In an old west gun fight,.....(Not OT)

[Gregstrom]

MP may be more like a Mexican stand-off than a gunfight, thinking about it.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Gregstrom

MP may be more like a Mexican stand-off than a gunfight, thinking about it.

So, the first one to shoot always dies?

[chrispedersen]

Generally I expand in the direction of greatest profit.
However, first I securit my borders (to the extent possible) then choose the easiest target, then repeat.

However, if someone has managed to grow faster than me, I attempt to find someone else to assist in the attack, all the while trying (desparately) not to look like the easiest target =).

[Gandalf Parker]

As with much of this game, its not so much absolute answers as personal preferences on tactics. Staying flexible might be one of the most important "rule" of all.

I have a tendency to play nations that can gain scouting information very quickly. Of course I rush scouts to my borders. Then I follow those with another batch of scouts to relief those while they go deeper. To the other side of my neighbors borders. I want to know who HIS enemies are, and is he at war with them. If he is pushing all his armies in a direction away from me then.... well... its nice to know when deciding who to attack.

[Baalz]

Well, assuming you're playing to win you always want to avoid a fair fight. If you attack the leader early on...even if you win you'll be weakened enough that the guy who gobbled up a couple smaller guys while your war dragged on will gobble you up. Later on in the game though things do tend to shift once its more likely that people gang up on the leader...thus still avoiding a fair fight. The main problem is that people are so abysmal at accurately assessing other player's power level so the guy with the most provinces gets dogpiled by the guy with the most research and the guy with the surging blood economy while the guy who put up Forge of the Ancients sits alone in the corner.

[Verjigorm]

Spies and scrying devices are the most important units in an MP game. No single aggressive or defensive strategy will generally be so dominant as to be able to take down multiple adversaries. Knowing who is doing what and what they have is the best way to determine your opponent.

Selection based on opportunity and political value is generally a good way to go. Attacking the aggressive people is always good since if they've attacked multiple nations, they'll have no aid and may end up with multiple attacks. Aggressive posturing is usually the best bet. For a good part of the game you can only attack your neighbors, so that restricts your choice of targets to an obvious group.

Problems can occur with the quiet ones who stay in the background cooking up schemes. Generally speaking, quiet players have selected strategies which are powerful but take a while to concoct. It is important to try to figure out if anyone is doing something like this and then block it before they can bring it to fruition because once it goes down, they and their allies will generally have a big advantage.