Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume II

[Aeson]

It means if you install the game, then patch to v1.61, you have a standard rule set. If you then apply mods in the custom assets folder that change the game rules, you can go back to using the standard game rules by checking "lock modified assets".

[fed1943]

Supose I install a mod with the goal to play just one game with it (actualy Team DG).
May I also play another games without delete said mod?
Must I do some choice or the computer alone does the choice mod/no mod?
My thanks in advance.
Best regards,

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Aeson
(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.)

Hehe. I installed Civ 4 and finished a tutorial. After that i decided to beat a Deity AI in my first Civ 4 game. But how to do it? I have only one try to beat it in a first game and if i fail i have no other chance.
Well, Future start, Custom Continents -> one per team (5 AI) and all these AI are steamrolled. gg no re (means good game no remake).
Now say me who else beat Deity AI in their first game? You just need to be a little creative and AI is nothing

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
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.

Surely it is brutal

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
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.

Well, i don't agree with any but with the cowardice.
If you state that it's too brutal for you then...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ellestar
Well, Future start, Custom Continents -> one per team (5 AI) and all these AI are steamrolled. gg no re (means good game no remake).
Now say me who else beat Deity AI in their first game?

You could have just given yourself a UU Warrior, 50 STR, 50 Movement. Or you could have hit alt-W and deleted the AI. Or you could have set up the game with only you as the player, no opponents. Or you could have just pretended that you won and not played at all.

Each of those would have been just as meaningful.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Aeson


You could have just given yourself a UU Warrior, 50 STR, 50 Movement. Or you could have hit alt-W and deleted the AI. Or you could have set up the game with only you as the player, no opponents. Or you could have just pretended that you won and not played at all.

Each of those would have been just as meaningful.

Of course i expected that answer (after all, i'm a strategy player and i use my opponent's answers to my benefit) and it further proves my point. AI sucks anyway, it's just more obvious in non-standart settings. No matter how many times i'll play with Deity AI's on future, it will die exaclty the same way (unlike multiplayer).
But the thing is that AI will die the same way in any other settings if you know what you should do so to win. Unfortunately, it just isn't as obvious for some players.

Actually, there are no wins against AI that are meaningful. AI is a sitting duck. Bruce Lee once said "break brick is good, but bricks don't hit back" in a Bloodsport movie. And what you do is fighting bricks. But martial arts were made for fighting other people. I guess you'll understand the analogy.

[zerza]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Zerza - I hope that this will be my last post on this particular topic.

Transliteration : Zerza- I hope this will be my last post on this, so I will close with a few controversial points to kick it in high Gear.

Originally posted by Velociryx
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.

Or, you can see it for what it is. Opponents with a clear mission, goals and ambitions. Rather then an AI wandering without any clear motives or ambitions. An opponent who doesn't have a goal isn't much of an opponent, as they got nothing to fight for.

Originally posted by Velociryx

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)

As does the AI, ever notice they move straight to your cities from the start Difference is, the Human player is smart enough to have motives. You can only become as good as your opponents. Brag all you want, but the ability to beat an AI is done, done, and done.

Originally posted by Velociryx
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.

The AI is under time constraints as well, (all games have a set # of turns, whether 100 or the max) Difference is the human is smart enough to realize this, and incorporate it into their goals. Far beyond me how anyone can consider defeating an enemy who is a (chicken with its head cut off) can be considered a victory.

Its like beating up a ******, and then bragging about it.

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

This "psychotic" behavior you mention, the rational behavior of having goals, is very "real world". Cold wars over perceived threats of power, the dislike of nations just because they are there, its all real world examples. How many wars are fought over religion, and you call the behavior in game "psychotic". The world is "psychotic". If you want fuzzy bunnies I'm sure RollerCoaster Tycoon is excellent.

Originally posted by Velociryx
It's how the game engine was made.
Got nothing to do with the players.

And its how you play against the AI. Irrational reasons to attack the AI abound I'm sure. I guess its "psychotic" when the chance it can be returned exists.

Originally posted by Velociryx
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.

Which is the effect of my statements, so they do seem to affect you. Much the same way your statements effected me. They caused us both to stand up and attempt to correct what we percieve as miscommunications.

Originally posted by Velociryx
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.

Well expect many topics to get derailed then. To make rash biased opinions and not expect a counter is folly. To act shocked when it happens is redundant.

Originally posted by Velociryx
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.

Well, you want to make rash statements, then become shocked when someone argues. Those rash statements will cause much misinterpretation, and using this posting style I would think you would be more used to it.

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

O ya? Didn't realize the AI learned from its mistakes
Sure SP evolves, every 1-5 years when a new version is released. Sure mods can change the face, but its still the dumb AI underneath.

Originally posted by Velociryx
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?

Not sure where I said we shouldn't discuss it. You totally lost me here, or are you saying that only your opinion should be discussed? Im discussing, and you are yeilding to go private. So I'm lost as to what my "front" could possibly be. But I wont "front" your "front"

Originally posted by Velociryx
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.

To defend something, you have to defend all points. You cant pick and choose points to defend and pretend the rest go away.

My point in relation to this was the higher levels DONT allow for experimentation, there are VERY FEW right ways to succeed. The lower levels allow for much experimentation, but who knows if they actually work on an opponent with half a clue.

Strategies I use against my little brother in chess most assuredly WONT work against anyone with half a clue So the strategies your able to explore, are moot and worthless in the context of any intelligence from your opponent.

(ya, I spent 200 turns doing nothing but ecowhoring, great strategy. In game terms, thats a few millenia of uncontested expansion, ya, this is realistic )

Originally posted by Velociryx
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.

Sure, there is alot of slack to run with when you dont have any real enemies or threats. Again, roller coaster tycoon.

There are many avenues of Multiplay available, I'm rather surprised this isn't explored more by the members of Apolyton. If you dont like a particular style, make a move to introduce a new style of settings. This was done several times in Civ3, and resulted in a wide variety of game styles, settings and varieties.

Multiplayer civ can only become as varied and fulfilling as the players let it become. To sum up Multiplayer as "one particular style only" is misleading, and an outright lie. You dont give enough credit to Civ.

[Velociryx]

Transliteration : Zerza- I hope this will be my last post on this, so I will close with a few controversial points to kick it in high Gear.

There is nothing in my last post that is controversial. Perhaps if you would drop the bravado and actually THINK and READ, you would see this.

I am trying very hard to keep this thread civil, and on topic. I see that (at least in your case), I am failing. Since I have already apologized ad nauseum for any misunderstanding and misinterpretation you may have read into my earlier posts, I will now apologize on your behalf, to everyone who's reading this thread, and is dismayed at the turn it has taken.

I do this because you seem to have the fervent desire to pick a fight, and it is a) decidedly off topic, and b) not terribly constructive. I also do this because based on your previous posts, it seems clear that you will not apologize to the other folks reading here for your own behavior, so it falls to someone else to do it for you.

So...to everyone reading here, and trying to enjoy what was designed to be a thread on strategy, I apologize for the continued outbursts and derailment of the thread.

Or, you can see it for what it is. Opponents with a clear mission, goals and ambitions. Rather then an AI wandering without any clear motives or ambitions. An opponent who doesn't have a goal isn't much of an opponent, as they got nothing to fight for.

If you would like to call it that, be my guest. Again, my comments were not directed at the players themselves, have next to nothing to do with the players themselves, and have everything to do with game design. I've designed six games so far, and submit that maybe, just maybe that experience gives me a fairly solid base to comment from. If you disagree, that is certainly your perogative. It does nothing to change my opinion. So let us agree to disagree, and move on, yes?

As does the AI, ever notice they move straight to your cities from the start. Difference is, the Human player is smart enough to have motives. You can only become as good as your opponents. Brag all you want, but the ability to beat an AI is done, done, and done.

Actually, no. I have noticed that during war time, they know where your garrisons are, but during the exploration phase of the game, I've not noted any "preferential treatment" regarding exploratory units beelining for human settlements. And please, I'm begging you here, quote me....find a quote from one of my posts which includes me "bragging" about my abilities. I'll anxiously await whatever quotes you dredge up. You see, Master Zerza, I don't have an axe to grind. I don't have a superiority complex. I have nothing to prove. In reading your posts, I wonder if you can honestly say the same, and keep a straight face? But back to the point at hand, please, go find some quotes of me bragging. I'm anxious to see what you produce.

The AI is under time constraints as well, (all games have a set # of turns, whether 100 or the max) Difference is the human is smart enough to realize this, and incorporate it into their goals. Far beyond me how anyone can consider defeating an enemy who is a (chicken with its head cut off) can be considered a victory.

Indeed, the AI is under the same time constraints. The difference is, that the AI does not act irrationally because of this information (they act irrationally, but for a different set of reasons, which is a whole 'nother subject).

Its like beating up a ******, and then bragging about it.

Still awaiting those bragging quotes.

This "psychotic" behavior you mention, the rational behavior of having goals, is very "real world". Cold wars over perceived threats of power, the dislike of nations just because they are there, its all real world examples. How many wars are fought over religion, and you call the behavior in game "psychotic". The world is "psychotic". If you want fuzzy bunnies I'm sure RollerCoaster Tycoon is excellent.

Goals are (generally) rational, I agree. Unfortunately, (and this goes back to the design of the game engine) the way the game is structured, the MP envrionment is an environment where the decisions are inherently forced down irrational paths. Not at the tactical level (tactical level decisions are quite rational, as indeed, they must be), but at the strategic level. It's about as far removed from "real world" decision making as you can get, because here in the real world (at least as far as I am aware), there is no turn limit to contend with. No outer boundary at which the game ends (at least, not in anything but the sun exploding billions of years hence, being so far removed from us that it has never been a decision point for a nation). Do you not see the difference? If Civ IV's game engine had been constructed such that the upper end of the game was open (no set time limit), it would completely change the character of decision making, but this is not how the game is constructed. Again, you are free to disagree, but that in no way changes the facts of the Game Engine's design.

And its how you play against the AI. Irrational reasons to attack the AI abound I'm sure. I guess its "psychotic" when the chance it can be returned exists.

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes no. In general, I let the AI seal their own fate by declaring against me. They start it, I finish it. (EDIT: An example of both can be found in the "Devel's Workshop 1a thread). But yes, I won't deny that I've played a number of games where my own decisions have been every bit as psychotic as those made on the MP playing field. Does this admission make you feel better in some way?

Which is the effect of my statements, so they do seem to affect you. Much the same way your statements effected me. They caused us both to stand up and attempt to correct what we percieve as miscommunications.

The only way your statements are presently affecting me is that they are off topic and potentially driving away people from this thread, who might come here to read about strategy, but are being kept away by pointless flaming that I have asked you to take private, if you wish to continue.

Well expect many topics to get derailed then. To make rash biased opinions and not expect a counter is folly. To act shocked when it happens is redundant.

While you are looking for quotes of my "bragging," please also find and produce some quotes of my "rash" opinions. I'd ask you to look for biased ones too, but in general, when I have a bias, I clearly say so (and you'll find evidence of that in this thread).

Well, you want to make rash statements, then become shocked when someone argues. Those rash statements will cause much misinterpretation, and using this posting style I would think you would be more used to it.

Every statement I have made has been explained in excruciating detail. If you still cannot grasp it, and still have the feverish desire to argue, I'm not sure I can help you. But I'm still gonna wait to see what "rash statements" you come up with.

O ya? Didn't realize the AI learned from its mistakes! Sure SP evolves, every 1-5 years when a new version is released. Sure mods can change the face, but its still the dumb AI underneath.

This thread is a testiment to the manner in which SP evolves. A number of talented individuals have contributed their time and their thoughts to new avenues of exploration inside the game engine that is Civ IV. Perhaps if you were less interested in hearing yourself crow, and more interested in maybe running the risk that a poor, dumb SP'er might teach you something new, you would learn from the many people who have contributed here.

I do not hold out much hope of this happening, of course, since you seem determined to turn this into your own little flaming pulpit, but we'll see.

Not sure where I said we shouldn't discuss it. You totally lost me here, or are you saying that only your opinion should be discussed? Im discussing, and you are yeilding to go private. So I'm lost as to what my "front" could possibly be. But I wont "front" your "front"

This statement tells me that either a) I misunderstood the intent of your words, or b) that you can't read. Either your own words, OR this thread. If you could, then you would see that this thread is not composed of just "my" opinions, but rather, is made up of the collected opinions of some really sharp people here. It is disappointing that you find so little value in it that you wish to turn it into a flamer's playground, but this seems to be the case. Further, my (now repeated) request that we take these discussions private have nothing to do with either you or I personally, and have everything to do with keeping this thread on the topic for which it was designed. You disrespect me as the thread starter, the owners of this site, and everyone who reads here and feels that there might be something of value here, by your determination to continue this utterly useless, completely off-topic rant about something that has already been explained in microscopic detail. If you're not happy with the explanation, fine. PM me and we'll continue.

To defend something, you have to defend all points. You cant pick and choose points to defend and pretend the rest go away.

My point in relation to this was the higher levels DONT allow for experimentation, there are VERY FEW right ways to succeed. The lower levels allow for much experimentation, but who knows if they actually work on an opponent with half a clue.
Strategies I use against my little brother in chess most assuredly WONT work against anyone with half a clue )

Agree to disagree again then. I have a considerable body of evidence that indicates that most of the experimental styles of play that began their development when the majority of folks here were playing on Prince still work (with some tinkering and modification) as high up as Immortal.

That's a pretty wide spectrum.

You are, of course, free to disagree, but the evidence would indicate that you would be incorrect to do so.
In any case, it's an academic point. You've made it clear that we SP'ers are no-talent clods who could never (even accidentally) teach you anything, and that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, and I won't begrudge you for it. Just understand that there are a number of people who come here to read and learn who disagree (as further proof, you may want to take a look at the number of views that this thread has gotten...this would seem to indicate that there are at least some folks on Apolyton who feel that there might be something of value here, no matter what level they play).

Multiplayer civ can only become as varied and fulfilling as the players let it become. To sum up Multiplayer as "one particular style only" is misleading, and an outright lie. You dont give enough credit to Civ.

Okay, first, I said that MP was exceedingly formulatic, not "one playstyle only." (Unless you are referring back to the "all about the rush" comment, which even you admitted was a significant point, pre 1.61 patch, so I'm rather doubting you're going that far back into the argument).--and if you ARE going that far back, then your point is a non-issue, since, per you, it has been addressed with the latest patch.

And, you may not like knowing it, but MP is exceedingly formulatic.

So is genre fiction.

That doesn't mean that it's a straight jacket.

Stop being disingenuous and read before you comment, and if you're gonna call me a liar, then be prepared to back it up with something more substantial than a couple of conflated definitions and hot air.

It would be greatly appreciated.

There are many avenues of Multiplay available, I'm rather surprised this isn't explored more by the members of Apolyton. If you dont like a particular style, make a move to introduce a new style of settings. This was done several times in Civ3, and resulted in a wide variety of game styles, settings and varieties.

This may not be easy to hear, but you, as a representive of the MP community, are at least part of the reason that MP doesn't get as much play as you'd like it to. Why should it? I mean, when you come here, spoiling for a fight, scoffing at everyone here (most of whom play SP the majority of the time, if not exclusively), picking a fight even after the reasons for your righteous indignation have been explained exhaustively and apologized for....why should it be surprising that people don't want to flock to you? I mean, your own actions are proving my point! You're about the best ally I could have in terms of driving the point home.

And the offer to continue these discussions via PM still stands, btw.

Flamers.

-=Vel=-

[Blake]

Its like beating up a ******, and then bragging about it.

Golden.

To many players single player is seen more as a puzzle than a competitive game against other players. The goal is to find the optimal solution, or to explore possible solutions. It can also be seen as a role playing exercise, or playing out a story. Or as an exercise in building the perfect empire.

The AI's aren't players, they're merely obstacles, to make the puzzle challenging. Like with building; there is building to make things pretty (ie art), and there is building to make things strong (engineering), CIV SP is a bit of both. For purposes of art, an AI isn't needed. But for those who enjoy engineering, it is important for the creation to be stress-tested - for it's effectiveness as a creation to be assessed, and that's where the AI comes in. You don't need humans to crash test cars, and you don't need humans to crash test CIV empires.

And just so you know the futility of arguing with me, I enjoy playing The Sims and many other strictly single player games. I also enjoy playing certain multiplayer games, especially RTS. When I feel like doign some "engineering" I prefer CIV. When I feel like matching wits and skills with another bag of meat, I play Warcraft 3.

The "Best Civ4 Engineer" and "Best Civ4 MP player" are seperate categories. The Engineer aims to master every aspect of the game, to understand every little detail, to know how to put it all together, the MP'er aims to master those aspects which enable him to beat other players.

The fact is - Civ4 MP requires fewer empire building skills than SP. In MP, all that is needed is to build an empire strong against other humans. There are many aspects of Civ4 generally not explored in MP. On the flipside, there is the whole matching wit and skills thing, BUT, this is really the same in every other MP game out there.

Vel is well known as a master Civ engineer. For knowing many ways to build strong empires, and for teaching others how to do so. And remember, people don't like Vel because of who he can beat; they like him because he helps others learn, that's what his reputation is for.

Is Vel the best Civ4 player? No. Probably not by a long shot, there are others who play a lot more and are more innovative. Best and most enthusiastic Civ4 teacher? Hell yeah. You can't argue with that. And in the end, it's not who you can beat, it's who you can help. Remember that.

[Generaldoktor]

Nicely said Blake.

I think we had this settled down until the gentlemen from Russia chimed in on some old quotes in the thread and gave new life to the flamers. This thread is running 16 pages anyway and most of the last several have been all flames. I'm really thinking it should be closed, but I realize that isn't fair to the good work Vel was doing on strategy. If it reopens under another name, it is presumable these harpies will just start in again.

1.) There really was no effective MP until Civ4k, (I hear the Civ3 version finally released was riddled with errors and tedious.) MP fanatics (and I do believe it is possible to play MP without being so rude,) are essentially upstarts that are trying to disrupt a longstanding community here. Play the game that way if you enjoy it, start your own strategy threads, if you must. I made a suggestion yesterday here that it is possible to interpose suggested modifications to strategy based on MP considerations without being an arrogant elitist about it, but if you can't handle that, by all means do your own; as an alternative to horning in here with character assassination and elitist braggadocio.

2.) Any discussion of MP vs. SP, besides maybe the original passing references, is essentially off-topic. Board participants who are consistently off-topic, from what I understand, are subject to discipline, including temporary or permanent exclusion from the boards. I'm a little surprised nobody's been warned already. I personally have encouraged you to start your own MP vs. SP thread, though I can't say I would be interested in participating.

3.) Yeah, so now I'm off-topic too, , but only for five minutes. If I could just brainstorm something else off the top of my head we could start talking about besides this MP vs. SP nonsense; it would be naval warfare and coastal development. I don't think I've seen much yet on that. How heavily should it be emphasized, can you still play well on a map with large oceans if you don't get Great Lighthouse, how do you best maneuver and fight with multi-ship fleets in both ancient and modern eras, when should you beeline to caravels, etc?

Besides that topic, there is certainly many others that haven't been covered yet, besides all this flaming.

[tommynt]

quote:
Vel is well known as a master Civ engineer. For knowing many ways to build strong empires, and for teaching others how to do so. And remember, people don't like Vel because of who he can beat; they like him because he helps others learn, that's what his reputation is for

I some1 saying that settler 1. might be 1 good approach to start game and Vel sayed this guy might be right - and u wana tell me that a good teacher d say that.

settler 1. is for sure the worst to start a civ4 game.

I teach people nearly everyday - in game - where the party is goin off - i sometimes freak - I sometimes see teammates dying - but I allways try to get the best playing of civ out of the team

[Velociryx]

Thank you both, Blake and Generaldoktor.

It is my hope that we can move beyond the flames of late, and get back to the good stuff. The strategy.

I believe that's why most of us come here.

Oh, and, about this:

Is Vel the best Civ4 player?

Not by a country mile.

Nor do I have any desire to be!

Now....onward to something that has come up time and time again:

I some1 saying that settler 1. might be 1 good approach to start game and Vel sayed this guy might be right - and u wana tell me that a good teacher d say that.

settler 1. is for sure the worst to start a civ4 game.

I teach people nearly everyday - in game - where the party is goin off - i sometimes freak - I sometimes see teammates dying - but I allways try to get the best playing of civ out of the team

Actually, Tommy, *I* am the one who agitated for the settler first opening, and I still contend that it has value in some settings and situations.

Not all, to be sure, but some, and when it's appropriate, I use it.

Strategic flexibility.

Very important concept.

Without it, you wind up putting yourself in a straightjacket, or wearing blinders.

You become so focused on your favored "right" way of doing things that it takes a tremendous jolt to make you realize that there might be another way.

Specifically, if my starting terrain does not contain at least two specials (with at least one of those being food), AND there's a juicy city spot revealed (or strongly hinted at) by the first turn's explorations, I will build a settler first.

Under better circumstances than the one described above, there is a (nominal) loss in total resources collected by going settler first, more than made up for by doubling your number of production centers early on.

Primarily, it depends on prevailing terrain, and what your early game goals are/how you mean to pursue them.

-=Vel=-

[Generaldoktor]

Settler first does scare me; and more so because I tried it one time. (Of course, it may not have been the "appropriate" time.)

Just to be devil's advocate, I'll throw out what scared me (and still does )

1. No growth in the sole producing city for what on Marathon can be almost 30 turns, at a crucial early period.

2. No extra firepower to defend the realm when that production finally does roll off.

3. Additional delays possible anyway, because settler to do his job might well need an escort.

4. If no escort (risky), settler is going to need a garrison, soon. (Real soon, with "Raging Barbs" )

This list should not be considered conclusive.

[zerza]

Thank you Blake, for your comments. You put alot into perspective without getting defensive and egomaniacal. I appreciate your perspective, and your very acceptable reasoning. It went a long way to reminding me why people play SP without making me feel inferior.

Vel: As for the tonicity of this thread, it was largely derailed by your one sided views of MP play made in response to tommynt merely giving other points of view. I regret having stooped to this level myself in regards to SP, especially after Blakes comments. I tend to attempt a rise out of folks who attack others for holding a differing point of view. tommynt merely expressed a personal distaste for SP and you went on a tirade of posts culminating in MP'ers all being "psycopaths"

The only reason I am still even entertaining this thread, is to break the mold you have put on MP. As I said previously, if one style of play doesn't suit, there are many other styles of MP civ available. EVEN EMPIRE BUILDING STYLES.

A typical ladder game isn't ALL ladder games, seems you've only tried the "ancient start small map" variety.

Another cton variety thats gaining popularity is the "Rennasiance continents" start. If you cant build an empire you cant play this style. Period. There is no rushing.

Epic style was a very popular style in Civ3, and as the ladder matures I'm sure will be even more popular in Civ4. This style is simply an ancient start, on continents, with the typical campaign victory conditions. Sessions usually run a few hours or up to 4 or more, depending on the players. When its decided to stop, the game is saved and an appropriate meeting time is scheduled to resume the game until its completion. Basicly, this is like single player but with real opponents I notice Vel, you have refused to comment on this style even though I've mentioned it previously. I guess it doesn't fit your "mold".

Vel, I only ask that you stop painting a picture of a subject you've only glanced at. Our ladder doesn't need naysayers running around giving false information and giving people "false limits" on what CIV4 multiplayer is really like.

Read your posts, and the several responses of the people you scared off, all of whom admitting to never even trying MP in any shape or form.

Anyone interested in EPIC style of CIV, or "the long game" go to http://civ4players.proboards44.com/ and check out our "EPIC" section of the forums. Post your availability and hosts interested in organizing games can pick people who can conveniently attend.

This section could use some growth to be sure, but the more people that post an interest the faster it will grow.

I know I posted this information previously, but it was smoked out by several more posts of the horrors of multiplayer

[Velociryx]

Settler first does scare me....

*nods*

Yep.

Total agreement. Especially with Raging Barbs on, it's just about suicide to even contemplate it.

And in all fairness, it DOES change your early game around a good bit. You gotta play pretty differently if you go settler first, because it IS a radical departure from other types of openings.

Specifically, you have to be really careful with your opening scout/warrior. If he dies, then you're in a world of hurt.

Typically, if I'm exploring this type of opening, I'll lead the starting exploration unit out on a wide loop (or arc) around the capitol, sticking to the high ground whenever possible in order to maximize the number of tiles revealed.

The goal, of course, on a settler first opening is to grab THE BEST city spot you find, as early as possible.

Then, as the city grows, you'll be able to make use of generous bonus tiles even before they get improved by workers.

Specifically, I find Settler First most valuable when:

* I know I'm playing on Islands or 'pelago type starts

* I started with Fishing, but didn't land coastally (my next city WILL BE coastal, and I'll get work boats in the water fast)

* I don't start with any of the seminal techs, and want to delay researching them for a bit to pursue other goals (religion, primarily, but maybe something else)

* My starting terrain has only mediocre specials, but there are better ones nearby (so long as one of these mediocre specials (in the starting radius) is a food special, I'm better off not losing turns moving the settler, and working with what's at hand)

* My starting terrain is average to sub-par, but I'm confident that my starting scout can FIND me something better (in this case, my main goal is to escape via expansion, and my exploratory pattern will be dictated by what specials become visible as I move).

Not for everybody, and not for every situation, but in some cases, it can and does serve you well.

Instances when I would not consider settler first:

* MP (too easy to get cheesed to death)

* Raging Barbs (same reason)

* If I start with seminal techs and good specials at home

* If I start with fishing and am coastal

* If I plan to research one or more seminal techs as part of my opening strategy (which would give a worker something productive to do)

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

First of all, I would like to thank and congratulate Zerza for refraining from further flames.

I feel that we are now moving in the right direction, and hope that the discussion on this thread can and will continue in this way. Hats off to Zerza for creating a "Demilitarized Zone."

Vel: As for the tonicity of this thread, it was largely derailed by your one sided views of MP play made in response to tommynt merely giving other points of view.

Okay, I will admit to not seeing it.

I just went back to the original post by Tommy, and counted forward. What I found were statements like this:

Excellent additions, Tommy....

I disagree.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject

I think that this ongoing discussion is quite valuable to the strategy thread,

As far as I can see (and please, feel free to point out via quote anything I've said that you take issue with as derailing the thread with a negative tone) about the closest thing that can be counted as "derogatory" toward MP were the statements that: a) MP requires a different skill set to thrive in (smaller than SP, but, as I have explained, by no means inferior to), b) The game engine is designed in such a way that it leads to irrational choices and behavior that can only be termed as psychotic when viewed from the lens of any real world scenario (and I have also admitted that this can easily be said of SP). I also said early on that MP was all about the rush, and you agreed that before the most recent patch, this could easily be the case (so I will assume you take no particular issue with that). Further, I said that it (MP) is highly formulatic. That's not even an insult, but I wanted to include it just in case you took it as one.

I guess what I'm driving at is: I don't see what you're talking about. If you feel I was hostile, then help me out. Show me where, and I'll either own up to it, or, if it wasn't intended as hostility, then I'll do my best to explain what I really meant. Fair enough?

I regret having stooped to this level myself in regards to SP, especially after Blakes comments.

I tend to attempt a rise out of folks who attack others for holding a differing point of view. tommynt merely expressed a personal distaste for SP and you went on a tirade of posts culminating in MP'ers all being "psycopaths"

Having already explained this position twice, and in great detail, I'm not sure what else I can say about it, except to comment that everything about that statement, and why it was made, has already been explained. It wasn't made as part of a tirade, and it wasn't aimed at the player. Re-read my posts, and then the explanations, and you will clearly see that.

The only reason I am still even entertaining this thread, is to break the mold you have put on MP. As I said previously, if one style of play doesn't suit, there are many other styles of MP civ available. EVEN EMPIRE BUILDING STYLES.

And that's heartening to hear. I understand that much of this change came about as of the latest patch. That's fantastic. But my comments were made prior to this patch, during a time when you grudgingly admitted that Rush was much more powerful (in which case, my comments, for the timeframe they were made in, rang true). I'm glad it has changed, I really am, but surely you have to see the shaky validity of comparing what MP has changed into Post 1.61 with comments I made well before it was a twinkle in anyone's eye?

A typical ladder game isn't ALL ladder games, seems you've only tried the "ancient start small map" variety.

True. I tried what was all the rage at the time. I went with the flow. That's what I found. If you're telling me it has changed now, post 1.61, then....I believe you. 'k?

Another cton variety thats gaining popularity is the "Rennasiance continents" start. If you cant build an empire you cant play this style. Period. There is no rushing.

Didn't see any of these when I was experimenting, but it sounds intriguing. I admit that I haven't tried it. Sounds like it has promise!

I notice Vel, you have refused to comment on this style even though I've mentioned it previously. I guess it doesn't fit your "mold".

Again, didn't see any of this variety when I was experimenting, and so I have no firsthand knowledge to serve as a basis to report from. In those cases, I don't report either way, because I don't have enough information. IMO, this is wise, and again, if you're telling me that this format has become more popular, then all I can say is that I'm glad! It's a long overdue change, and it certainly seems a welcome one!

Vel, I only ask that you stop painting a picture of a subject you've only glanced at. Our ladder doesn't need naysayers running around giving false information and giving people "false limits" on what CIV4 multiplayer is really like.

My comments were made weeks ago, and under a now-outdated patch. The only comments I've made recently regarding MP were comments dredged up and flung with hostility. They were prefaced with the fact that my exposure and experience were limited (and thus, biased by default to the limits of that experience), and at the end of the day, they are just that....opinions. You even grudgingly agreed that MP, pre 1.61 could be much as described, before the nerfing of chop, and I have never advocated that anybody just blindly follow advice. If MP doesn't have as big of a following as it could have, then the reason for that does not lie in this one thread, with a few comments by me, buried somewhere on page 12, agreed?

Read your posts, and the several responses of the people you scared off, all of whom admitting to never even trying MP in any shape or form.

In looking at this thread, I see two people who have made comments that they were more reluctant to try MP.

Two.

I suspect that this is a fair assessment of my ability to harm Civ IV MP, which is to say, so negligible that it may as well be nonexistent?

If and when I try MP again, in light of this new patch, it will no doubt color my perception of it. At that time, I will likely report on my impressions again.

At present, however, this is unlikely, because I'm more than half homeless (new job, new city, new STATE, and living out of a spare room at my uncle's house while arranging to buy a house here), so I don't have access to my computer, or to Civ (and they frown on me installing Civ at work, although that is tempting.... )
That said, there is little to fear about future posts by me re: MP, especially if it has become all the things you say it has.



-=Vel=-