Basic Multiplayer tips wanted

[MaxWilson]

TwoBits said:

Does this generally work? I like using decoy units myself, by I often find the battle AI ignores groups of less than five (meaning, they don't seem to shoot at that lone infantryman out in front, but at the big group further back).

Any opinions on the optimum use of decoys?

Well, it's worth knowing that according to the manual pg. 61, target orders (Fire Archers, Attack Cavalry, etc.) except for Closest pick a random enemy and its squad. This means that a large squad will be picked most of the time, so one little archer decoy is almost never going to be selected by a "Target Archers" order. This has two implications:

1.) You can, if you wish, split a targetted group up instead of decoying. 1 decoy and 39 archers won't work, but 5 groups of 8 mean that if there's just one huge squad of enemy archers they'll keep firing at their chosen group until all 8 are dead, thus keeping your casualties down to 20% at most. I haven't tried this and I don't have time to test it right now, but it follows from the mechanics.

2.) Decoys work against "Attack/Fire Closest" because it is the closest squad which is attacked, not some random close unit and its squad. They might potentially work against Attack Rearmost except that the rearmost unit isn't reliably detected anyway (by design) so your decoy can get overlooked.

Against indies I have found that a single decoy five squares ahead of my main force often diverts fire. Seems like it's always worth at least trying a decoy if you know there will be missile troops, in case they *are* set to "Fire Closest."

-Max

[vfb]

If you're looking for multiplayer tips, then you might find Sheap's tips a useful read, if you haven't seen it already.

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...r=&postmarker=

[jutetrea]

Thanks vfb, appreciated although I had read that.

Looking for tips along the lines of "don't use cav or low prot infantry" and why or "its a really bad idea to get in a war and back off - push to the end" etc

One game I'm playing its still early and there have already been 2 or 3 war "starts" and then "stops". Interested on how it affects position.

[LoloMo]

Assuming neighbors that have the same skill level as you have, it is better to have wars as late as possible and have the other nations duke it out first while you build your research and gem income. Unless you can take out your opponent with relatively few losses I would avoid early wars as it decreases strength and may leave you open to other nations, and early in the game with similarly skilled players it is quite a long process to take an enemy capital down even with superior forces.

The exception to this is if you are relying on a heavy bless strategy (like F9/W9 bless), or if you have an awake SC pretender, then its better to have early wars. Grab as much land as you can while you still have the military advantage, but I would still fight one nation at a time only, and never another heavy bless nation.

In wars, I always enter it with a view to fighting to the end. Whose quote was it that goes something like "You can start a war anytime you like but don't expect it to end when you will" or something like that. So I don't attack any other player unless I am committed to see it to the end. If you are winning a war there is no reason not to push to the end, and if you are losing a war, there is no reason for your enemy to back off. If you are both losing in terms of troops lost, then it is a strategic error by the provoker and if I am the provoker, this would be the only time I would sue for peace. If I was the one provoked, I would definitely fight to the end unless I am compensated for my losses. All or nothing. =)

[LoloMo]

Oh and I'm an even newer player than you, and I think I know the players in that "start and stop" war you are talking about hehe.

[vfb]

LoloMo said:
If you are winning a war there is no reason not to push to the end

Well, it depends on why you are playing. I play to have fun. I have fun when the story of the nations in the game is interesting. It is not exactly the same story as the other players have created in their minds, though it is based on the events occurring in the game, so it may be similar.

If a neighboring nation is peacefully minding their own business, going about their research and gathering gems, it would be wise for a strong bless nation to invade them and disrupt that research. Especially if the strong bless nation has made peace with its other neighbors. But is it a good story if the magic nation is destroyed? What if you have accomplished your goal, at least temporarily? If you agree to a ceasefire, the magic nation may come up with a brilliant strategy and destroy you in revenge, when you least expect it. Now, there's a good story! And you even get to learn a new tactic as an added bonus.

If you are both losing in terms of troops lost, then it is a strategic error by the provoker and if I am the provoker, this would be the only time I would sue for peace. If I was the one provoked, I would definitely fight to the end unless I am compensated for my losses. All or nothing. =)

Great, so you do enjoy a good story then! Strategically this can be an error. A third nation may exist that is stronger than either of the nations at war, and it may be a huge mistake to allow that war to continue. But: "That province belongs to our nation!" "You killed our pretender!" "We will not tolerate filthy your undead polluting this continent!" Irrationally pursuing a vendetta can make a very entertaining story too.

I don't expect to win many games. But I do expect to have fun playing them.

This doesn't mean I will neglect to develop the best nation I can. It is less fun if my nation is a totally inconsequential part of the story. So, I read the forums, run battle simulations, and yes, even sometimes slog through the drudgery of SP to discover what can be effective.

[Endoperez]

You don't want to use a good spell or option. You want to use the best one.

This is the rule of competitive multiplayer. I can't offer any good examples, but you'll see it in action once you try out few games, e.g. blitzes in the #dominions irc channel. You can copy and/or adapt experienced players' tactics, or use your own. If you use your own, even though they aren't bad, they probably won't be enough to guarantee your win. I had lots of fun trying out my own subpar strategies when I had time to try some blitzing, though.

[Foodstamp]

To truly excel at Multiplayer seems to require the following.

Choose Helheim at the nation select screen.

Roll over nearest opponent if you can do so swiftly without compromising research and progress.

Research and cast a gem producing spell.

Research and cast forge of the Ancients.

Forge as many of the unique items as you can.

Research and cast as many of the king/queen elemental spells you can.

Create as many banelords as possible.

Raid with glamour units and squash armies with Banelords and equipped elementals.

Ally with 1 sea nation.

Done.

Before anyone gets upset, this post is more fact than farce. I am in one game where the Helheim player is dominating, and this seemed to be his path, except that he squashed two nearby players early with Helherdings.

In two more of my games, it is a bit early, but the spells have been cast in pretty much the same order as listed above. I am playing a water nation in both those games and I have been approached by Helheim in both games with peace agreements. In one of the games I am touching Helheim's border, in another game, I have no idea where Helheim is so I am thinking this has something to do with the Helheim victory formula .

Btw, this is 3 different players playing Helheim the exact same way.

I did not mean for this to become a Helheim rant, but I am guessing if you followed this same strategy with Helheim in MP, you should be successful right out of the gate in your MP play. If three different people in games I am currently playing are using this exact same strategy, there must be something to it.

Another observation. I used to wonder why the race for the unique artifacts was so important, it seemed like you could focus on other things. Now I understand the real reason. At the end of the game, the stronger nations are pretty much on even grounds. If the players are of comparable skill level, the only advantage one player will have over the other is Unique artifacts and summons. That is probably why the race to grab up all the artifacts is so important beyond just having really cool items.

[Eressil3]

Some things I learned the hard way :

- having an early fast expansion in a line can be desastrous. At the end, your army is weakened by this expansion. If you meet no agressive opponent, everything is fine. But if you meet one, he will take all your new conquered provinces one by one since the PD is often not enough to repel him.
And all the gold you wasted on PD means less gold for buying new soldiers...

- finding a good ally is hard. Trying to convince people to crush the winning guy can be hard too. People are often involved with their own affairs/struggle.

- when the game reachs his mid-part, PD is almost useless since you can see 300+ people army wandering around. Spells unleashed are so powerfull at this time, you can see a 100 PD make only 20 deaths to the attacker's army. The PD can be good though to support any army of yours, especially on chock-point.

- underwater nations are usually a good way to not be rushed in the early turns (especially if you got the chance to be alone underwater). Unfortunately getting on land is usually very hard too. At least for me !

- diversify your troops or you may face a special counter.

- it may be good to not make early research and to make your early military expansion a priority.

- Don't play as Lanka near vfb because he will attack you just to make a good story and for fun !!

[vfb]

Nice points, except for the last one . And I'm going to blame that on K anyway.

Admit it though, it was fun for you too!