Tweet
Tommy:
So...for you the phrase "play to play" means taking immediate action, and you do not like being tied down with little to do for the first several turns of the game.
I totally understand.
But I also understand that your viewpoint on the "proper" way to play the game is not everyone else's viewpoint.
Me, for example....to me "play to play" means experimenting. It means finding out the best, fastest, most interesting ways of doing things. It means taking a fresh look at something that is widely accepted and challenging its wisdom. It means intentionally doing something differently, rather than just shrugging and figuring that since everybody else does it this way, then it must, by definition, be right/best/whatever.
That's what I do. That's the fun and the magic and the mystery to me, and that's what led me to experiment with settler first to begin with.
You don't like it, and that's cool.
I'm not trying to force you to use it.
But to say that it's useless, or the "worst" opener imaginable flies in the face of the mathematical reality that it isn't.
That statement is driven by (I believe) the fact that you personally don't prefer that style, and again, that's fine. You don't have to use it.
And you're right about the higher levels of play hurting your upkeep costs as you add more cities.
In fact, I would argue that this very mechanism (a general lowering of the city upkeep threshold as level of play progresses) makes settler first MOST compelling at monarch level, because at monarch level, you are allowed two "free" (no maintenance) cities, and the faster you GET those cities, the better off you are.
At levels below Monarch, worker first gains strength, because the "free city" threshold is higher, and the time it would take to crank out all those cities is simply larger than the window of peace (no barbs, and unlikely AI contacts) you have. Since most MP games are played using Noble settings, and given the early history of MP in Civ 4, it makes sense to gravitate away from this methodology (settler first), and you have clearly done so.
Likewise, on levels higher than Monarch, Settler first is bad because you'll be charged maintenance on that second city, and it will degrade your research.
In this then, Monarch is a special case. Unique in its strengthening of the Settler First opening, but by no means, the only instance where it is applicable.
It is if I get my first axeman out at a point when you've only got two workers, which IS the comparable timeframe in this case.
But you see...the line is subjective. You say the above, yes, but I KNOW (having witnessed it first hand on numerous occassions) that an early warrior "choke" is a common (almost rampant) tactic, and every bit as "cheesy" as the other examples you provided, so clearly, it's not about (or not JUST about) a desire to out tech and out culture an opponent...not when reliance on cheese like that is (or was, at least) so commonplace.
In any case, I think we've provided ample evidence and examples that demonstrate that there ARE times when settler first is the right call, have we not?
-=Vel=-
So...for you the phrase "play to play" means taking immediate action, and you do not like being tied down with little to do for the first several turns of the game.
I totally understand.
But I also understand that your viewpoint on the "proper" way to play the game is not everyone else's viewpoint.
Me, for example....to me "play to play" means experimenting. It means finding out the best, fastest, most interesting ways of doing things. It means taking a fresh look at something that is widely accepted and challenging its wisdom. It means intentionally doing something differently, rather than just shrugging and figuring that since everybody else does it this way, then it must, by definition, be right/best/whatever.
That's what I do. That's the fun and the magic and the mystery to me, and that's what led me to experiment with settler first to begin with.
You don't like it, and that's cool.
I'm not trying to force you to use it.
But to say that it's useless, or the "worst" opener imaginable flies in the face of the mathematical reality that it isn't.
That statement is driven by (I believe) the fact that you personally don't prefer that style, and again, that's fine. You don't have to use it.
And you're right about the higher levels of play hurting your upkeep costs as you add more cities.
In fact, I would argue that this very mechanism (a general lowering of the city upkeep threshold as level of play progresses) makes settler first MOST compelling at monarch level, because at monarch level, you are allowed two "free" (no maintenance) cities, and the faster you GET those cities, the better off you are.
At levels below Monarch, worker first gains strength, because the "free city" threshold is higher, and the time it would take to crank out all those cities is simply larger than the window of peace (no barbs, and unlikely AI contacts) you have. Since most MP games are played using Noble settings, and given the early history of MP in Civ 4, it makes sense to gravitate away from this methodology (settler first), and you have clearly done so.
Likewise, on levels higher than Monarch, Settler first is bad because you'll be charged maintenance on that second city, and it will degrade your research.
In this then, Monarch is a special case. Unique in its strengthening of the Settler First opening, but by no means, the only instance where it is applicable.
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.
I wana win in a real not in a cheating way - i wana outtech i wana outbuild outproduce outculture ai aswell as human players
In any case, I think we've provided ample evidence and examples that demonstrate that there ARE times when settler first is the right call, have we not?
-=Vel=-
Comment