Noble to Prince - unbearable

[wodan11]

ive yet to lose on bts and vanilla, i played many many games on monarch and prince for vanilla and won every time, ive won all noble games and the 3 prince games thus far for bts, to be honest ive only lost one game from the whole civ series, that was back on civ2 so apparently im good enough so i must be a pro

Never losing indicates you don't experiment with different strategies, or you're playing on too low a level, or both.

Have you ever done a specialist economy? Trade economy? Won a culture victory? SE->CE switch? Played a Warlord-only strategy? Done a 2000BC bull rush? City specializations?

On what game level for each? (A measure of how well you're doing a strategy is on what game level you do it on.)

The reason I ask is because I would define "pro" as the same as expert, experienced, knowledgable in game strategies. I suppose one could define "pro" as "having a high win %" but that seems silly to me because win % is able to be accomplished with low skill as well as high skill.

[rah]

Agreed, I consider myself a better than average player and I lose all the time trying different things. (usually at the higher levels). Yeah I can win almost all the time on the lower levels too, but what's the fun of that. But if that's what floats people's boats, I have no problem with that. And comparing IV to II in terms of difficulty level is silly. II at Deity was simple, IV at Deity is a *****.

[duodecimal]

http://apolyton.net/forums/profile.php?do=ignorelist

It's not that goddam hard people.

[brandonjm8]

Never losing indicates you don't experiment with different strategies, or you're playing on too low a level, or both.

Have you ever done a specialist economy? Trade economy? Won a culture victory? SE->CE switch? Played a Warlord-only strategy? Done a 2000BC bull rush? City specializations?

On what game level for each? (A measure of how well you're doing a strategy is on what game level you do it on.)

The reason I ask is because I would define "pro" as the same as expert, experienced, knowledgable in game strategies. I suppose one could define "pro" as "having a high win %" but that seems silly to me because win % is able to be accomplished with low skill as well as high skill.

since each game represents its own challenges my strategies and how i go about winning change with them.

yes on specialist (my preferred btw), yes on trade, yes on culture (once, got very close alot of other times but either got the domination win or space win or diplo win), yes on cottage, a few times on warlord-only strategy but with the current settings i play on you must do more to be able to have the opportunity to kill everyone (i play continents only now, didnt when i first started, im not looking for quick games one after another so i prefer continents now). no on the 2000BC bull rush since i dont play pangea maps nor have few enough AI's close enough to do so and since i usually dont play with barbs, they dont get wiped out which makes the game last longer which after all the civ games ive played i like and prefer. levels for each well so far only 3 on 4th game for prince on bts, two domination wins and a diplo. for noble on bts all above except bull rush since my settings. for vanilla all on monarch except bull rush since my settings (got close once, was before 1 A.D. tho).

i know alot of strategies but not all, im very knowledgeable and efficient enough to have only lost one game in my life, i do have more to learn but i feel its fair that i do say im a "pro" civ player, not the best but i can hold my own. i may start to lose a few more here and there once i get up there on levels but i will win more than lose, im not being cocky or anything but i know i can and will.

[rah]

You posts have only demonstrated your understandings of only a few strategies.

And I count anyone that feels the need to mention their win percentage in almost every post on the cocky side. (or insecure)

[brandonjm8]

But couldn't you also say that never losing means you haven't sufficiently challenged yourself? Unless you run across a challenge, how are you going to know if you're able to come up with a sufficient strategy to beat it?

ive had at times needed to get lucky, for example in vanilla i had to use my spies to destroy this one AI's spaceship parts so my ship would be done first, he was far too strong to take over quickly enough, we were even in power and techs, that was a fun and challenging game. ive had many others where i had to change it up and do something else, every game's different.

Samurai are just macemen with 2-3 first strikes. They're quite good going up against other maces, or pikes, or even longbows but a camel archer is a resourceless knight that happens to bypass a samurai's ability, and has a natural withdrawl chance of 15%. They're the natural predator to a samurai so of course they'll win, and using them is smart. I'm not sure that's a fair comparison though, AI's are biased towards their UU when they can build it. Anyone with knights, or especially Saladin is going to completely and utterly dominate Tokugawa during that period. Following that, his mercantilism habit pretty much ensures he can't possibly be a threat to anyone past the middle ages.

i had 24 i think camel archers so i knew id win question was how many would i lose, i lost enough to bring me to 3rd power and he lost alot more obviously and went down to 2nd, after which i built back up and made a 2nd SoD and shot up too 2nd and now tokugawa is 3rd, but genghis is now 1st, basterd which is why im making my 2nd SoD for the other side of my nation. his stacks were impressive, a 39 unit SoD early game is not bad then his 2nd wave of 50+ all up-to-date at the time units, its just that i had more and better (camel archers) and he didnt have horse (even if he did i had 12 pikemen just in case). im not worried bout tokugawa anymore, he lost 90 units to me thus far and i have two scouts on two choke points to get to me and a frigate on the water choke point so i'll see him coming way before again and will move accordingly, its that damn genghis now hes #1 power but im not far behind and i have gunpowder now with rifling coming up.

I don't use the espionage system, but I do use spies. They're ok as scouts (missionaries with open borders are better, but you can't always do that). I wasn't referring to spies though. AI personality, resources, sentry units on the border, knowing the diplomatic state with a civ, what techs a civ has... you can usually read them pretty well. If you know the civ you can read it like an open book without stepping foot in their territory. Monty is a widely known one here, just about everyone knows that he WILL attack you. You can be at friendly in the modern era while monty has longbows and territory that's only 5% of what you have. He will still attack.

on 3.19 bts if you dont use espionage you cant make spies, so scouts and caravels and missionaires w/ open borders is pretty much it. and i check the stats every 2-4 turns to see where everybody is and who has what and so on and so on. and yes monty's a f'ing lunatic .

Kill ratios are almost always in the players favor, where things get tricky is production ratios. If you're outproduced by 50%, against an equal type of unit you need to kill 3 units for every 2 you lose, otherwise you're losing the war. That's what long wars come down to. If you're winning in that ratio you'll eventually win the war, if you're losing you'll eventually lose to attrition. The further above or below that mark you are the quicker it will be. Next game try something different, you're used to Prince, go up a couple levels and play on Emperor for a couple of games. See if you learn anything about your strategies, even if you don't find them as fun. You can always go back down to Prince afterwards and you'll probably do even better which opens new possibilities for you to do.

i almost always have the production lead and my kill ratios on those two waves was 13-14 of mine to 90 of his, i usually end up getting the big power lead but as mentioned before this game almost everyone has more cities than me, if tokugawa wasnt so far from me and genghis wasnt around id be planning on wiping out tokugawa. i go up levels once ive kicked @$$ more than a few times then proceed to the next, its a habbit. eventually i'll be back on monarch then continue the progress, but i play marathon so games last a good week or two. the only thing that i will get better at and already know is at higher levels just being more efficient with less units compared to them since they build that much faster. wont be a problem, i will lose some but i know i will win more often than not.

No offense but, reading what you type is rather difficult. Punctuation is worthless without other grammar accompanying it.

i didnt know this was english class , hey if you get confused just ask .
Here's a random example from a board I run (not civ related) tell me which is easier to read:

Because I just reinstalled civ after a long break and forgot to patch. I didn't even think about it until I went to the boards again and saw a thread on a patch. Once my current game is done I'll update.

gotcha

[brandonjm8]

And comparing IV to II in terms of difficulty level is silly. II at Deity was simple, IV at Deity is a *****.

i know it was, i must've played 500 games on that, only lost once, not hard since they werent nearly as much as a challenge compared to civ4. but ive played bout 70 or more games on civ4 so im used to it, in due time i'll back to deity but im in no rush, as far as switching things up when i can, but since every games different i always enjoy them.

[Ming]

i know alot of strategies but not all, im very knowledgeable and efficient enough to have only lost one game in my life, i do have more to learn but i feel its fair that i do say im a "pro" civ player, not the best but i can hold my own. i may start to lose a few more here and there once i get up there on levels but i will win more than lose, im not being cocky or anything but i know i can and will.

If you are so good, why are you wasting your time racking up easy wins at such low levels?
There are only two reasons to be playing at the lower levels of the game... well lower by experts standards.

One, for pure fun and easy victories. If they really are a challange still, then you need to learn more.
Two, to learn more about the game... Meaning you lack the experience to play at a higher level. You shouldn't be needing to play 3 or 4 games at Prince before advancing to a more challanging level if you are so knowledgeable and efficient.

I lose a lot of games... because I guess I prefer a challange instead of playing games rigged for my style of play. I love trying all the different world maps, different leaders/civs, different strategies, all the things that make Civ great because of all the variety. It's tough to get bored with Civ IV because of all the options and the highest levels.

You seem to want to play the same style of game, game after game. You want to play at the slowest speed, no barbs, no spies, huge maps and continents to avoid early rushes by you or your opponents.
You are a classic builder.

There is nothing wrong with that... the game is for enjoyment and people should play the way they want to so that they can have fun.

While I consider myself very knowlegeable of the game, I wouldn't ever consider calling myself a pro. Anytime I want to keep myself from thinking how good I am, all I need to do is play a MP game with some of the real pros. Unless I get some luck, good land, or some other advantage, I will probably lose to them.

And if I'm still feeling cocky, all I have to do is play a non rigged game at Deity level. That will usually put me in my place as well. Frankly, I have no clue how people win at that level without playing a rigged game. The Only time I've ever won a game at Deity was on a small pagnea world and I did an early rush with pratorians. I beelined iron, it appeared in my Caps BFC and all I did was crank out them and cats until the game ended.

So yeah, you come across as cockey because what you have posted in no way justifies your own opinion of your game. For all I know, you may actually be the god of Civ... but nothing you have posted proves it. Again, play a game at Deity with locked assests and post your screen shots so we can see how great you are. Or play a few games of MP against people who have proved they are experts so that they can share their opinions of how good you are, instead of just claiming how good you are.

[brandonjm8]

You posts have only demonstrated your understandings of only a few strategies.

And I count anyone that feels the need to mention their win percentage in almost every post on the cocky side. (or insecure)

oh well, whatever floats your boat. im not going to write essay after essay of all the strategies ive had to do to please you. think what you want, i really dont care.

[Ming]

You obviously do care since you keep responding with more posts about how good you think you are

Again... prove it!

[brandonjm8]

If you are so good, why are you wasting your time racking up easy wins at such low levels?
There are only two reasons to be playing at the lower levels of the game... well lower by experts standards.

One, for pure fun and easy victories. If they really are a challange still, then you need to learn more.
Two, to learn more about the game... Meaning you lack the experience to play at a higher level. You shouldn't be needing to play 3 or 4 games at Prince before advancing to a more challanging level if you are so knowledgeable and efficient.

I lose a lot of games... because I guess I prefer a challange instead of playing games rigged for my style of play. I love trying all the different world maps, different leaders/civs, different strategies, all the things that make Civ great because of all the variety. It's tough to get bored with Civ IV because of all the options and the highest levels.

You seem to want to play the same style of game, game after game. You want to play at the slowest speed, no barbs, no spies, huge maps and continents to avoid early rushes by you or your opponents.
You are a classic builder.

There is nothing wrong with that... the game is for enjoyment and people should play the way they want to so that they can have fun.

While I consider myself very knowlegeable of the game, I wouldn't ever consider calling myself a pro. Anytime I want to keep myself from thinking how good I am, all I need to do is play a MP game with some of the real pros. Unless I get some luck, good land, or some other advantage, I will probably lose to them.

And if I'm still feeling cocky, all I have to do is play a non rigged game at Deity level. That will usually put me in my place as well. Frankly, I have no clue how people win at that level without playing a rigged game. The Only time I've ever won a game at Deity was on a small pagnea world and I did an early rush with pratorians. I beelined iron, it appeared in my Caps BFC and all I did was crank out them and cats until the game ended.

So yeah, you come across as cockey because what you have posted in no way justifies your own opinion of your game. For all I know, you may actually be the god of Civ... but nothing you have posted proves it. Again, play a game at Deity with locked assests and post your screen shots so we can see how great you are. Or play a few games of MP against people who have proved they are experts so that they can share their opinions of how good you are, instead of just claiming how good you are.

just because i play continents and you dont doesnt mean really anything, i like the longer games, get over it will you. stop trying to change people man, this is getting ridiculous, just give your advice and stop already. whenever you annoy someone they wont and dont listen to you, i guess the question is whether or not you care or just doing this to have some fun in your life.

continents give us all a chance of greatness AI included thus making the game more difficult. having no barbs makes it so the AI doesnt get wiped out and we can play each other instead (which is what i like, if you dont agree, who cares), as far as the spy system goes its just something im not interested in, there isnt an advantage either way, if anything it makes scouting harder at times. and i dont give myself "goodies" from the WB, i wont lock it up cuz i usually have to do some remodeling of the map when we first start, turning deserts to plains and not having so much tundra and ice throughout the "entire" map including the AI's to give us that much more usable space. and i never said i was "great" i just said im a pro "not the best" but can hold my own, there you go again twisting words and assuming what you want to further your own opinions. does anybody else notice this too? you dont see me doing this. i just state what i do (maybe not everything i do all at once, but thats what asking me questions is for) and thats that. and listen to other respectful civ players to learn from them on my climb back up to deity, and since i have nothing to prove to you i'll do it how i want too not the way you want, if you cant be patient then learn to be patient, chit ive only had 3.19 bts for like a month and a half or two months, and my games take longer and i played numerous noble games testing out many strategies with all the knew stuff bts has to offer compared to vanilla.

[brandonjm8]

You obviously do care since you keep responding with more posts about how good you think you are

Again... prove it!

its killin you inside isnt it? your just looking to bash someone arent ya?
i have nothing to prove to YOU so get used to it

oh and im getting a kick outta this, you guys are taking this way too personally and im laughing my butt off
free entertainment what can i say
but you cant seem to stop either so...

[Ming]

just because i play continents and you dont doesnt mean really anything, i like the longer games, get over it will you. stop trying to change people man, this is getting ridiculous, just give your advice and stop already. whenever you annoy someone they wont and dont listen to you, i guess the question is whether or not you care or just doing this to have some fun in your life.

You obviously aren't really reading what I post
Please point out where I say I don't play continents. On the other hand, I did say that I enjoy trying all the different maps.
And when I or others have tried to give you advice that contradicts your style of play, all you respond with is how you have only lost one game in your life and that you are a pro.
Again, if you really took the time to read through this thread, you would see that most people disagree with you.

continents give us all a chance of greatness AI included thus making the game more difficult.

That's simply a matter of opinion. I've seen discussions that can support either point of view, that it is more difficult, or that it's easier.

having no barbs makes it so the AI doesnt get wiped out and we can play each other instead (which is what i like, if you dont agree, who cares),

Another matter of opinion only. In most past discussions, the general trend is that no barbs actually makes the game easier.

as far as the spy system goes its just something im not interested in, there isnt an advantage either way, if anything it makes scouting harder at times.

Actually... a legitimate comment on your part. If you aren't interested in it, there is no need for you to play it. That's why I'm glad they provided such a long list of options for us to use from in a custom game.
As to whether it's an advantage or not, many people consider that turning the esp option off is an advantage to the human player because of how the AI does/doesn't deals with it.

and i dont give myself "goodies" from the WB, i wont lock it up cuz i usually have to do some remodeling of the map when we first start, turning deserts to plains and not having so much tundra and ice throughout the "entire" map including the AI's to give us that much more usable space.

You can create the game, go into WB, make your changes, then load the game as a custom scenario with locked assests. Most would agree that it makes the game harder

and i never said i was "great" i just said im a pro "not the best" but can hold my own, there you go again twisting words and assuming what you want to further your own opinions.

But you have posted things like "come and try to take me" in past responses about playing a MP game.
You also continue to post things like "you've only lost one game in your life"
And frankly, from what you have posted, it seems like you can hold your own only playing at your current settings and levels. You probably are a pretty good builder, but that hardly what some would call a pro.

does anybody else notice this too? you dont see me doing this. i just state what i do (maybe not everything i do all at once, but thats what asking me questions is for) and thats that.

If you want to call just repeating what you say, and comparing them to other things you have said is consider twisting... that's your opinion. I would call it pointing out your inconsistencies.

and listen to other respectful civ players to learn from them on my climb back up to deity, and since i have nothing to prove to you i'll do it how i want too not the way you want, if you cant be patient then learn to be patient,

I never once said how you should learn the game... I have however, questioned your opinion that you are so well versed in BTS. You keep wanting to say how great you were at CivII and how you have only lost a single game in your life, and all I've said is that maybe you haven't challenged yourself at BTS.

chit ive only had 3.19 bts for like a month and a half or two months, and my games take longer and i played numerous noble games testing out many strategies with all the knew stuff bts has to offer compared to vanilla.

Which is pretty much the point I've been trying to make from the beginning. It's hard to take your comments about you being a "PRO" very seriously when even you admit you still need to test all the new stuff BTS has to offer.

[rah]

i know it was, i must've played 500 games on that, only lost once, not hard since they werent nearly as much as a challenge compared to civ4. but ive played bout 70 or more games on civ4 so im used to it, in due time i'll back to deity but im in no rush, as far as switching things up when i can, but since every games different i always enjoy them.

Good good man, 500 game at Deity level for Civ II. What was the point? You even said you only lost once.

After about 20 or 30 it got boring and if it hadn't been for MP or all the challenges (OCC, Early Landing, or no City) I would have stopped playing the game. Fortunately there was MP and all the challenges to keep it fresh.

[brandonjm8]

You obviously aren't really reading what I post
Please point out where I say I don't play continents. On the other hand, I did say that I enjoy trying all the different maps.
And when I or others have tried to give you advice that contradicts your style of play, all you respond with is how you have only lost one game in your life and that you are a pro.
Again, if you really took the time to read through this thread, you would see that most people disagree with you.

where did i say you "never" play continents? and im a pro because i know what im doing and catch on quickly and can plan ahead, being confident isnt being cockey. from my count 3 or 4 people have voiced disagreeing with me, whoa i didnt know thats most of the civ players out there . and i do take advice given by others, whether you believe that or not i dont care, is there another consciousness within me?

That's simply a matter of opinion. I've seen discussions that can support either point of view, that it is more difficult, or that it's easier.

Another matter of opinion only. In most past discussions, the general trend is that no barbs actually makes the game easier.

then take it for what it is, my opinion. i am entitled to it and everything ive said has just been my opinion, im not bossing anyone around here .

Actually... a legitimate comment on your part. If you aren't interested in it, there is no need for you to play it. That's why I'm glad they provided such a long list of options for us to use from in a custom game.
As to whether it's an advantage or not, many people consider that turning the esp option off is an advantage to the human player because of how the AI does/doesn't deals with it.

maybe, but this is the computer we are talking about here, they know where everything is, how can they not, its the computer and your playing on your computer, plus this isn't real AI, its all been programmed to do this and that. if you ask me the AI dont need spys to know what you have, they already know cuz its the computer (i hope im wrong but it seems that way).

You can create the game, go into WB, make your changes, then load the game as a custom scenario with locked assests. Most would agree that it makes the game harder

or i could keep doing what im already doing, i havent cheated since i first started playing civ4 vanilla back in march last year.

But you have posted things like "come and try to take me" in past responses about playing a MP game.
You also continue to post things like "you've only lost one game in your life"
And frankly, from what you have posted, it seems like you can hold your own only playing at your current settings and levels. You probably are a pretty good builder, but that hardly what some would call a pro.

no i didnt, i said come and get me on that one game against the AI where i built up a massive D, i thought it was funny, i could move 100 infantry to anyone city in 2 turns or less, it was awesome, i didnt get to use it much but the infantry that i gave drill too were the ones that went to war (bout half of the 213 i had) i built so many crossbows when i got invaded since i was on a GA and thought a massive invasion was coming then upgraded them to infantry. if you dont want to hear me say ive only lost one game then stop asking, simple. there you go again assuming i responded with that instead of just asking for more info. i say im a pro since i win alot and rise to the challenge, i will later on too, but im patient and only go up one level at a time and my games take longer and i probably dont play as much as you. itd take a good month to two months for me to go up levels, 4-5 games last that long for me and i dont play alot anymore, and i wont go up til ive kicked butt a few games for my own satisfaction.

If you want to call just repeating what you say, and comparing them to other things you have said is consider twisting... that's your opinion. I would call it pointing out your inconsistencies.

your the one that gets hung up on "awesome D's" and "ive only lost once", if you get confused or need more info on a post and/or reply for more clarification just ask, simple.

I never once said how you should learn the game... I have however, questioned your opinion that you are so well versed in BTS. You keep wanting to say how great you were at CivII and how you have only lost a single game in your life, and all I've said is that maybe you haven't challenged yourself at BTS.

with certain settings enabled/disabled adds to the challenge and maps so forth. and as far as leveling up, "all in due time". if you dont like my opinions then ignore them, simple.

Which is pretty much the point I've been trying to make from the beginning. It's hard to take your comments about you being a "PRO" very seriously when even you admit you still need to test all the new stuff BTS has to offer.

the only thing left is the new spy system, other than that its just new civs/leaders/buildings/units. and i catch on quickly and am naturally good at games, always have been, and i was on a roll on vanilla. i wouldve been at deity by now there but got bts and switched.