Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume II

[Generaldoktor]

At last! The Voice of Reason!

[zerza]

Originally posted by 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.

As you can see, thats about exactly what I'm trying to say. My comments were however initially directed at Vels assesment that I have less Civ skills because I prefer MP. And that I'm not playing "real civ" but a watered down version.

Agree to disagree, some prefer the simulation aspects and some prefer the war.

But do be assured I'll be right back on my soap box every time a so called "expert" criticizes my skills because he was unable to grasp the concept.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by zerza
As you can see, thats about exactly what I'm trying to say.

"About exactly"? My statements are refuting many of yours. In fact your statements were the impetus for my own response. (I had not seen Vel's at that point, though even now I must say Vel at least makes his point without being as derogatory towards MP players as you are towards SP players.) Let us look at some of your other statements and we will see how close to "about exactly" they actually are: (Some of these quotes are from the ladder forum if anyone is wondering where I got them.)


- "These self proclaimed "civ" masters are a joke."

My statement had nothing to do with whether anyone was a joke or not, whether anyone's label was self-proclaimed, merited, or otherwise. (I certainly don't agree that Vel is a joke, even if I do disagree with him from time to time.)

Verdict: "about exactly" irrellevent (and "about exactly" opposite.)

- "MP is where the skill is, you cant just toss someone 10 gold and have peace all game"

My statement was that this sort of argument is ludicrous. Each arena has it's own skillset.

Verdict: "about exactly" opposite.

- "In single player, there are NO random variables to worry about, the player is pretty much the "GOD" of the game, and chooses the path of history themselves.

My statement had nothing to do with whether or not there were random variables to deal with. (If I had addressed that point, it would be to refute your notion, because I know the impact the RNG has on games. And let's face it, some people aren't exactly unpredictable.)

Verdict: "about exactly" irrellevent (and "about exactly" opposite).

- "They are in complete control, and as such prefer "sandbox" style of playing. I played years of single player so I know."

I myself do not prefer "sandbox" style of playing, but still don't like MP. So in that regard, while my previous statement you have refered to isn't refuting your's, the nature of my existance is.

On a much broader scope, here you are making a sweeping generalization that somewhat demeans SP players and underestimates the complexity of their reasons for playing SP. Which is the type of statement my post was targetting, even though it's in another context.

Verdict: "about exactly" opposite

- "Never was a civilization built that didn't face warfare. Its this removal of uncontrolled warfare that makes single player a diluted watered down version of the real game."

My statements were that if you couldn't see the depth and challenge in SP or MP...

Verdict: "about exactly" opposite.

- "Take the civver out of the "sandbox" and into real life, where they DONT have total control of the game, and this is where the real civvers stand up.

My whole response was about the lameness of claiming players are better one way or another, just based on what they play. It is patently absurd to claim that real civvers are MP only.

Verdict: "about exactly" opposite.

- "To say "Ya, I built this wonder and this one", or to say "ya, I built 2 wonders and fought off a sneak attack that had my heart pounding". The masters say the latter."

It is patently absurd to claim that masters are MP only.

Verdict: "about exactly" opposite.

-----------------------

Your position is not consistant with itself. You properly identify that Vel has given an oversimplified and somewhat derogatory view of MP, and then turn around and do the exact same thing in regards to SP. This is actually further from my position than if you were to simply disagree with what I said across the board. I can at least respect a position that I don't agree with, I do not respect a position which is contradicting itself.

[zerza]

Aeson,
Your post shows your desire to play with humans

My comments are purely directed at only those who chalk MP off as being a game that requires no skill. You make them sound as if they are directed at all SP, which is dumb, since 99% of MP are SP to. We beat that SP horse, to death. And then alot more, just to beat the horse. But theres only so many ways to win against the inferior AI.

Someone never playing SP, your right, can not claim to be a civ master I suppose. But the point your missing is almost ALL MP players are also SP players I suppose I should have elaborated more.

Take a poll. 99% will likely say what they took from SP got them killed in MP, and what they learned in MP greatly improved their SP game.

The ritualist patterns SP players get into has a learning curve to be sure. The behavior of the AI is vastly limited in terms of strategy, and tends to be repititious on its patterns of warfare and development. Improve the competition, and the learning curve goes up.

Originally posted by Velociryx
I disagree. Especially competitive MP (Ladder), it seems all about the rush.

Its very very easy to defend and build an economy, its all in the strategy. Most players just dont rush wellknown faces to often. Its opening pandoras box, and they just set their enemy on a fast track to spamming units. Not what you want an equally skilled or better player doing. Personally I'll spam the dog**** outta archers, rush to catapults, and send it all. At the very least I made my rusher lose in points as well, and he wont be so fast to try it next game But if you roll over and die, then rest assured I'll rush you every game.

Its just like SP, if you dont know what your doing, you will get dominated.

Originally posted by Velociryx
I want to enjoy all its complexities, not reduce it to a bare bones shell of itself,

Multiplayer will teach you to get a strong economy fast. You really milk the land for all its worth as the sense of urgency is much higher. The shelf is only bare until you know how to stock it

Originally posted by Velociryx

"populated by a pack of raving psychopaths, whose main aim is to kill you in as few turns as possible"


Finally, given that militarism has a MUCH greater weight in game score than any other component, you don't have to be a good builder at all in MP. All you have to know how to do is rush.

Military gives NO SCORE. None, zip, . Thats the beauty of it, and another reason the rusher is a problem that solves itself He can rush away, his economy is suffering and ultimately his score. If you rush me, I'm gonna make damn sure you dont score well either :P

You better know how to build, in ALL situations. Not just the most ideal situations, but ALL. Thats the complexity of it.

Aeson: at least hes not being derogatory tho

Originally posted by Velociryx
All of them have an overwhelming, almost psychotic drive to kill me. Why? Because they are aware (unlike the computerized opponents) that this is a game, and that the game has a bounding box. That if I am not dead by such-and-so time, then THEY might be dead, because they cannot take the chance and believe that I might not have the same psychotic mindset that they do.

Its much more strategic then a "psychotic mindset"

If I want more land, or to not protect a border, or to take out a super power I will kill. This is exactly the types of reasons nations in real life go to war.

Incidently very few wars in real life start over a misclick trying to tribute 10 gold


The reduced wood chops only cement this all in, as that was a major balancing factor and IMHO made it all work.

[Aeson]

First of all, I see you didn't directly address any of my points. Wow... such thoroughness! Well, they are still there if you want to go address them at some future point in time. (Presumably when you are arguing with someone else? As your mass quoting of Vel while while arguing with me would suggest is your style... )

Originally posted by zerza
Your post shows your desire to play with humans

Playing with humans and posting on message boards are seperate things. Surely you can understand the difference? My post shows my desire to discuss this issue. That would be the case whether you are a human, or otherwise. I'm assuming you are human, but who knows, bots have been advancing pretty well the last few years. Though I would expect a bot to be more logically consistant in it's arguments. If it is my desire that we're talking about though, it would be a bot, because that would be much more interesting.

As you hopefully can see, my desire to post here does not correlate to a desire to play with humans. Simply for discussion on a message board. You could interpret "play" in a very broad sense that would encompass that, but the human part is unsupported. (Perhaps I'll go talk to jabberwacky about this.)

My comments are purely directed at only those who chalk MP off as being a game that requires no skill.

Then you should have qualified your statements better. You did not direct them at "those who chalk MP off as being a game that requires no skill". If you had, you would have not said anything at all, because even Vel's statements are nowhere near qualifying.

You make them sound as if they are directed at all SP, which is dumb, since 99% of MP are SP to.

No. You phrased your statements. You are the reason they sound that way.

How is "MP is where the skill is, you cant just toss someone 10 gold and have peace all game" not directed at all of SP? It doesn't work the way you are trying to pass it off, because the fundamentals you are addressing apply equally to all SP regardless of whether they think MP requires skill or not.

How about the statements about SP prefering "sandbox" play? That SP is a diluted watered down version of the game? That SP players are not real civvers? Even if your intention was to direct those statements at a specific person, or subset of SP, they still directly apply to all of SP because you are deriding the very playstyle itself, the skills involved, and the reasons why people choose to play SP.

We beat that SP horse, to death. And then alot more, just to beat the horse. But theres only so many ways to win against the inferior AI.

This is my point about missing the challenge of SP. You can't see past the opponent. That's just a lack of imagination on your part, it's not a lack of challenge or variation in SP.

(There are a lot of MP players who have never really "beat" SP, even in the conventional manner where simply beating the AI is the only goal. Thus the rather frequent, "I've never beat Deity, but that's because it cheats" rationalizations... And there are a lot more MP players who have never won a SP tournament as well.)

Someone never playing SP, your right, can not claim to be a civ master I suppose.

That is not my point. The only times you seem to agree with me are when you've horribly misinterpreted my statements. Please stop agreeing with me.

My point was that SP has a skillset. MP has a skillset. Mastering one makes you a master of that skillset. It doesn't mean you have or have not mastered any other skillset. That is determined by whether you actually have or have not.

But the point your missing is almost ALL MP players are also SP players I suppose I should have elaborated more.

It's an irrellevent and ignorant point. You shouldn't have elaborated on it, or have even brought it up at all.

I know most MP players have probably played SP... maybe even all of them. Did I say otherwise? If you want to say so, quote me. Don't just pretend I've said something so you can explain how I am wrong about that imaginary statement.

I don't make sweeping generalizations about player's SP skills based on whether they play MP or not. You are the one doing that sort of thing, and I am pointing out how ludicrous it is that you do so.

Take a poll. 99% will likely say what they took from SP got them killed in MP, and what they learned in MP greatly improved their SP game.

Conjectures about hypothetical poll results are not a valid arguments, regardless of what numbers you make up. (And please, be more original than to just use 99% over and over if you're going to make them up... it's so tired and boring.) The only thing lamer than basing your arguments on what a bunch of other people are saying is to have to make up what the other people are saying to do so. People can be wrong. (Especially the imaginary people who's opinions you are expounding upon for.) The validity of an argument stands or falls on it's own merit, not what the most popular opinion is.

Of course your premise here is that I somehow think that MP players can't become better SP players through their MP play. Again, please quote me on that. I have not made any statements in that regard. I personally don't care one iota what your SP or MP skills are, as they are irrellevent to the discussion. It is your statements' validity and consistancy that matters here.

Since you want to conduct a poll though, here's my "vote":

I played CIV MP for a while, somewhere around 50-60 games. The things I had learned in SP served me very well, especially the economics and combat odds. Since I try to keep an open mind about how to approach things, it was about 2-3 games before I was "up to speed"... basically as good a player as I was when I quit playing. I found most of the difference betweeen SP and MP was encompassed by things I had learned playing MP in various other games. Human nature, the biggest mechanic that differentiates the two, remained much the same as in previous experience.

Sure I was a somewhat better CIV MP player for the experience, but since that skillset doesn't apply to my desired gameplay, it's rather useless. My MP skill level, if it suddenly ceased to exist altogether, would not change my SP skill level.

My SP game suffered a bit during the time. Not because of anything inherently bad about MP, but because I was spending less time thinking about what I was doing due to time limits, and getting used to playing on a ludicrously simple difficulty level (Noble). Both those lead to forming some bad habits that I had to break when trying to go back to high difficulty levels. That combined with simply having spent less time playing SP to mean I was behind where I could have been as far as developing an SP skillset. I actually found it harder to go from MP to high level SP than the other way around. I won a much higher percentage of MP games right away than I did Deity games.

Other people will have their own experiences, and they will likely all be somewhat unique. I'm not so ignorant to suppose everyone is just like me and will be affected just like I was.

The ritualist patterns SP players get into has a learning curve to be sure.

Perhaps you just got stuck in a pattern. (Like using 99%?) Again, it shows lack of imagination on your part. The thing about SP (and even MP) is the player can define their own goals as they see fit, pursue them, and then judge how well they accomplished their goals. That is an endless possibility, the only limit being the imagination of the player. You don't have to follow a scoring system, the AI, or even other players like mindless sheep.

The behavior of the AI is vastly limited in terms of strategy, and tends to be repititious on its patterns of warfare and development. Improve the competition, and the learning curve goes up.

Have you ever competed in the GOTM? Or just competed with yourself to win "better", or in a different manner, variant rules, ect., instead of just to win? Even if you can't look past the AI, have you won on Deity?

You seem to be judging SP competition as static, by ignoring all the means available to improve it.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by zerza
Aeson: at least hes not being derogatory tho

I said, "...though even now I must say Vel at least makes his point without being as derogatory towards MP players as you are towards SP players." (Emphasis added.) Notice the "being as" portion. That does not mean I think his statements are not at all derogatory, just that they are less so than yours.

You are just making up things as you go along, rather than actually addressing what I have said.

[fed1943]

I never played MP. From all your posts, it seems to me SPCIV4 and MPCIV4 are diferent games.

Perhaps MP has less things to concern about, but each of them is bigger.

If someday I learn the needed computer'things, I will go there. I will be very disapointed if I win any of my first games, as that should mean not much to learn.

Best regards,

[Velociryx]

Well, it seems that my comments on MP have, and continue to strike a nerve.

Again, for that, I apologize.

The goal of this thread, and my hope for it, is to discuss viable strategies that can be used in-game, in order to help players better themselves.

Getting into a p*ssing contest, SP vs. MP surely does not meet this goal, and so I will not spend any time defending my earlier statements.

I will, however, take a moment to address comments aimed directly at me, in hopes of clarifying:

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.

Fewer, yes. As in a smaller number of. This does not, by any means, mean "less." (because "fewer" in the context which it was used refers to the number of skills required, and you're attempting to use "less" to imply an inferior overall skill level...these are two entirely different beasts). A point that I feel was relatively clear. And actually, your assessment that my conclusions were based on my inability to adapt is false. I won the greater bulk of the games I experimented with, and my conclusions were based upon what worked.

My post was in no way meant to intimidate, only to defend the falsity that MP requires fewer skills, when in fact it requires much more skill.

You are conflating your definitions here, and misrepresenting what I said earlier. MP requires mastery of a smaller number of skills, not less skill overall. They are two different beasts.

....since by his own admission hes unable to adapt to MP play.

Incorrect conclusion. My win record was quite solid, indicating that I adapted pretty well. And my discoveries in that adaptation was that I needed MORE skill in a relatively FEWER number of skills, to thrive. This, in fact, is what I have been saying from the start.

His statements it was a rush fest were grossly innacurate, or perhaps he was being rushed due to him not providing a defensive presence.

My statement that it was a rush fest accurately described how I won the games in question, and how the last surviving civ on the board survived to square off with me, AND how I was beaten in the games I lost--despite having impressive defenses in place.

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.

An intriguing notion. However, I am not a self proclaimed anything. Other than a general commentary that my win-loss record in MP was favorable, I cannot find any post where I have "tooted my own horn." If you see one, please PM me and let me know where it is, because I generally shy away from such behavior, having little use for it.

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 am uncertain why this would cause you to feel the need to "get up on the soap box," as I don't really see it as a provocative statement at all. I said from the start that MP and SP are two different beasts, and that MP required fewer (a smaller number of) skills to excel. This is in no way making a claim that MP'ers are no-skill lunkies, only that there are fewer game elements to keenly consider. In my mind, that's neither surprising, nor a thing to get uptight about, but if it angered you, then you have my apologies.

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.

We'll probably have to simply agree to disagree about MP and its ability to "employ much more aspects of the game" but I think you will find that we are in tacit, if not explicit agreement about the fact that MP takes skill. I never made any claims to the contrary. As to the myth that MP is all about rushing....again, I simply pointed out the means by which I won the games I won, and the means by which I lost those that I lost. If they are myth, then one would reckon that these statements would be impossibility. That they in fact occurred, means that there's something more going on here....

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

Again with the improper conclusion.

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.

I am uncertain whether or not I have ever "spouted off" in any strategy forum. In fact, I try very hard to be open minded and objective, basing my observations on fact, rather than conjecture. Granted, because I cannot play an infinite number of games, my facts do not incorporate the full range of possible experiences, but this is a limitation that everyone who posts here faces, and so, I do not lose much sleep over it.

For the third time, the fact that one variant of the game requires mastery over a smaller number of skills to play well does not mean that players who master that smaller skillset have LESS skill. In re-reading the original posts, this was never an implication. Again, if you took it as such, I apologize. I make no claims to having "infinite wisdom," nor were my posts meant as an "insult to the intellegence of" those who enjoy MP. Just a simple statement about the raw number of skills and variables that needed to be taken into account. If you read more into it than that, it's all you.

As you can see, thats about exactly what I'm trying to say. My comments were however initially directed at Vels assesment that I have less Civ skills because I prefer MP. And that I'm not playing "real civ" but a watered down version.

Agree to disagree, some prefer the simulation aspects and some prefer the war.

But do be assured I'll be right back on my soap box every time a so called "expert" criticizes my skills because he was unable to grasp the concept.

(Fourth time) - My comments did not imply that you have less Civ Skills, only that MP requires mastery of a relatively smaller number. This is not directed at any one in particular, but rather, at the game engine itself, and it's design and use in two very different styles of play. That anyone finds anything here to be angry over is....frankly surprising to me.

And by all means, if you enjoy the warring aspect of Civ, then play to it! Nowhere in any post do I make any claims that players should do anything other than have fun. However you find your fun, run with it. Do understand, however, that while civ contains a combat engine, it's about as far removed from a "war game" as one can possibly get. Again, this is not an assessment that if you enjoy war in Civ, that you are an unskilled oaf who can't handle a real war game, just an honest assessment of Civ's engine, as it compares to "grognard-style" war games. Not surprisingly, it comes up short. That doesn't say anything bad about anybody who plays to the warring angle in Civ, nor does it say anything bad about Civ itself. It's just a statement of truth about the design of the engine.

My comments are purely directed at only those who chalk MP off as being a game that requires no skill.

Then, clearly, you are no longer referring to me at all. And in re-reading the thread, you are referring to no one who has posted here.

Military gives NO SCORE. None, zip,

Quite true. But it does provide the simplest mechanism for adding new cities, land tiles, and population points to your realm, which DO increase score. As an enabler, there's nothing better. This is well-covered ground, I think.

"populated by a pack of raving psychopaths, whose main aim is to kill you in as few turns as possible"


Finally, given that militarism has a MUCH greater weight in game score than any other component, you don't have to be a good builder at all in MP. All you have to know how to do is rush.

at least hes not being derogatory tho

Nope. I wasn't, and if you will read my earlier posts and take that isolated statement in its proper context, you will clearly see that. It will not help your argument, however, so I understand why you zeroed in on that tiny sliver, out of context.

Its much more strategic then a "psychotic mindset"

Not really, no. But again, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree.

If I want more land, or to not protect a border, or to take out a super power I will kill. This is exactly the types of reasons nations in real life go to war.

Oversimplified, but I agree in principle. It's funny however, that in order to make a point, you underline my earlier one. (call it watered down, call it oversimplified....all amounts to about the same thing, and it seems that you have helped prove the point?)

Summary: MP and SP are two very different creatures living inside the same skin. Said that from the start. If it makes people uncomfortable to take stock of the number of skills that require attention (SP v. MP) then we can certainly leave that out of the equation (with the understanding that this will somewhat limit the scope of strategic discussions).

That said, can we get back to the good stuff....that is, discussing strategy? I'm pretty sure that the folks who come here to read, do so specifically because these threads have a history for a) providing information they find value in, and b) do so without the flame wars.

Seems to me the quicker we snuff out the latter, the better off we'll be.

That's good strategy.

-=Vel=-

[Generaldoktor]

I apologize to Velociryx and the group if I contributed to the semblance of a "p-ssing contest." The senior contributors dropped off this thread for awhile. As a matter of fact, for a time I was using it one-on-one with a relatively new gamer to talk about his particular, current SP game. Then comments appeared from nowhere that I felt could not be supported, about the author of the thread and SP in general. I felt obligated to pipe up. But that's over now. And I am glad Velociryx was willing and able to take the stand to defend himself and appreciated Aeson's comments too.

Before leaving this, I'd like to comment on one more aspect:

Originally posted by Aeson
The thing about SP (and even MP) is the player can define their own goals as they see fit, pursue them, and then judge how well they accomplished their goals. That is an endless possibility, the only limit being the imagination of the player. You don't have to follow a scoring system, the AI, or even other players like mindless sheep.

Have you ever competed in the GOTM? Or just competed with yourself to win "better", or in a different manner, variant rules, ect., instead of just to win? Even if you can't look past the AI, have you won on Deity?

You seem to be judging SP competition as static, by ignoring all the means available to improve it.

I agree with this statement entirely and it says more eloquently what I was trying to say earlier about "tweaking" the SP game and/or with my analogy about the building of a model city with matchsticks.

I hope now we can go back to strategy. And though I spoke otherwise in anger, I hope it really isn't necessary to break such discussions down into separate ones for Multiplayer enthusiasts and Single-player enthusiasts. Perhaps, since I still think the SP are going to predominate in the forseeable future, MP enthusiasts could pipe in in a positive manner about where a given strategy might differ in their mode of play. Peace.

[Velociryx]

Generaldoktor, no problem at all, bud, and I appreciate you sticking up for me in my absense.

I think the primary reason that it proved necessary at all was that a) my original post was somewhat more vague than normal, and open to possible alternate interpretation, which just happened to collide with b) people reading into a post what they want to see, rather than maintaining a more detached objectivity.

*shrug* In any case, here's hoping that we (all of us, MP'er and SP'ers) can continue to explore the strategic possibilities that Civ four makes available to us!



-=Vel=-

[zerza]

Vel,

Perhaps your descriptions of MP are pre patch 1.61, when the grossly abused wood chop was rampant (worst balance of any civ game to date imho). can kind of fit.

Fact is. without the super chop, the rush doesn't work very well. Especially keeping up with other players after the kill. Its Russian Roullete to rush.

I dare say give it another try. The nerfing of the chop drasticly changed the community, and everyone had to adapt to fit. It severely nerfed the rush, and gave more time for the builder to entrench. All of your descriptions of MP do not fit into the context of the new nerfed wood chop. Another drastic change resulting from the chop was the move to Standard type maps for most games. This, with the nerf chop drasticly changed the face of civ to a builders game.

For your numerous comments of "raving psychopaths" I feel these were made to detract from the character of the MP community. To make us sound as if we are inferior of strategy, or less "civilized". For you to continue to stand by and defend such statements make it hard for me to ever respect you. Hence, my statements concerning SP struck you the same way I'm sure, I hope my transliteration of how I took your statements by countering statements with like kind were picked up by you.

Raving psychopaths vs can only compete with stupid AI

You may feel one way, I may feel the latter, probably best to keep such thoughts to oneself tho eh?

The difference between SP and MP is multiplayer is always evolving. A strategy that works one month, wont necessarily work the next. People evolve, and learn. Almost every strategy in MP has a counter strategy, it only has to be learned. SP, in my experience, has a more rigid format (in higher difficulty levels) and lower levels that allow you to explore more strategies give total pushover AI's.

One thing that MP is NOT is static. Your inability to employ all the skills used in CIV dont reflect the communities ability to learn to employ those skills. I think you will find the face of MP changes everytime a civ master learns a new tactic.

I dare say civ master when referring to MP because those that have mastered MP in all likelihood have mastered SP as well.

I invite many of you to get actively involved with the Epic community of Civ4. These are games that are played for a set time, and then reloaded at an agreed upon time. The reason this works so well in the context of the ladder is if someone doesn't show up, they are forced to report twice to each player, a nice method to ensure players meet to reload.

Epics are played on large maps, continents, and are much more aligned with the typical SP game, but have real opponents, not dumb AI. Diplomacy is very key in these games as well, but not as effective as Diplomacy with a stupid AI.

Sadly, the Epic community has yet to fully take off as it did with Civ3, perhaps the community isn't mature enough yet. One only need to post their availability in the Epic section of the ladder forum, and a host organizing an epic can contact anyone in an agreeable timeframe. I most enjoy epic games compared to the shorter cton variety.

[Velociryx]

Zerza - I hope that this will be my last post on this particular topic. If you feel the need to discuss it further, perhaps we can do so privately, and leave the thread for discussion of strategy?

Perhaps your descriptions of MP are pre patch 1.61, when the grossly abused wood chop was rampant (worst balance of any civ game to date imho). can kind of fit.

Observe the dates of the posts in question, and compare to the release date of the latest patch. You will find that this is indeed the case.

Fact is. without the super chop, the rush doesn't work very well. Especially keeping up with other players after the kill. Its Russian Roullete to rush.

I dare say give it another try. The nerfing of the chop drasticly changed the community, and everyone had to adapt to fit. It severely nerfed the rush, and gave more time for the builder to entrench. All of your descriptions of MP do not fit into the context of the new nerfed wood chop. Another drastic change resulting from the chop was the move to Standard type maps for most games. This, with the nerf chop drasticly changed the face of civ to a builders game.

I may. Not sure, since MP is really not my bag, but if it has changed the community as you indicate, then I just might give it another spin. And it seems that you, yourself actually agreed with at least some of my conclusions (emphasis added):

Perhaps your descriptions of MP are pre patch 1.61, when the grossly abused wood chop was rampant (worst balance of any civ game to date imho). "can kind of fit.

For your numerous comments of "raving psychopaths" I feel these were made to detract from the character of the MP community. To make us sound as if we are inferior of strategy, or less "civilized".

Not at all. Go back and read it again. The "Raving Psychopath" quote you are referring to has its genesis in describing what happens any time you put X humans in a bounding box with a time limit as a pressure cooker. Kinjy summed it up as a kind of "prisoner's dilemma" and that's not wrong. The chosen phrase is not, and was never meant to be a descriptor of the players themselves (and I'm actually shocked that you or anyone else took it that way!), but rather, a (quite accurate) description of the highly illogical, completely time-driven imperitive to kill everyone else before the buzzer sounds the end of the game (this mindset, being present even before the game starts, since it is known by all before the game begins that there are X players and Y turns). Not to mention the fact that I referred to myself as well, given that I adopted those self-same strategies in order to win. So even if you feel insulted or slighted in some way that I "called you a name," you can take heart that, while referring to myself and former MP games, I was calling myself that very same name.

Or...you could see it for what it was. An explanation of the way that the game engine's design illicits irrational behavior from its players.

And it does.

We can call it something else if you like, but changing its name is semantics.

It will not change the fundamental truth that

a) all human players know of the existence of all other human players before the game even begins (and before they COULD know of them, given prevailing geography)

and

b) all human players know they are under time constraints, and know that if victory is to occur, then it must occur inside those time constraints.

And that the combination of a+b leads to incredibly irrational (psychotic) behavior when looking at it through the lens of real world comparisons.

It's how the game engine was made.

Got nothing to do with the players.

For you to continue to stand by and defend such statements make it hard for me to ever respect you.

My first sentence specifically said I wasn't gonna waste time defending my earlier statements, because IMO, they are not in need of defending, and to do so would be decidedly off topic. On this point, I believe that the major issue is simply one of interpretation. Sadly, I have little control over how you choose to interpret what I write, any more than I can control how you interpret the bible. I feel that I have explained my statements more than adequately, offered numerous apologies, and have invited you to continue the discussion in private if you still disagree.

What more would you have me do?

Hence, my statements concerning SP struck you the same way I'm sure,

On the contrary...your statements did not affect me in the least, either way. I am here only to correct what I perceive to be miscommunications.

Raving psychopaths vs can only compete with stupid AI

You may feel one way, I may feel the latter, probably best to keep such thoughts to oneself tho eh?

[/quote]

If you wish, yes, we can certainly remove any and all dramatic descriptors from the discussion. At which time, such discussion would read like an engineering text, and be about as enticing as a rice cake, coated with rancid butter, and from this, we can assume that next to no one will bother to read what is written, but yes....we could certainly do so.

Is that really what you want? Is that the ultimate point you are trying to make? IMO (and take that for whatever you feel it is worth), this portion of the debate exists solely because you misinterpreted something I wrote.

It happens.

I've explained what I meant in greater detail, apologized for any misunderstandings, etc....again, I'm really not certain, at this point, what more you would like me to do?

The difference between SP and MP is multiplayer is always evolving.

Yes. Agreed. MP is always evolving.

But I disagree that this is a compelling (or even a minor) difference between MP and SP, because SP is likewise evolving.

CIV evolves.

Constantly.

A strategy that works one month, wont necessarily work the next. People evolve, and learn. Almost every strategy in MP has a counter strategy, it only has to be learned.

Agree again. I am not clear on the purpose of these statements, unless you mean to imply that what I wrote some weeks ago may not be perfectly applicable now....in which case, I would think that this is a given, and not in need of explicit definition. Nor do such statements mean that we ought not come here to discuss the realm of strategy. That is to say, while it's a given that something I say this evening might not be applicable a year from now, or even with the release of the next patch, this is surely not being fronted by you as a valid reason for not holding the discussions in the first place, is it?

SP, in my experience, has a more rigid format (in higher difficulty levels) and lower levels that allow you to explore more strategies give total pushover AI's.

Agree to a point, and disagree to a point. In SP, the rigitidy is what you make it. If you lock yourself into the same pattern of play style, then yes, obviously there is not much fluidity, but at that point, that is your choice, as the player. OTOH, if you use the environment and the setting to explore radically different ideas, then you wind up with the kind of flexibility that makes MP look stale by comparison. Again, it's all about what you do with the game.

One thing that MP is NOT is static. Your inability to employ all the skills used in CIV dont reflect the communities ability to learn to employ those skills. I think you will find the face of MP changes everytime a civ master learns a new tactic.

MP is not static in the sense that it is perpetually shaded by the personalities who play in it. In truth, however (again, based on my somewhat more limited exposure, pre 1.61 patch), MP play is exceedingly formulatic. Not that that's a bad thing, but clearly, it isn't for everyone.

And again, what do you know (specifically) of my ability one way or another? If you wish to make it personal, we can certainly do so, but PM me, and we'll keep it out of the strategy forum.

I dare say civ master when referring to MP because those that have mastered MP in all likelihood have mastered SP as well.

And I would, by and large, agree with this statement, because the fundamentals that MP forces you to focus on don't really change in SP. What SP provides is a different expression OF those fundamentals, plus a number of fascets not normally seen in MP. Again, in my experience.

-=Vel=-

[necrom666]

If I play a monach or emporer level but check Lock Modified Assets does that mean I have the limitations of the dificulty level without the AI getting the production advantages on top of that? In other words does the AI play with the same hammer/tech rules as the human player when Lock Modified Assest is checked, no matter what difficulty it's set at?

If not, can someone explain what Lock Modified Assets does?

[Aeson]

It's the new name of the old "no cheating" option. It means you play by the standard rules, no mods.

[necrom666]

thanks for the detailed answer. what the blank does that mean. I think you backing up what i said but not sure.

So if i set deity difficulty with Lock Modified Assets, what do i get?