Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume II

[tommynt]

@Vel - settler 1. is never ever best start.
just for the 1 reason that a city without worked tiles is useless - u get a settler 1. takes how long? like 15 tunrs maybe - so u plant after 18 turns - after 20 turns u got 2 each one size cities with both like 2 hammers and slow growth.
- so what now? even ai might be sending unit to u not to speak abour barbs - ok lets neglect that and say r on your own island

so u ll build a workboat in 1 city and a worker in other - both rdy in about t25 - u r still size 1 or 2 - so move your worker to your best tile (the food and workboat to your fish - so slightly before turn 30 u have your 1. land improvements to use - but u still have only 1 worker for 2 cities - i guess u need more of em - so u gonna stay at small sizes but get em a bit faster due to the worked food and fish - at t 40 u might think about building cottages or getting wonders - a bit late heh

just think about worker 1. work food tile in t 10 grow to 2 start settler at size 2 if u want 2nd fast city - it ll be rdy in t20 or t21 - but when u get him out u ll have a well working cap - so for a settler about 5 turn earlier you sacrifire all your cap for about 15 turns? and then your cap land is kinda worked when settler goes out - so worker is rdy for 2nd city ... - oh well as said imo u neeed 2nd worker before settler - u can allready street to your new city spot if u dont want chop / have tech to work land and dont forget in my aproach i start working the great land of 2nd city in about t 24 - u start working it in like turn 35

[Velociryx]

Well Tommy, it depends on your aims and goals.

For example:

What if you are playing a civ that does not start with techs to improve the land (agriculture, mining), and your initial strategy does not call for researching these right away? (say, you start with fishing and mysticism (Spain), and you don't land on the coast, and you're jonsing to grab one or more of the earliest religions you can (for whatever reason), and then, make a quick detour for Archery to keep from building warriors when you get ready to lay down some defenses/garrisons.

Given that, how many actions will your worker be able to perform, if you build him first?

Zero.

None at all.

So you are advocating building a unit that has NOTHING to do, given that your initial strategy calls for staying away from the seminal techs initially, and somehow, this is superior to having a second (probably coastal, in the simple example provided above) production center up early (significantly early).

I disagree.

In MP (where you have much experience), yes, it's suicide. I've already admitted that, and I would never advocate it in MP.

But there are situations (in SP) where settler first is the right call.

You're right though. It does stall growth in your capitol early on, but this need not be a crippling blow (no moreso than it is crippling ANY TIME you stall growth to crank out a settler). The rub is, you're doing it right away, and that goes against the grain of conventional wisdom, and so the idea is nay-sayed without really giving it a fair shake under the conditions which it IS the right move.

I understand that.

Believe me, I do.

But I also understand that sometimes, conventional wisdom is wrong.

And this would be one of those times.

-=Vel=-

[Blake]

Vel is right .

Anyone wanting a map suitable for settler first should try generating some Oasis maps. At least a third of the time it gives you a rubbish start in mostly forest with maybe one special. Meanwhile a short distance away will be some lovely floodplains! (no, you don't know in WHICH direction they'll be, so you gotta found in the rubbish)

Also while intution suggests that it's a bad idea to go settler first on raging barbs, I find that 75% of the time it's exactly the right thing to do! The thing is there's a short window of oppurtunity before the humanoid barbs start spawning, you can safely train a settler and settle right next to your cultural borders (so no panther snacks). You WILL have time to train an archer for both cities.

Once the barbs start pouring in ALL your terrain improvement will get ripped up, a strong case can be made for not even bothering with them in the first place. What's more settling requires EXTREME escorts, you need to secure the expansion site with 3 archers, and have a 4th clearing fog along the path. So you can expand after training 0 archers, or you can expand after training 6 archers.

Playing raging barbs, I nearly always regret not going settler first.
PS. Wussy settings like raging barbs on small islands is wussy. Real raging barbs is when they actually get to rage, like on mostly land maps.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ellestar
I said that AI will die on Deity/Future _exactly_ the same way.

And this is incorrect. It will probably lose in a similar way if you approach the game the same way, but not exactly.

So, i said that AI will play the same, not the player. Also, _exactly_ for same settings vs no _exactly_ for a different settings means that there is a difference here For same settings, AI will do the same and die. For different settings, AI will do the same (but probably different from other settings) and it will die as well.

You just said that the AI will lose in any scenario. So show the AW Deity wins we talked about.

No, i don't. Because there is some sequence of actions in existence that gives you a win vs AI in most other settings.
Actually, one (or more ) sequence of actions per setting. I thought it should be obvious from previous post and another sentence in the same post.

When you state something specifically, that is what is obvious. The way you initially phrased it was that a sequence of actions existed that would give you a win in "most settings". Thanks for the clarification on what you meant though.

If you know a sequence of actions that lead you to a win on some settings, AI will die all the time because it can't adapt and it doesn't play to win
If you only replied to both paragraphs instead of one...

You used "some settings" here. It's different than "most settings", but still not "per setting" as you just implied was your intent. Now that you have clarified, I accept you were meaning "per setting". Given that your wording was misleading, it's not valid for you to imply my reasoning was off just because I was addressing how you actually phrased your arguments.

Actually, AI can't do anything that it is not programmed to.

Exactly what I have said.

Random is random (be it AI actions or something else) so you may be lucky or unlucky on some things. And random behaviour of AI is within very tight constraints so i don't see how it makes it significantly different. Well, maybe for you it's different, after all you're primarily a SP player. For MP player it's the same because humans are more unpredictable and creative.

You act like I have no experience with humans. I've played 1000's of MP games of various types. Yes, I am now primarily a SP because I enjoy it more, but I haven't forgotten. Besides, most people actually figure these things out in large part through real life, where interaction with other humans is rather common. It's not restricted to CIV MP.

The variation based on randomness (or luck) in SP is far greater than you are giving it credit for. The Deity AI declaring war on you has the potential to be even more damaging than any MP player. If the Deity AI comes very early, they can have several times the units a player could have possibly produced, given their starting advantages. The difference in game outcome between being attacked by a Deity AI at 3000 BC or not is tremendous.

Yes, something like that. I'm talking about that abstract level but a more detailed than your one in that example. Any strategy/tactics is an abstract thing and it may be executed in different ways so finer details are unimportant. Let's say that AI uses the same metastrategy (a pattern of strategies), however a particular implementation may be different in each game. That may be easily exloited, and that's how you win on Deity.

I included those abstracts to show the inapplicability of using abstracts when dealing with this issue. You are basically saying that to beat the AI you should do what it takes to beat the AI. But the devil is in the details. The abstract can be a rough road-map, in MP as well as SP, but it's the details that actually matter.

Random, random, random... I call it luck You may be lucky or unlucky, i don't see how exactly it changes how AI plays. It's just luck.

It changes how the AI plays because it they use random rolls to make many of their choices. For example, an AI may see that you are weak militarily, roll a number, compare that to a threshhold, and that is how it determines whether to declare war or not. Certainly, who you declare war on and when is part of how you play. No different with the AI.

The point is that without learining and adapting it can't effectively compete with someone who can

That is not what you said. You added in the "effectively" part. Which is still not correct. There are settings (depending on the player's abilities) where the AI can effectively compete with the player. There are settings where it is too weak to effectively compete. There are settings where it is too strong to effectively be competed with.

Besides, it doesn't try to win. If it wanted to win, it should have acted in the same Psychotic (c) Velociryx manner as a player and with a maximum efficiency possible. So, AI doesn't try to win. It just plays somehow.

You are forgetting your statement that the AI does just what the programmer tells it to. The AI has been given bonuses on some levels to offset it's deficiencies in some areas. Because of those bonuses, the AI can't be allowed to rush like a player might, otherwise it becomes useless to play against on high difficulties. Like when you start with 1 Warrior and 1 City, and they have 6 Archers and 3 Cities, you just can't fight off a proper rush.

Just because the AI doesn't act the way you would in MP, doesn't mean that it isn't trying to win. It's trying to win within the confines of how the programmer has set it to work.

Actually, they are. Because they're static. So if you know how to exploit the weakness you gain an advantage. It's that simple and it's true for every AI weakness.

No. There are static weaknesses that can always be exploited. But how to exploit them is situational. There are also weaknesses that are not static, but increase/decrease based on settings. This is why some settings are more difficult than others.

No, i mean bull**** Diplomacy where AI is nothing. A bull**** Combat with insane win/loss ratio. And any other bull**** that will not be the same vs a competent opponent.

So you think all of SP is cheesey. Why even bother? Do you think you will somehow come here and convince anyone that what they think is not cheesey is? Anymore than someone calling MP cheesey will convince you?

You just sound bitter.

I said it pretty clearly IMHO - "(basically, everything that will not work against you if you'll play on a place of an AI will be in that category)"
I guess you didn't wanted to say that you're playing as bad as an AI in these situations

So, bear in mind a responce above, you was too fast with that.

You may think that is clearly stated, but the phrase "play on a place of an AI" is poorly worded. I thought you meant switching starting locations with an AI, but it seems you meant to say "play in place of an AI". That has a different meaning of course. Thank you for the clarification, but I must say your taunts are rather misplaced. (And each was misworded as well. "Want", not "wanted". "Were", not "was".)

What I said is that I can win in games where if the starting locations were reversed, I also could win. (Even starts.) Because that is what it sounded like you were talking about.

You can beat a ******, but so what?

You later state that you understand the principle behind the high-jump analogy. Here you are completely missing that comprehension though. The AI is just a game mechanic. I don't pretend beating the AI or even another player is much of a big deal. How the game is played is the thing that matters. There are "retards" in MP too.

I never said it's impossible. Of course, it's possible. After all, it's stupid to assume that it's impossible if only because during a game development difficulty levels are tweaked so to make it possible and it was possible in all previous games.

I'm glad you realize it's possible.

I implied that it's possible exactly and only because it's a ****** instead of a normal person.

So you are saying I couldn't beat a normal person? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have.

Remember, the AI gets advantages to help it be closer to a normal person. If it were a normal person, it wouldn't get advantages. The reason it can be beat is because there are settings where it's easier, and settings where it's harder. Where it is beatable is depending on the player's skill level at manipulating game mechanics, along with luck.

Besides, i'm sure that you thought it's impossible to win vs a Deity AI in a first Civ 4 game

The proper way to deduce that would be to ask me. Guessing just makes you look like you don't understand what you are talking about. I never thought CIV Deity was impossible. Never thought any game AI was impossible to beat. Generally speaking, I think everything is possible somehow, whether I can see the way or not.

I am suprised you forgot your reasons already stated for not assuming it's impossible so quickly.

All at least semi-experienced players did it (with a better or worse effect) so your point is?

My point was to show that on the abstract level that you were using to be derogatory of SP, MP suffers the same way. There are "things you do" that generally are the "right" thing to do.

It's the actual details that matter. Not those abstracts. Even though chopping was used by most everyone, how it was used was still important and could differentiate the value received/leveraged from it.

Yes, it's a bad balance but at least it's the same for all players (unlike singleplayer where in most cases only a player uses things like that). That's the difference between Single and Multi - players do whatever is efficient. Artifical Idiot does something stupid

Players do not always do what is efficient. They may try to. Some do so much better than others, and of course sometimes things don't happen as intended.

Again you lose sight of the real competition in SP to make your silly insult of the AI. Who cares if the AI does something stupid? It's what the player does, in SP and MP, that defines how well they played.

No, i understand that there may be such a competition and i participated in some as well. Say, fastest win in Master of Magic - i competed against my friend.

You say you understand it, but you consistantly ignore it as a possibility in your arguments.

But multiplayer competition IMHO is a "real one", so to speak. It's so much better (for some people) than the one you mention that there is no way back And that's what i want to explain to others here

Why do you want to explain it here? It's already accepted that the challenge MP presents is valid for those who enjoy playing MP. The thing you aren't accepting is that the challenge SP can present is just as valid for those who enjoy playing SP. The correct view is that both offer challenges, and players decide which suits them best. Neither is inherently better, or more real. Only subjectively.

[Velociryx]

I got badly burned the couple times I tried Settler first with Raging Barbs, but the principle you refer to (that small window at the start) is certainly sound (and I don't think that anybody will argue that it's faster to build six archers before a settler than it is to just build the settler).

On reading this, I'm inclined to chalk my bad experiences up to luck of the draw and give it another go....when I get unpacked of course.

The upside to settler first is that if it fails, it's generally completely fatal (your lone scout is too far from the capitol to respond to the barb that spawned early and beelined for your undefended city), and you die before having a serious amount of time invested in the game (but in my experience, I've only had this happen once in a non-raging setting).

-=Vel=-

[Blake]

I've found the only way to mess up settler first is to either try it with a bad start (Plain hill + work 3 food/hammer tile is ideal) or to send the settler treking through fog. OR to found literally next to a barbarian, while the early barbs don't enter cultural borders, they WILL attack if they find themselves inside a cultural border (animals tho will always go away if you found next to them). It might be possible that an ill-timed border-pop could result in a fluky barb attack.

I actually bring my scout back quite early when doing settler first, losing him really sucks.

Edit: Another fairly safe option for civs who start with Mining is to beeline Bronze Working, you can have it before the settler comes out. If you have the choice, found the 2nd city ON copper.
If you don't have copper you'll probably need to poprush warriors. You don't need to wait a turn, when poprushing warriors you always get the full amount of hammers, so for every poprush you get 2 warriors. You need to get Archery ASAP because warriors are only a stopgap defense.
If you do get copper though, just poprush axemen, defending the capital with warriors until the 2nd axeman makes it over (if you get really lucky the capital was founded on copper!).

[Velociryx]

RE: Your edit:

Agreed. This is why Cathy is one of my favorites, especially with a Settler first (or Scout/Settler).

Allows me rapid, rampant exploration, fast border bumps, and with a beeline to Bronze, I'm well-positioned to exploit the new Intel WAY before anybody else, and thus, exert an extraordinary amount of continental influence, absurdly early.

It terms of speed, this means that, compared with a more conventional approach (two workers, a couple of warriors, and then a settler), that about the same time that about the time the second worker completes, I've got my first axeman coming online, with more on the way--other city is building workers)....but settler first sucks, 'member?

-=Vel=-

[tommynt]

oh well raging barbs .. maybe there s a very lil way that settler 1. might be good idea then -(even as i dont like the idea at all just to plant and build archers after) - that just not best way to paly a civgame

but I say even with raging barbs early worker and work food tile is better to start in 99% - u can slave a archer every 2nd turn if u thiunk u need many archers - that is just so much faster as produce em the "normal way" (where u need like 9 turns) after u got food res u can usually grow in 2 turns form 1 to 2 u just pooprush a everytime at size 2 while your worker goes on improving land and maybe choping settler - this i got no techs for my worker argument is just kinda made - if u play high difficuly levels fast buildup speed is anyway only way to win.
Or do u play "god" just to hope raging barbs kill ai and u stay allive with your 2 cities and only archers in em?

On other hand when reading your settler 1. ideas - I dont wonder non of u guys like multiplayer - in MP u need to play "good" to win - with ideas like that u get just ****ed up badly in a competetive environment

[Velociryx]

*shrug*

If you say so.

The numbers indicate tho, that if I start with Mining (Cathy...my favorite civ that starts with mining), I can go settler first, discover bronze, build second city on a copper resource--no worker needed--and start cranking out Axes in about the same timeframe that you'll have your second worker done.

I don't know about you, but to me, that seems pretty compelling.

It means that if ANYBODY is anywhere near me (and my scout will make this known very quickly), they're dead.

End of story....DEAD, because no other action plan can pull out axes that fast (unless it's pure luck, and you happen to get copper in your starting radius).

This plan, however, does not rely on luck, and that makes it dangerous, because even if there's no copper anywhere around you, you're very quickly in a position to capitalize on multiple specials (even unimproved specials provide good growth, because of the generosity of base land tiles), and you'll see more aggregate growth in this manner, allowing you to work more tiles, more quickly than the other alternatives, all of which translates into an easier time of it.

Land = Power.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

this i got no techs for my worker argument is just kinda made - if u play high difficuly levels fast buildup speed is anyway only way to win.

This is utterly untrue.

Speed is important, but speed and efficiency may take many forms, and just because a given strategy or opener is the one that you are most accustomed to or comfortable with...these things do not mean that they are automatically the "right," or "best", or the "only way to win."

Such thinking is demonstrative of wearing blinders, IMO.

On other hand when reading your settler 1. ideas - I dont wonder non of u guys like multiplayer - in MP u need to play "good" to win - with ideas like that u get just ****ed up badly in a competetive environment

The difference is that for many of us, playing to "win" is missing the point.

The game's the point.

Play to play.

-=Vel=-

[Blake]

Or do u play "god" just to hope raging barbs kill ai and u stay allive with your 2 cities and only archers in em?

How exactly is 2 cities with only archers in them weaker than 1 city with only archers in it?

[tommynt]

Vel come on i played sp sometimes aswell and load of MP games - planting on bronze is nowhere close to that the other is dead - a stupid axe has no chance to take a city with archer in it and dies on open field to sometimes 2 but allways 3 archers and as said these 3 archers are made in 6 turns wiothout chopping or so.

oh well i have seen ais taking over in MP so i know how clever ai is --sure in SP u can build the axe move it to opponent fortify it into wood and the ai ll waste unit after unit in tries to kill that - i have seen it multiple times - that s so poor programmed - and then u r right the ai is dead it ll stay at one city and dont try to improve land - it ll waste unit after unit to your axe - but if u wana win like that - just do same with 2 archers - it gonna work aswell.

SP attack mpers that they try to win with every method that they allways try to find exploits - but in fact it s other way round - ai is so much more easy to abuse - to exploit.

in terms of how do i get axe the fastest way posible with bronze outside my borders - u r right settler 1. is best way then - but what about the 3 (in medium run) wasted shields from planting on bronze (on grass for exaplme is a 2 food 4 shield tile - really great - on plain hill it gives a **** load of shiels - worked

I wana win in a real not in a cheating way - i wana outtech i wana outbuild outproduce outculture ai aswell as human players

[Generaldoktor]

I think I innovated the whole "apples and oranges" thing days ago in this thread.

Oh, I wish this would stop!

You know what, add this to list about "good" SP. AI never get insulted with long-term implications to the health of a gaming community. Toku, I hate you! (So what? At least I didn't flame a real person. )

[tommynt]

i suck at quoting -
- The game's the point.

Play to play.
-

ya that what i m saying - i play to play not to plant a city and wait till archers are built.

playing means taking action in my hand - not to wait with archers till the barbs come - i want have power to kill em before they think about conquering me - for that i need a strong economy

I can agree to the one thing that a worker is useless if u dont have techs for him - but for me this is only imaginable on very high difficuly levels and when playing these a 2nd city allready kinda hurts your upkeep - or am i wrong there?

btw there is a mp strategy played by some on small maps without workers - it s slavi9ng archer after archer and bring em fast to opponent - while opponent is building worker your archers arrive and u surround him - it can work on small maps and espacially when opponent got no res close - opponents starts playing risky to egt rid of the archers and sometimes u can even get his worker - then game is done - but is tha6t the way we want to paly civ?

and gerneraldirector - i just wana discuss the usefulness of settler 1. - which is the worst way to start a game in more then 99% of imaginable settings .. imo

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by tommynt
i suck at quoting -
- The game's the point.

btw there is a mp strategy played by some on small maps without workers - it s slavi9ng archer after archer and bring em fast to opponent - while opponent is building worker your archers arrive and u surround him - it can work on small maps and espacially when opponent got no res close - opponents starts playing risky to egt rid of the archers and sometimes u can even get his worker - then game is done - but is tha6t the way we want to paly civ?

These two statements seem incongruent. On the one hand, we have had frequent manifestations here supporting Vel's statement that MP is evolving to often, if not solely be about ego and one-upping human players, no doubt creating a lot of hurt feelings in the process. (Somehow this game seems to play a lot nastier than Madden's NFL, unless you run the score in that a lot.)

On the other hand, our cutthroat enthusiast describes an MP strategy that even he finds brutal, to reassure us perhaps of his humanity?

I'm not saying don't play the MP game, but a day or two after the "peace" contingent urged MP enthusiasts to pipe down about the superiority of "their" game due to its "competitive" aspects and maybe enjoy with the rest of us all the multivaried aspects of Civ, we still have something pretty d-mn close to flaming going on. Wasteful and stupid. And now I'm going back to building that model city with matchsticks, because if I needed bullying, cutthroat competition and the adrenalin rush of mock genocide, I would join the popular regular pastime here in Florida of automobile demolition derby!