Early Game Strategy Discussion

[Paddy]

Originally posted by GodKing
I prefer not just being the victtim of an early rush, but being the victimizer in such. Our good relations don't mean crap in the second because everybody will have banded together. The second game I see as being something along the lines of the threee from group A ganging up on the threee from group tB if that were the case.... sorry, not expressing myself well, so will shut up for now.

Hey don't shut up...

Your point is coming across loud and clear.

I am interested in hearing more of this if you have more to say.

[Vander]

No, I think you do just fine. GodKing has a point: It is highly doubtful that the two games will have much shifting of allegances in the second game. (That is, if there isn't something like a team of two winning and another one just getting by)

[Zero]

Originally posted by GodKing
I prefer not just being the victtim of an early rush, but being the victimizer in such. Our good relations don't mean crap in the second because everybody will have banded together. The second game I see as being something along the lines of the threee from group A ganging up on the threee from group tB if that were the case.... sorry, not expressing myself well, so will shut up for now.

Yeah... like reality shot: survivors

No one would trust the survior from other group. Even if they themselves didnt form some kind of alliance/relationship, they would be paranoid of other game group doing so... so naturally theyll trust the survivors from their own group slightly more..

[GodKing]

Exactly. The way I see things, whomever survives from phase 1 will do so in one of three ways. They attacked and killed someone. They were on an island and it was too dificult to attack them, or they just got lucky.

Same for the other game.

So, as most likely we banded together with the other two survivors from our game to make it into game 2, what makes us think that it will be much different in the final game?

This is why I think a very early archer rush, say our first build is a barracks, and then two archers or something similar, to our nearest neighbor has merit. We get the room we need to build. Our REX is delayed (abet, possibly horribly delayed) but we do a bit of makup for that with ournew city and slave worker (s). With our UU, we are doubtfull of being attacked by archers, and with a very early GA, we have a chance of catching up in rex while the other 3 decide amongst themselves who will survive. Heck, we might be able to take out two other civs, and then demand that the two remainers be gratefull to us.

So much will of course be map dependant....it is hard to plan at this time. Just speculation on my part.

[Zero]

What is the map setting for game 1?
If it is small pangeatic (and it should be IMO) we should search and get commmunication ASAP. We can start ruling who should be eliminated afterwards. And perhaps form alliance goode relationship early.

heck even if it isnt we still should.

[joncnunn]

There's no communication trading until Printing Press and no map trading until Navigation.

We'll need to get explore just to get communication at all.

Originally posted by Zero
What is the map setting for game 1?
If it is small pangeatic (and it should be IMO) we should search and get commmunication ASAP. We can start ruling who should be eliminated afterwards. And perhaps form alliance goode relationship early.

heck even if it isnt we still should.

[Arnelos]

Regarding strategy by the PAL, it would be worth a number of people checking out THIS THREAD about MP game strategies posted by Fried-Psitalon (who I assume is probably leader of the PAL in this game) in the Civ3 Multiplaying forum here on Apolyton.

I happen to believe that if PAL is given the opportunity, they will use a so-called "choke" strategy because (and I've actually talked RECENTLY with Fried about this...) Fried believes it is the most effective against what he called "SP game Masters such as those from Apolyton". We should watch out for this tactic.

Choosing to play a "Fortress Apolyton" with a strong military and less REX, as Togas suggets, may be just what we need to do.

[jim_steer]

Wow, that is a nice thread, I would add it to the required reading list for this game

[ZargonX]

Yes, a definate "must read"

/me shuffles off to rethink some of his PBEM strategies...

[Togas]

F-P's strategies are excellent to consider, something we need to keep in mind (especially the counters), however, none of them take into account the strength of good diplomacy and alliance play.

We don't need to win this game, we need only survive. We need to make sure that we're not one of the two nations killed. To do that, we should band together with like-minded teams to remove unwanted team. We should also consider which civs are the best victims. That determination will be made by their own diplomatic mistakes, bad planning, bad starting location, poor defense, or lack of a decent UU.

--Togas

[BigFree]

Here's my take:

PAL           Maya      :good:    

Poly          Greece    :good:     

CDG           Vikings   :good:   

Batrachos     Sumerian  :evil:    

GWT           China     :evil:

[conmcb25]

Instead of fighting PAL we ought to hook up with them if we can geographically make that work.

I can neither confirm nor deny this but, Ill just say F-P was an Apoly guy from the ISDG and I believe he will be amenable to hooking up.

Think about it.

We have the Germans and French. Communicating with them has not been historically fruitfull. Who do you think F-P is going to want to work with?

We NEED to work that relationship a lot of us have with F-P already.

Build your armies and prepare for the worst, but as soon as contact is made our FAM is going to be one of the most important elements of this game.

[asleepathewheel]

also, I would bet that due to PAL's competitive drive, they would prefer to face us in the full game, much more of a challenge, than killing us here.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Togas
F-P's strategies are excellent to consider, something we need to keep in mind (especially the counters), however, none of them take into account the strength of good diplomacy and alliance play.

--Togas

Quite true... But I also think geographics is going to play a big part as well.

5 teams on a standard continents game.

3 teams on 1 continent.
2 teams on the other.



3 team continent....
2 teams will align to take out the third.

2 team continent....
Fight to the death. Last man standing wins.


OR

If two teams align on each continent, then this is going to be a god awful boring game, until intercontinental invasions become possible.
Just let the accountants & builders take over the turns. Everyone else can be put in cold storage and then thawed out when Navagation is discovered.

[Vander]

That raises the question: Should there be us and one other civ on our continent, do we fight or wait? Conquering them could prove useful to our economy. Then again, we might take a dent, diplomatically.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
Quite true... But I also think geographics is going to play a big part as well.

5 teams on a standard continents game.

3 teams on 1 continent.
2 teams on the other.

3 team continent....
2 teams will align to take out the third.

2 team continent....
Fight to the death. Last man standing wins.

OR

If two teams align on each continent, then this is going to be a god awful boring game, until intercontinental invasions become possible.
Just let the accountants & builders take over the turns. Everyone else can be put in cold storage and then thawed out when Navagation is discovered.

Here is the minimap

Whats your guess which one we got H_E?

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?...15_MiniMap.jpg

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by conmcb25


Here is the minimap

Whats your guess which one we got H_E?

Clearly, we are on an isolated island between the 2 continents.