleas and flattery might even convince someone not to attack one target in favor of another, with no tangible reward offered for doing so. I'm even amused at the thought of avoiding elimination from a game because the guy who beat you is a softy on the inside. As above, human beings do want to win, but they're also pretty self-conscious and care about what other people think. Am I suggesting you put on the teary-face and try to finagle deals with pity points? Well... maybe... like I said, you want to win, don't you?
People also get really attached to the things they've built. Everyone likes a city they founded in 2000 BC and have cultivated for centuries. It might not matter that a new one can be built in 1/5 the time; if you raze it, it's going to hit hard. The same is true of pillaging improvements. Not only does this deny resources, but it also deals a pretty hefty blow to the ego. I can see cunning Zulu players using swarms of impi to pillage every improvement they can in your territory and squat resources, luxuries, rivers... anything they can. And not with the express purpose of defeating you (though that would be the overall goal); sometimes they just want to tick you off. Goading someone into war might be easier than ever - and so might goading them NOT to go to war ("He's just trying to get me to waste my time, I'm not gonna take the bait...")!
THE TRAITS IN MP
I definitely think, therefore, that we'll see a new way of looking at civ traits after PTW comes out. Here's a brief re-evaluation, and whether I think a trait will prove more or less useful than it does currently.
Religious: The much-vaunted "best trait" in Civ3 is the one that, I think, may wind up being one of the hardest hit in MP. There's still the anarchy benefit, which can be nice and can save you several turns of production, but if your opponent only switches once they aren't losing much. Cheap temples and cathedrals are useful, but you're not going to get the huge cultural head start that you would against the AI; many of your opponents will probably be religious too (mostly for UUs, I think, like Japan), and everyone is going to keep their culture adequate. That's the critical kicker in this case; religious offers all that it did before, but nothing particularly new against human players, and could potentially be worse thanks to human players' greater prudence in constructing culture/happiness structures.
CONCLUSION: Less Useful
Commercial: Not much to be said here. A few extra cities? A little less corruption? A little bit more cash? Not so great. Changes to Commercial are coming, and while they could make this a better trait for MP, I somehow don't think it will. Not any worse, but not any better.
CONCLUSION: Roughly the Same
Expansionist: Talk about more powerful! This may be the trait that stands to gain the most in MP. Tech trading in the early game is going to be notably stunted as everyone tries to beeline towards their pet techs (GL, Horseback, Iron); if there happen to be barbs on the map, and therefore huts, you stand to get a leg up right away. Even without huts, expansionist gets some nifty benefits. Knowledge will be power when it comes to the MP game, and scouts give you tons of knowledge before anyone else can get it. Furthermore, scouts can be used as suicide recon during times of war, letting you see garrisons, note troop movement, and pillage vital resource links. Having a better map than anyone else is key as well, since a black map to a human player is a complete mystery. Scouting for resources and luxuries allows for early denial strategy plans, and even the slightest leg up in city placement means that much more efficiency over the next guy. You can argue that the benefits taper off in the late game, but any good Zulu player is going to blink and ask "What late game?" while they bulldoze you with impi and horsemen.
CONCLUSION: More Useful
Militaristic: Boy oh boy, it's already a good trait. How can it get better? Well, cheaper barracks means an earlier archer rush, and being militaristic means you can rush with archers in the first place. Definitely won't be good for the unlucky souls that start next to 'em. And don't expect that human warmongers WON'T archer rush you, particularly if you're non-scientific. Still, there's an even better - some might even say DARKER - application here: fake wars. You go to war with an ally, tossing cheap warriors/swordsmen into the path of your ally's rampaging cavalry. He does the same for you. Suddenly you're breaking out on two sides with hordes of elites, easily trained up thanks to the contained "war" you've been waging. It's training of a very different sort, and probably a huge exploit, but two nefarious allies might make it LOOK real enough. Lots of elites means lots of leaders. About the only thing that'll stop two teamed militaristic civs is their own greed... because eventually one must fall.
CONCLUSION: More Useful
Industrious: Humans like to be pains in the ass. Blowing up your improvements and worked tiles at every opportunity is one way to do it. How do you minimize the production hit you take? By rebuilding faster. How do you rebuild faster? More, faster workers. When you need a road to the enemy, when you need to patch up the ruins of a blitzed city, when you need that luxury hooked back up to the trade grid RIGHT NOW, industrious will save you. It's the obsessive perfectionist's only link to sanity!
CONCLUSION: More Useful
Scientific: At first I figured scientific was just another trait, liken to Commercial in terms of MP usefulness. But upon reflection, it really isn't. There will be a lot of self-researching going on in MP, because some techs simply WILL NOT be traded by anyone who wants to win the game. Getting your research facilities up to speed ASAP will lessen that load. It doesn't hurt that you'll boost your culture too; and when EVERYONE is building culture at least nominally, you can't afford to fall behind. That free tech at the start of every era? That doesn't suck either, especially when you're racing for Chivalry or the Sistine Chapel. Or need Riflemen ASAP to repel a cavalry blitz. Or when you want to find the aluminum BEFORE they get Modern Armor and finish off every other civ once and for all. Odds are you won't get to the last one, and probably not Nationalism in a really bloodthirsty game, but you are VERY likely to get Monotheism, and it WILL help you out no matter what path you're on. Finally, being scientific means you start with bronze working. Starting with bronze working means spearmen. Spearmen means "I'll take my archer rush somewhere else, have a nice game."
CONCLUSION: More Useful
In light of that, I'm sure we've already said which civs we think we'll be using to great effect in MP. Most of 'em are militaristic and/or expansionist, a lot of them are religious, and a few are scientific. My sleeper pick: the Germans. Early archer rush *and* early spearmen. Great offensive and defensive start in an environment that will inevitably turn to bloodshed.
Hopefully, we'll find out more about PtW in the next month or two, enough to know how to incorporate new improvements and abilities into our MP strategies. Outposts will likely prove a requirement (you DO want to know when they're coming, period), and airfields might finally make flight a critical juncture for artillery freaks. And then, of course, there's the naval element; some people are going to be REALLY into ships. How helpful that actually is is one of those things I'm not sure anyone can predict. How do *you* expect to execute your game plan against human opponents?
Are you a psycologist or just a student of human nature? I copied and pasted your post into a word.doc for future reference. Hope you don't mind.
), but both times the same thing happened: The very first thing everybody did in the game was calling every other player, and exchange all of his techs to all of the other's techs. And nearly all maps were exchanged immediately as well. Only a few players were able to keep their maps because they had, through better trade, more techs then the rest...
Weaknesses are exploitable. Trading makes you freinds and that's the bottom line.
Comment