Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume II

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by zerza
The authority you mention claimed it requires fewer skills to succeed at MP, unfortunately his views seem to stem from his inability to adapt his strategy to fit another environment. I personally feel a true authority on the subject of civ can play civ in ALL its many faces. An SP authority perhaps, but definately not a CIV authority.

Well I guess Apolyton is publishing the wrong guy's 54 page strategy guide. Please let them know.

[zerza]

As an authority on SP civ, as I stated previously, I'm sure his strategy guide will fit into the context of this site very well. But to consider him an authority on civ in general couldn't be further from the truth, since by his own admission hes unable to adapt to MP play. His statements it was a rush fest were grossly innacurate, or perhaps he was being rushed due to him not providing a defensive presence.

If your enemies see you weak, ya, your gonna get rushed. Just as in real life, a civilization had to promote the vision of military supieriority all throughout their existance, or they ceased to exist Never was a civilization allowed to remain defensless at ANY point in history, ancient thru modern. Why should CIV be any different, when its trying to mimic the rise of civilization.

Remove the threat of war in the start, as SP tends to, and you have an unrealistic rise of power thats never occured at any point in history. Just my thoughts.

[necrom666]

Here's my latest SP outing. Ren start, noble, quick, small low inland sea map, always war, locked assets, no barbs, 2 vs 6 unbalanced teamer. Me and my AI teammate both get Gandhi, opposing AI team random civs.

Opposing team got a decent draw with Saladin, Louis XIV, Isabella, Elizabeth, Cyrus and Alexander.

It was a little rough there for a while. My AI buddy lost a city and then I lost a city later trying to reinforce his front. My AI teammate also lost a city he put in a untenable location.

Anyway, a little over 12 hours later there was only one opposing city left and I was awarded domination victory.

I killed 641 units.
Lost 102 units and 35 of those were sacrificial catapults. I was playing sloppy at the end as well so that added another 10 units at least that you could subtract from the total.

That's how bright and clever the AI are. SP is fun and I will always enjoy playing it but MP is were the real action is.

On a side note that was the first time I had a unit that was promoted 6 times. Has anyone had a unit with 7 promotions. It takes 50 experience points.

And there was a land bridge dividing the inland sea which I have not seen before.

Time for 2 vs 7 next. That my be the tipping point.

[necrom666]

I guess I should post my first response to this post in Civ4players ladder forum which has a link to this thread. Here it is............


That was interesting reading. Velociryx the self proclaimed genius because he can out tech ai and attack with overwhelming force at a time of his choosing. Whoopi! Anyone who finds dealing with the ai true diplomacy and thinks its the apex of the game must think a dog chasing its tail is solving the world peace dilemma. Give me a break.

I enjoy playing SP very much too but the ai have absolutely no rational thinking and have no overview strategy at work. One can turn up the difficulty, but that only stifles your economy and gives the ai start advantages and production benefits of some sort, it doesn't make ai any smarter. I personally like doing unbalanced teamers. So far I'm up to 3 vs 7 in late era starts and still kicking .ss. It's hard to do anything earlier than Renaissance due to war weariness. If you try, get pyramids at all cost for later in the game.

I had some trouble adjusting to MP when I first started playing C3C MP games. My main problem was I was still playing with a epic mind frame and always did stuff like I was plaining for the next couple of hundred turns even though the game was only 90. I also had a bad habit of hoarding gold. I would end game with 500 or 600 gold sometimes. I couldn't figure why I was not winning when the stats told(#1 or #2 ranking in all categories)I had the best over all empire. I know what the deal is now so no need to inform me. One other thing is I got to attached to my civ and hated to abuse it. Sounds silly, but I still feel like a d:ck every time a slave pop something.

Tommy, most of the stuff you wrote about is a no brainer for both MP and SP play but I would definitely like to hear more if you have the time to explain it on paper. I'm sure there is many things in that brain of yours that would make me say wow! I didn't realize that. Cool

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by zerza

If your enemies see you weak, ya, your gonna get rushed. Just as in real life, a civilization had to promote the vision of military supieriority all throughout their existance, or they ceased to exist Never was a civilization allowed to remain defensless at ANY point in history, ancient thru modern. Why should CIV be any different, when its trying to mimic the rise of civilization.

Remove the threat of war in the start, as SP tends to, and you have an unrealistic rise of power thats never occured at any point in history. Just my thoughts.

You might like Ages of Man, where Mr. Karpinski, the designer, managed to beef up AI aggressiveness from the original CTP2 and added creative new rules to govern it. Of course, this can't be played multi-player.

Necrom and Zerza: I think part of this, IMO rather unproductive argument is the extent to which competition drives game-playing, which differs between individuals. Nobody is disputing that MP is both competitive and intense and some will always go for that adrenalin rush. Others, in the manner of chess players (and good chess can be played against a machine) are more interested in exploring intricacies that are not possible in MP. The "competitive edge," or lack thereof, of the AI is only one issue in the enjoyment of such a game for such people. You are comparing apples and oranges. Be glad Firaxis was able to give you at last viable MP, but recognize that the vast majority of players are SP, sometimes by necessity as much as choice and you are not going to disenfranchise us by by bold enumerations of your accomplishments throttling other, feeling humans in cut-throat competition.

If I build a city of matchsticks as my hobby, I am "beating" no one. Perhaps I have above-average dexterity and am not particularly "challenged" by it. Big deal, I have still built something I can be proud of at the end.

[zerza]

The analogy to chess is funny, as its how I've viewed Civ MP since Civ3 days Tho, if I may elaborate, chess is a very competitive game, since the AI isn't competitive (due to lack of intelligence) it means SP is more of an empire building simulation, then a war game, as chess is.

In competitive chess you dont have time to "explore every intricacies", as turns are timed. Much like MP civ.

Neocrom:: 3v7 lol, I did that, annoying as heck that 7 ai on one team and none of them manage to work together.

[Generaldoktor]

I have said several times here and on other threads, that I am holding out for real "Artificial Intelligence" in ten years or so (Civilization 8?) In the meantime, this game is fine for me. I tweak the map, the difficulty, the rules, the players to make it interesting for me. "Custom" is the name of my game. At the same time, I learn from the game through playing, even with an AI and refuse to accept that my observations about it, or Vel's, or other heavy players here who happen to play predominately in the SP mode, have no value.

All of this is off-topic anyway. You should start a thread, "MP or SP; Which Rules?" This thread was started to deal with game strategy. Where that differed in the two game modes, Vel did prefer to structure around SP play, but I think as much as anything, without reading his mind, it was because it was the traditional mode of play before practical MP came out, really only with the Civ4 release; and the vast majority of Civ players are still SP players.

By "competitive" chess where moves are timed, you are referring to tournament chess. All chess is competitive, but many games are played by mail, or even phone, or face-to-face with hours, days or weeks allowed for deliberations. People with fast reflexes and a penchant for abstract concepts and symbols have evolved great strategies in tournament chess, but the vast majority study and perfect them in deliberative settings.

[zerza]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
even with an AI and refuse to accept that my observations about it, or Vel's, or other heavy players here who happen to play predominately in the SP mode, have no value.

Ack woah bud, never said that The only reason I got on the soap box was Vel said MP took fewer skills then SP and was a bare bones version of the game.

I only wanted to rant how MP in fact employed much more aspects of the game and took alot of skill. And to dispel his myth that MP was all about rushing. I've never died to a rush (unless you count my first 5 games :P ) and usually I end up killing my rusher and settling his land for hell of points. A rusher is usually hurting themselves as much as they are you. They still have other neighbors to defend against.

His remarks pertaining to MP were due to lack of his ability and I just felt they needed corrected

As a side note, you will be amazed at how much your SP game progresses when you master MP I sure was.

[Blake]

I think Vel refers more to duel MP, like with ladder play. FFA MP is a completely different beast again, since generally the rule is when two players fight, the non-combatants are the ones who win.

[Generaldoktor]

This is Vel's thread; and I actually have relatively little time on this board to be the Lord-Defender for everyone who enjoys SP play. This is a potential schism that could split all Apolyton participants and I doubt very much either the designers or the alpha testers who developed MP were able to anticipate it. I kind of wish Vel would drop back in to defend himself.

Actually, when I read his comments originally, I was inclined to believe him and still somewhat do. MP, with or without timed responses, whether its "ladder" or what, sounds like a brutal game. That's not the way I like to play and for now, at least, I want no part of it. I do enjoy commenting on this board and it is implied, whether explicitly or not, by the MP fanatics that anybody that isn't playing their style of game is somehow uninformed, inexperienced, less-gifted and even outright cowardly. I'm not buying it and am inclined at least so far to abstain from further participation on threads where these people's position predominates.

I don't know Vel at all. I've found his advice on his strategy threads helpful, even where I have read them and then not commented myself. He's obviously given a lot to Apolyton. I smell more than a little character assassination here in addition to my other complaints above. You can call this a rant.

Vel and his strategy threads:

MP fanatics:

P.S. I want to commend Blake, who's been around a while, for trying to heal the rift.

[zerza]

Hmm.

Do expect me to stand up with an opinion anytime someone, such as Val, starts spouting off that I'm playing a "watered down" civ and dont have as much skills as him and his infinite "single player" wisdom. Fact is, he wasn't able to adapt, and out of spite he decided to insult the intelligence of those that do enjoy it.

Some people play Civ like SimCity, some people play Civ like a war game. I'd say agree to disagree or at least give MP a fair shot before knocking it

How can one comment on something they've never tried or barely tried. Aside from fear of the unknown.

Personally I'd think an authority could handle a few warriors rushing in

[zerza]

And im really mad right now cuz all a sudden my DVD drive wont load CIV, but will play other discs just fine wtf

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by zerza
Hmm.

Do expect me to stand up with an opinion anytime someone, such as Val, starts spouting off that I'm playing a "watered down" civ and dont have as much skills as him and his infinite "single player" wisdom. Fact is, he wasn't able to adapt, and out of spite he decided to insult the intelligence of those that do enjoy it.

Some people play Civ like SimCity, some people play Civ like a war game. I'd say agree to disagree or at least give MP a fair shot before knocking it

How can one comment on something they've never tried or barely tried. Aside from fear of the unknown.

Well, Vel tried it and I have come to respect his advice. If you go back into this thread a number of other experienced players agreed with him. Do I want to make time in my busy day for bloodsucking early game-rushers to knock me down for another notch on their kill poll? I remember poker games like that. (I no longer play poker.) You always gotta have a few ringers at the table, right?

Sid said himself he designed the game using experiences derived from SimCity; maybe I do play that way, maybe that's tough. I'm designing a few of my "custom" scenarios to more stress warmongering, I'm sure this will accelerate when the "Warlords" module, which I will surely buy, is released. I"m "General" doktor and my icon is a Tiger tank. My favorite Civ3 mod is "Ancient Mediterranean," which is all about war, buddy. I honed my gaming skills on those old cardboard military strategy games from the Seventies on, till I bought a computer and "got Civ-ilized." Maybe one day I'll come into your MP forum and beat your a-s. But not today.

In the meantime, we SP types will still want to discuss our strategy on our threads. Maybe Poly should make the rift official and designate every thread either [MP] or [SP].

[zerza]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor


Maybe one day I'll come into your MP forum and beat your a-s. But not today.

I look forward As one of the first MP builders in Civ3, be assured I wont be rushing. But keep in mind it wont be SP, so dont get caught with your pants down

As for the warmongers, they wont rush defended players usually, and will move on to easier meat. Simple as that. You would only be another kill knotch if you let yourself be

[Aeson]

The whole MP vs SP stuff is lame. Like what you want to, play what you like, but if you are suggesting the challenge and/or depth in SP or MP is greater than the other you're just showing your lack of understanding.

Saying that the masters play one or the other is simply ludicrous. It ignores the actual meaning of the term and then tries to apply it where it doesn't apply at all. "Master" describes the abilities of the player in regards to the game. Not in regards to something else entirely. If the game is MP civ, "master" refers to those who have mastered MP gameplay. If the game is SP civ, "master" refers to those who have mastered SP gameplay. It's ignorant to pretend one supercedes or precludes the other.