|
Author
|
|
Topic: Most Stupid stratergy encountered in MP |  |
|
Lancer
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted October 19, 1999 01:26
   | 
 |
 |  |
If you want a peace treaty to stick establish a time when it will end. "Lets make a treaty for 200 years,then talk about it again". You might still be surprise attacked but I see it as less likely. A 'non agression 'agreement',not 'treaty' should be an option that is not as binding as a'peace treaty'."Lets have a non aggression treaty for 200 years,if that works to our mutual satisfaction then we could consider peace"Also the most boring game is often the one that is all tied up in alliances. Particularly duels  Anyway something to limit alliances a bit without curtailing freedom of action might be interesting. Maybe 'alliance points'. You recieve 2 points per turn. An alliance costs 50 points for the person who suggests it and 25 for the other player. Both expend one point per turn to keep it going,thereby making the next alliance tougher to make and reducing the eagerness with which some players jump into agreements. Perhaps a peace treaty should cost something,or the breaking of a peace treaty should cost.
If Civ 3 increases the # of Civs perhaps it will keep 'alliance lock' from occuring,turning the alliance game into an oriental bazzaar with lots of choices and action like in real life instead of the sparse planet of Civ2. |
Smash
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted October 19, 1999 04:06
|
|
| |
If someone attacks you I think it wrong to distrust that player for the next game.You should play a variety of "styles".It keeps you from becoming predictable and it livens up the game.I find if left alone most players will develop well.If they are harassed by someone then its a different story.In the game I have going now,I went ai hunting early and wiped out 3 ai civs and captured a bunch of cities as well as the Collosus.
Meanwhile,the 3 human civs have allied begun working together.I have slowed one down but have left the others,who have not attacked me,alone.In fact I was trading caravans with 1 of them until I recently discovered the existance of the "Great Alliance"The one I am harrassing was in the lead tech wise and doing very well.Now the other 2 are emerging. Its not likely I will win this game,but I have had a profound effect on the course of events and it has been a gas.Now the next game I may be the threatened member of an alliance. |
rah
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted October 19, 1999 08:37
|
|
| |
Alliances from previous games mean nothing to me in new games. If betrayed in a previous game, that's different. That takes me longer to get over, if ever. If I am in an alliance early and find another person early, the board will determine what I do. But in most cases, I like to harrass and force the other team into building defenses. It's hard to send settlers out to found new cities if they have to worry about an agressive enemy on top of Barbs. Limiting others early expansion is always a good strategy.RAH Raging hoards rock. |
Sparrowhawk
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 28, 1999 19:59
|
|
| |
I don't have anything further to add to this as I have yet to play multiplayer (but will be soon  ) I just wanted to bring this back to the top as it has been one of the more interesting threads. |
Sergeant Sheets
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1999 08:09
|
|
| |
Eddy- attack. And make sure you have enough units to take his city. Twice in a dual with Matt if I had just one more unit or [in the most pathedic case] one more movement, I would have captured some cities. Go militarist right away and explore like your nuts. Find him and [attempt] to destroy him.But make sure you don't fall behind technologicly. Dumbest civ strat? Trading cities for techs- if its that one tech that gets you funde or robotics that one thing...if it gets you like mathmatics, then your a fool. And never trade cities for techs early in the game. |
Sergeant Sheets
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted November 30, 1999 08:10
|
|
| |
Eddy- attack. And make sure you have enough units to take his city. Twice in a dual with Matt if I had just one more unit or [in the most pathedic case] one more movement, I would have captured some cities. Go militarist right away and explore like your nuts. Find him and [attempt] to destroy him.But make sure you don't fall behind technologicly. Dumbest civ strat? Trading cities for techs- if its that one tech that gets you funde or robotics that one thing...if it gets you like mathmatics, then your a fool. And never trade cities for techs early in the game. |
Smash
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 02, 1999 01:31
|
|
| |
I attack Rah's city protected by at least 1 vet pike.My vet knight dies with hardly a scratch to Rah's pike.Oh yeah,Rah builds on hills,mountains.forests etc.So what do I do next?Attack with 2 more vet knights.Same result.Still trying to figure that out |
Seeker
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 04, 1999 14:55
|
|
| |
Vet knight: 4 att x 50% vet= 6 att.
vet pike: 2 att x200% vs horse x 50% vet x 100% hills, x 25% fortified=2 x 375= a defense of 7.5 (and civ2 does count fractions)This means it is no surprise that you lose attacking with knights. try crusaders (5 x 50%= 7.5 att), they have a much better chance. always attack in groups of at least 3 two move units. optional: if he has city walls, then 2x 675%=13.5. If you dont have leadership, metallurgy, and can't blow up the wall for some reason, build a fortress and fill it with catapults and 1 defender. 3 vet catapults to 1 vet piker is the ratio to attack with. vet catapult is att 9. |
rah
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 05, 1999 03:18
|
|
| |
Did you calc that right seeker? Lets see
pikeman 2
vet 3 50%
fortified 4.5 50%
mountain 9 200%
against 2x 13.5 50%Attacking with 6 just doesn't cut it. Unless you attack with lots of 6s. 7.5 is much better but vet catapults evens it out pretty well. And where there's one vet pikeman, there's usually more. heheheheheh RAH |
Seeker
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 05, 1999 04:38
|
|
| |
Oh, mountain. I thought he said hills (which is 100%). Also: i just add up all the percent bonuses and multiply the base strength by that number. Do some multipliers get applied first/does it make any difference? If it's a mountain, I say don't be the AI. just go around it, pillage his food.
[This message has been edited by Seeker (edited December 05, 1999).] |
Smash
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 05, 1999 14:24
|
|
| |
Ya.I was attacking a mountain city from a mountain.This is "stupid strategy" right?Thats what this was, stupid strategy.But I like to mess around in short games.I said "at least 1 pike" hehehe |
SandMonkey
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 05, 1999 16:51
|
|
| |
Seeker -If i am correct, by the rules of the Associative Property of Multiplication, it doesn't matter what order you multiply the numbers by, it will always be the same. Ex. 3*(2*4) = 3*(8) = 24
OR
(3*2)*4 = (6)*4 = 24
OR
(3*4)*2 = (12)*2 = 24 Doesn't matter what ya do, it'll always be the same. |
Matthew
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted December 05, 1999 21:25
|
|
| |
RAHMountains are not x2 defense, but rather +200%, which is the same as x3 (original 100% +200% bonus =300%, same as x3) I get 2 x (1.5 for being vet) x (2 for defending against mobile unit) x (1.5, fortified) x 3 (mountain)=27. Moral of the story, when someone has a vet fortified pikeman on a mountain top, and all you have to attack with are mobile units, unless you have at least vet dragoons, just stay away. And even with dragoons you can expect at least a 2 to 1 loss ratio. I have heared that somewhere in the rules text it states that pikemen only defend at +50% (ie x 1.5) against mobile units as opposed to + 1005. but that would still mean that in the above example the pikeman would defend at 20.25 |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums-archives
