Announcement

**brandonjm8** · January 10, 2010, 10:12

Originally posted by wodan11 View Post

There's a difference between "assuming" and "logical deduction".

A = "i post what works best for me cuz thats what i specialize in"
B = your posts
C = A + B

I get your point but now it's here that you're assuming. It was, I think Fall 2007. As I often do, I take a strategy, either one that I've stumbled upon as an extrapolation of others, or something from others I've picked up in forums, and I really push that strategy and see how strong I can make it. I played, oh at least 10-12 games with different settings, all trying to push Warlords. Since then, I have played it maybe 2-3 times a year.

Restating your own statements is not assuming. Are you saying you did NOT say the following? "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, yes theres more for me to learn but the fact remains i have an insane winning %"

Please don't be so defensive in discussions! From the start, you've been acting very "put upon". Frankly, being defensive is as much as fault as the things being defensive about. Whether or not you're entitled to be defensive, I think being defensive just makes it worse.

You're honestly here seeking validation?!?

I blame the education establishment. Our schools are crap. Putting esteem and such above actual education. Heaven forbid the merits of someone's work and their actions is more important than how we and they feel about it.

Nice egalitarian attitude. It's nonsense of course. People are not born with equal ability. (I'm talking in general, not about anyone in specific.)

Sure. But how we got here is I posted a description of another strategy, you replied saying how that strategy wouldn't do well on the settings you always play, and I repled saying some instances where that strategy would do well.

None of the assumptions you posit are true.
1) To get GGs all you need is 1 unit. (Yes, that's an extreme. But the other extreme is what you posted: "a mid to big size army".) The reality can vary between those extremes and a skilled player could go toward the lower extreme if he wanted.
2) Are you defining "D units" as all units which fight within culture borders? And "attacking" as fighting in the enemy's borders? Personally, I would define an O unit as any unit which uses the attack game function versus allowing the enemy to attack. And, I would define "attack" as the attack game function (what happens when I move my unit onto an enemy's unit).

I guess I need to say this again: giving one example does not a trend make. This is what's called observational selection.

I'd suggest you keep a chart (write on a piece of paper as you play your next game), going into F2 every turn and writing down unit and city maint costs. Type them in Excel for us and let's review them to see if we can jointly come to any conclusions based on hard data rather than conjecture and anecdotes. Fair enough?

1) I wasn't mad.
2) Whether not it's justified is moot, you're attacking the person
3) If you attack the person and not the argument, you are violating Poly forum rules. You can be banned for it.

Exactly my point. This makes it a presumptive basis of anything you say. Particularly any anecdote you offer as proof of your theories.

In some respects, yes. That doesn't make strategy and tactics the same thing. For example, one could say cookbooks and cooking go hand in hand.

Dude, I asked TONS of questions. Maybe you should go back and read the entire thread....

already clarified the first para, not doing it again.

gotcha on the 2nd. all good.

making it worse by being defensive is only your opinion. respect my opinions and i'll respect yours.

nope, dont need validation.

as ive said before, in the end i dont really care what others think of me, you dont know me and im a very difficult person to understand, sometimes my thoughts and words arent the same and i dont always use the correct terminology.

not everyone is equal in reality but i still hope we are all equals, the world would be a better place.

fair enough on the advice of strategies.

i try to do all my fighting outside of my land but thats not always possible.

many of my games average over 3000 beakers easily thus far

no on the excel thing, if you dont want to believe me when i say "unit costs seldom effect me since im good at economics of my nation" then so be it.

well you said i had less than 10 civs, you did. you were wrong and based your comment on that knowledge. not my fault you had faulty info. for the record i have 10 civs, will do 12 next game. and if im banned then i get banned, i can just start a new name if i want. be accurate in your attacks/opinions then.

if you dont believe me then you dont believe me, i aint gonna jump through hoops to please anyone here, sorry.

never said tactics and strategies are the same thing, dont put words in my mouth. if you think i did then i'll say it now, they are not the same thing but they do go hand in hand(im trying to be simplistic here).

and i read over posts many times, on earlier posts i couldve used better words, omitted some or not posted, but thats true of us all at one time or another. nobody's perfect.

**wodan11** · January 10, 2010, 10:34

Originally posted by Brael View Post

No tech brokering makes things easier for the player, not harder.

I agree but I think I'd say that no brokering makes the game easier on players who don't know how (or don't want) to abuse brokering.

Excellent point regardless.

Here's a challenge for you, if you really want to compare yourself to others. Your next game (or even your current if you're not far into it), post the initial save here along with a play by play up to a few preset points, and see how others play it compared to you.

Good idea!

Have you ever gotten units to 500+ exp? They're absolute monsters. Individual units are almost capable of handling an entire war on their own.

Consider what happens when you have a unit with combat 6, type specific promotions, drill 4, woodsman 3, guerrilla 3, and tactics. 3-6 first strikes, 50% withdrawl chance, 100% attack bonus (more against defensive terrain), huge defense bonuses, the ability to heal 75% of its health per turn while moving, and more. A small stack of a few units like that is absolutely devastating.

Absolutely... and having 20-25 of those units... heh.

Anyone who hasn't tried the Warlord strategy I encourage to give it a go. It's a blast. I think I described how I do it in sufficient detail to give insights if anyone cares to experiment.

Originally posted by Ming View Post

Just ignore Brandon... All he does is brag what he does at low levels, personally insults people that questions his questionable strategies, changes his comments when proven wrong, contridicts himself on a regular basis, and claims he's a pro when it's obvious he has little experience with BTS and the multiple strategies involved.

A simple review of all the stuff he posts shows this to be the case... It's a waste of time to even attempt to try to communicate with him. He doesn't listen, and then just throws around more personal insults because he has nothing real to say in repsonse. Just wait and see what he responds to this... probably some crap about he doesn't care what others say because he is great

There's always been an element of Don Quixote in me.

Besides, I'm willing to grant most anybody the benefit of the doubt, up to a point.

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

you've never played no tech trading and brokering have you?

I really disagree here, Brandon. With brokering enabled, the AIs trade between each other. They trade techs around like the clap. With it turned off, the AIs are hurt far more than the human. Yes, you are correct that the human has to research ALL techs, but so does each and every AI.

as far as doing play by plays on my games, not going to happen, sorry.

How about just posting the save at 4000BC, 0AD, 1000AD? That's easy enough, isn't it?

the crossover idea is a very good way of rating players, at least i think so.

The crossover does not compare because the settings are different, map is different, and strategy is different. It's a misleading stat and will not give a true comparison. Only if you posted the save at 4000BC and others played the same map and same settings with the same strategy, would the crossover be comparative. The crossover stat is cute to talk about, but it's as meaningless as the in-game Score algorithm.

makes sense, you could speed it up to by having that 100% (or 50%, i forget) GG leader trait too.

Cyrus is the best for the Warlord strat.

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

well Senethro dont like you much either, woodan even said you could be better how you go about giving advice.

Brandon, please don't use me to inflame your flame war with Ming.

For the record, Ming may be a little brash or impudent, but that doesn't mean I disagree with much of what he has to say.

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

you should try out no tech trading/brokering, it can be and often is more difficult (by means of planning that is). and the AI cant trade to other AI's either making keeping in pace alittle easier

Exactly... that's why it's easier for the human to have it off.

Your point of planning is more difficult is actually the exact opposite of what you say... a requirement of planning also makes it easier for the human, not harder, when compared to the ease/difficulty which the AI also must meet. The AI doesn't plan; it's not a true AI, it's a simple set of IF-THEN statements. Since the human CAN plan, the requirement gives the human a huge benefit relative to the AI.

Now, you might mean "it's easier" as in "less work". I'm using the definition of "easier" as in "it's easier to win the game".
(ease = amount of work versus ease = level of difficulty)

If *that's* what you're doing, then I would say tech trading/brokering off is easier (less work) on the human. The human has more techs to plan and research, but also the human cannot plan trading, and trading is removed from diplomatic options, so that's easier (less work) too.

well i know quite a few here go for the early rush conquest strategy on pangea maps

I don't think that's true. From my recollection of discussions, I think most people here have an early war for territory. You don't usually have to do that though your latest game where you started on that peninsula it would have probably behooved you to do so.

But one early war does not Conquest / Domination make. That's simply getting "breathing room" (Earth, Hitler, 1938).

would a macemen early game be a good warlord prospect?

While Warlords can be developed with different purposes in mind, as a general rule I would suggest that melee units are a good idea because you can get them to CRIII before upgrading it to a gunpowder unit. And after you upgraded you could get the Drill line.

i havent played all the leaders yet so im not familiar with all the new leaders UU's yet. for mid game russias cossacks are awesome having innate bonuses against gunpowder and mounted units.

That's Vanilla. Cossacks were nerfed in BtS.

Originally posted by Brael View Post

Resource and civ placement is changing, but always using the same civ and settings like that means you're just playing the same game over and over and over. You're getting better at it through repetition, but to get better at civ overall you need to vary things, that way you can more easily recognize the best way to deal with any particular situation.

Well said.

Originally posted by Brael View Post

It's impossible to...

Careful with that word.

I find bigger than huge maps to be too big (actually, I find huge to be too large but large to be too small). My computer can handle them although turns get slow and things start to lag, but my issue is once you have a certain size, it just gets to be too much effort to manage the empire. I enjoy the thinking aspect of things rather than the tedious management of every city, though early on I do like to micromanage the cities... I give that up once I have a few though, it's just not fun to me.

I agree with this. I play big maps occasionally but frankly the micromanagement of everything is just shuffling pieces around and no fun.

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

no need for big breathes.

The deep breath wasn't for you, it's for trying to explain complex and detailed implementation schemes, multiple ones which are varied and some of which are complimentary with each other and some of which are mutually exclusive.

i knew you were well versed in the CV scheme as i am not. i knew some of what you said, others i did not, will remember this info, thx.

My pleasure.

but sometimes your clarification could be misleading and/or inaccurate. im just saying, misunderstandings are a common occurrence.

And, as I said, when it becomes clear the other person has misunderstood, it's an easy matter to simply and politely correct them. Getting all defensive or insulting them is counter productive and inflammatory.

**Senethro** · January 10, 2010, 10:39

Brandon, I think you could do more to silence all the naysayers here by playing an example game on Prince than by drowning them on words. Maybe do it on something approaching their settings rather than your own, just to really shut them up.

How about
Prince
Standard size
Normal or Epic speed
Continents - 2 continents (although pangaea would really scare them)

**wodan11** · January 10, 2010, 10:57

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

i dont know yet for deity, but by going by brael figures mentioned above you would be wrong. theres 20% difference between prince and deity but 50% difference between prince and settler, going by the numbers. i know thats only for units/buildings and there are others like maint and unit support but if the those numbers are lower for prince to deity then the others probably follow suit as well, a pretty good assumption i believe.

% numbers are not on a linear scale.

i really hope that parents comment wasnt for me.

No I was just venting in general. Sorry.

Originally posted by Krill View Post

Oh my. Another challenger?

What does everyone think?

Krill sighting.

I'm all for it!

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

when i feel up to playing MP and done experimenting with the AI, i'll hold you to it. for right now i have little interest of MP, take that statement however you'd like, it really doesnt matter. when i do decide im done with the AI and have gotten up to higher levels i will need to switch up my settings and get used to the common MP ones, cuz i know alot of people here wouldnt play mine for MP.

I'm confident that even if you picked the mapscipt and the settings that you would get some takers.

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

not everyone is equal in reality but i still hope we are all equals, the world would be a better place.

I have no idea of what you mean by "equals" but I'm all for making the world a better place.

i try to do all my fighting outside of my land but thats not always possible.

Interesting. I often try to do fighting inside my land. It allows me to use my roads, to attack then pull back to heal, to avoid some war weariness, to attack my enemy's SOD multiple times and reattack before they have completely healed, etc.

many of my games average over 3000 beakers easily thus far

An anecdote is worthless to prove a point, and in fact can lead to the wrong conclusion. You agreed with my previous comment about 50 being a lot in one game and not enough in another game.

no on the excel thing, if you dont want to believe me when i say "unit costs seldom effect me since im good at economics of my nation" then so be it.

Ok, I guess. But please believe me when I say I believe an anecdote is worse than worthless. Debating ONLY on the basis of anecdotes is silly, so I'll cease until/unless I see some actual relevant basis upon which to discuss.

(Have you ever studied statistics or logic?)

well you said i had less than 10 civs, you did. you were wrong and based your comment on that knowledge. not my fault you had faulty info. for the record i have 10 civs, will do 12 next game.

The point I made was that you did not scale up the # of AIs with the size of your map. 10, 11, 12, whatever. If your maps are 2x Huge then you should be playing with 25 or so AIs in order to compare to the same situation on more normal maps.

and if im banned then i get banned, i can just start a new name if i want. be accurate in your attacks/opinions then.

Wow, so if you think another person is inaccurate (i.e., you disagree with him), you feel total impunity to call them names and perform personal attacks on that person?

if you dont believe me then you dont believe me, i aint gonna jump through hoops to please anyone here, sorry.

Brandon, it's not a question of truth or belief. Almost all of the things you're saying are not Boolean... they aren't Yes or No. They are shades of gray. e.g., does unit maintenance affect you? You say no. I say, if you have even 1 cost then it is having an effect, so the question is how much of an effect and what would the situation be otherwise? But you turn that around and refuse to discuss the details and you insist it is Black and White, and you get defensive and turn it into an question of veracity, which implicitly says you think I think you're lying. Can't you see what you're doing here?

never said tactics and strategies are the same thing, dont put words in my mouth. if you think i did then i'll say it now, they are not the same thing but they do go hand in hand(im trying to be simplistic here).

Well, back to my original point, I think you're using the word strategy to descibe tactical elements. You have one main recipe (strategy). As you cook, you play it by ear and adjust the recipe as you see fit (that's tactics).

**brandonjm8** · January 10, 2010, 11:40

Originally posted by wodan11 View Post

I really disagree here, Brandon. With brokering enabled, the AIs trade between each other. They trade techs around like the clap. With it turned off, the AIs are hurt far more than the human. Yes, you are correct that the human has to research ALL techs, but so does each and every AI.

but, if the you say for example have a bad starting locale compared to the AI then its very possible and probably they'll at least out-tech ya through mid game and by then if your good you've made up the difference and caught up. i like to no tech trading/brokering since it forces you to make decisions to either wonder whore and possibly be wiped out or to go for the unit techs and let the AI reap the rewards of wonder whoring only hoping to somehow someway take their cities afterwards. there are other examples of why i prefer this way, but itd be a long essay and to be honest i dont have it in me to write it.

How about just posting the save at 4000BC, 0AD, 1000AD? That's easy enough, isn't it?

if you really want too, i dont mind and will do my very next game. fyi tho, i play bigger than huge maps, you need a powerful machine with 4 gigs of ram, you need the planet_generator_map_0_68 from civfanatics.com, 12 civs, prince, no barbs/espionage/events, city flip after conquest, perm alliances, complete kills. if you really want too those are what i play with, non-negotiable sorry. those are my chosen settings for now besides map customization.

While Warlords can be developed with different purposes in mind, as a general rule I would suggest that melee units are a good idea because you can get them to CRIII before upgrading it to a gunpowder unit. And after you upgraded you could get the Drill line.

thought so, thats what i usually do when im doing alot of fighting early on.

That's Vanilla. Cossacks were nerfed in BtS.

i know, sux, they also had 18 str not 15.

I agree with this. I play big maps occasionally but frankly the micromanagement of everything is just shuffling pieces around and no fun.

its fun for me, i pay attention to detail and micromanage alot.

Getting all defensive or insulting them is counter productive and inflammatory.

when your dealing with children, and you dont give them what they want, they have their outbursts

**brandonjm8** · January 10, 2010, 11:43

Originally posted by Senethro View Post

Brandon, I think you could do more to silence all the naysayers here by playing an example game on Prince than by drowning them on words. Maybe do it on something approaching their settings rather than your own, just to really shut them up.

How about
Prince
Standard size
Normal or Epic speed
Continents - 2 continents (although pangaea would really scare them)

if you want to do what i already proposed on prior post, lemme know.

**Brael** · January 10, 2010, 11:44

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

i dont know yet for deity, but by going by brael figures mentioned above you would be wrong. theres 20% difference between prince and deity but 50% difference between prince and settler, going by the numbers. i know thats only for units/buildings and there are others like maint and unit support but if the those numbers are lower for prince to deity then the others probably follow suit as well, a pretty good assumption i believe.

The ones I gave specifics for were the multipliers on base research costs. Those multipliers add up too. Your output is decreasing while your needed input increases. You can look in the handicap.xml file to see the differences. Here's the differences between them from the handicap file, but you really need to play it yourself to realize how different it is

Spoiler:

Oh and the goody hut differences, I'm not quite sure how these work, I assume it's an equal chance to get anything on the list or something.

Spoiler:

Some of these are kind of neat, you've got the same chance on deity of spawning barbarians as you do of getting gold or a tech on prince. Like I said though, to really grasp how all those various changes stack together to limit you, you need to try playing it because simply reading things in there like not getting the 5% bonus, having barbs start on turn 10 vs 30 (15 vs 35 cities), having a 25% higher spawn rate, having a max limit of twice as many barbs, 50% more cities, and so on aren't really apparent just from comparing those numbers.

**brandonjm8** · January 10, 2010, 11:53

[QUOTE=wodan11;5733745]

No I was just venting in general. Sorry.

apology accepted.

I'm confident that even if you picked the mapscipt and the settings that you would get some takers.

got it posted already on prior post if anybodys interested, got some requirements for machine wise and i listed what settings would be used. lemme know by monday, im not sure when my current game will be over with but it shouldnt last much longer hopefully.

Interesting. I often try to do fighting inside my land. It allows me to use my roads, to attack then pull back to heal, to avoid some war weariness, to attack my enemy's SOD multiple times and reattack before they have completely healed, etc.

i would do the same if i must, otherwise i would rather rely on my SoD outside my nation as far as possible should it fail and thus having ample time to send reserves and/or build replacements.

The point I made was that you did not scale up the # of AIs with the size of your map. 10, 11, 12, whatever. If your maps are 2x Huge then you should be playing with 25 or so AIs in order to compare to the same situation on more normal maps.

i scale according to what i want, which ive already stated, big AI's with plenty of room for potential.

Brandon, it's not a question of truth or belief. Almost all of the things you're saying are not Boolean... they aren't Yes or No. They are shades of gray. e.g., does unit maintenance affect you? You say no. I say, if you have even 1 cost then it is having an effect, so the question is how much of an effect and what would the situation be otherwise?

does it effect me early game by having my science lower than what i would otherwise, yes.

mid game, not so much.

mid-late to late, not much at all. maybe 150 gold/turn while im making 500+ gold/turn while having science at 70% or higher.

You have one main recipe (strategy). As you cook, you play it by ear and adjust the recipe as you see fit (that's tactics).

thats what i was trying to say, for most part you took the words outta my mouth.

**Brael** · January 10, 2010, 12:15

Originally posted by wodan11 View Post

I agree but I think I'd say that no brokering makes the game easier on players who don't know how (or don't want) to abuse brokering.

I think it's a micro management deal really. Do you really want to be checking the trade window every single turn so that you can make a deal at the right time? I could agree that brokering can also be abused in a different way but it's quite a bit more work. That said, I love no brokering even if it does let me freely abuse the AI rather than outsmart it.

Absolutely... and having 20-25 of those units... heh.

Anyone who hasn't tried the Warlord strategy I encourage to give it a go. It's a blast. I think I described how I do it in sufficient detail to give insights if anyone cares to experiment.

I've been trying really hard to not keep playing Cyrus, I like playing him but things just get too repetitive when you're always the same leader. Then you had to go and post a strategy that's built for him

I'm trying it out the moment I'm patched to 3.19.

Interestingly enough, I forgot to patch earlier and was doing it with 3.01 and the AI just wouldn't cooperate with me. I had an excellent starting location, got the GW, and the enemy units would just walk into my territory and stand there. It was an odd bug.

How about just posting the save at 4000BC, 0AD, 1000AD? That's easy enough, isn't it?

Ohh, good idea. Do it brandon.

Careful with that word.

If anyone can out research a deity AI without tech trading I would love to see it so I can copy them. Kind of like the super science center before the great library got pushed back further. Library+GL in a city that could support the specialists+representation was insane beakers per turn for the time you could get it.

While Warlords can be developed with different purposes in mind, as a general rule I would suggest that melee units are a good idea because you can get them to CRIII before upgrading it to a gunpowder unit. And after you upgraded you could get the Drill line.

Have you ever tried it using drill units? I know it would mean sacrificing CR3 but at the same time, having lots of first strikes is kind of like having march. It gives that ability to shred enemies without stopping.

**wodan11** · January 10, 2010, 17:20

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

but, if the you say for example have a bad starting locale compared to the AI then its very possible and probably they'll at least out-tech ya through mid game and by then if your good you've made up the difference and caught up.

Depends on skill level. Game start has some effect too, I agree, Brandon.

But, since this is true whether trading/brokering is on or off, this is moot.

if you really want too, i dont mind and will do my very next game. fyi tho, i play bigger than huge maps, you need a powerful machine with 4 gigs of ram, you need the planet_generator_map_0_68 from civfanatics.com, 12 civs, prince, no barbs/espionage/events, city flip after conquest, perm alliances, complete kills. if you really want too those are what i play with, non-negotiable sorry. those are my chosen settings for now besides map customization.

Please do post the saves.

when your dealing with children, and you dont give them what they want, they have their outbursts

I think you just insulted yourself...

Originally posted by brandonjm8 View Post

i scale according to what i want, which ive already stated, big AI's with plenty of room for potential.

Sure, and that's your perogative. But it changes a lot of things compared to other people, so things like crossover comparison are increasingly meaningless. Having barbs off and other things also have a big impact.

As I said, my opinion is that crossover is cute but the more things are different between two games the more meaningless the comparison is. Now, you could probably compare yourself from one game to another, since you have said you pretty much always play the exact same settings. But comparing to other people would be pretty unfounded.

does it effect me early game by having my science lower than what i would otherwise, yes.

mid game, not so much.

mid-late to late, not much at all. maybe 150 gold/turn while im making 500+ gold/turn while having science at 70% or higher.

Anecdote is anecdotal.

Anyway you agreed to my point, so there we go. Especially early game, when little changes have big impact. Even just the flat science... beakers early can be worth 100x or more of beakers later. A simple change of 10 lost commerce in the early game can result in over 1000 lost commerce per turn.

The reason is that you lose out of the investment. You get tech X later, which means building Y enabled by X is not generating benefits for you that much later. And this snowballs.

thats what i was trying to say, for most part you took the words outta my mouth.

Oh okay. So you agree you were calling tactics "strategy"? We have no difference of opinion there then.

Originally posted by Brael View Post

I think it's a micro management deal really. Do you really want to be checking the trade window every single turn so that you can make a deal at the right time? I could agree that brokering can also be abused in a different way but it's quite a bit more work. That said, I love no brokering even if it does let me freely abuse the AI rather than outsmart it.

In terms of easier=less work, you're right, some management is required (though I personally wouldn't check every turn). In terms of easier=less difficulty, what I meant was that a player who knows how to abuse it can get more benefit from brokering than the AI can. For example, the player can get great people, lightbulb selected techs, then trade them to multiple AIs. If that capability is taken away then this hurts the human more than it hurts the AI.

Now, if the human does not know how or, if he knows how but chooses not to bother with it, then that's different. No brokering would hurt the AIs more than the human.

I've been trying really hard to not keep playing Cyrus, I like playing him but things just get too repetitive when you're always the same leader. Then you had to go and post a strategy that's built for him

I'm trying it out the moment I'm patched to 3.19.

Oh, no worries. Imperialistic should be first priority. Second Charismatic. Third Aggressive (free Combat 1 accelerates the curve of getting the combat line of promotions, which basically means all your units have one more promotion than they otherwise would).

Beyond that, it's good to look at UUs and UBs. Genghis Khan is a good choice. Augustus with his Industrious can help you get the Great Wall. Suleiman has a good UU and is good to run a SE.

If anyone can out research a deity AI without tech trading I would love to see it so I can copy them.

Clearly, results in this area depend on the map and settings. I haven't really tried to see if I could do this but I do know I've at least kept pretty close. Regardless, I can certainly imagine a situation where it wouldn't be that hard to maximize your research. A small, overcrowded map, where the human has an isolated start. Perhaps where an obvious bonus is possible such as you've got a ton of coastal cities with fresh lakes and tons of ocean resources, and the Colossus would be huge. The AI wouldn't prioritize Colossus so it shouldn't be that hard to get it.

Anyway the only point is the word "impossible" pretty much precludes any oddball game like that.

Have you ever tried it using drill units? I know it would mean sacrificing CR3 but at the same time, having lots of first strikes is kind of like having march. It gives that ability to shred enemies without stopping.

Oh yes, definitely. I also went through a period where I abused Drill in a bunch of games. Combining Warlords and Drill was an obvious extension.

The main question is whether you want to plan to go on the offensive mid or late game. Basically it boils down to what victory type you want. If you want culture or space, then Drill would be a good idea. If you want Domination or conquest, then CR would be superior.

Good luck with it! As I said it's a blast. There's nothing like stomping around with a bunch of uber units.

(Aside: also you might consider experimenting with continent maps and making Warlord ship units. Also very fun, and you can rule the seas.)

**Brael** · January 10, 2010, 19:11

I went with Cyrus once I installed 3.19. My start ended up having 3 hills, banana, stone, corn, and pigs in the fat cross. A hut next to my settler popped animal husbandry and horses ended up one tile away from my city. Gandhi is a neighbor with a triple holy city, and I've got brennus/caesar/washington for my other neighbors.

The only challenge is I have no metal, brennus/caesar have spears.

**brandonjm8** · January 10, 2010, 21:16

Originally posted by wodan11 View Post

I think you just insulted yourself...

if your confused and took offense to that, you must be the kid

Sure, and that's your perogative. But it changes a lot of things compared to other people, so things like crossover comparison are increasingly meaningless. Having barbs off and other things also have a big impact. As I said, my opinion is that crossover is cute but the more things are different between two games the more meaningless the comparison is. Now, you could probably compare yourself from one game to another, since you have said you pretty much always play the exact same settings. But comparing to other people would be pretty unfounded.

well then, play my settings/maps and see how you do. when you dont then dont expect me to ever go to smaller maps and your settings either.

Oh okay. So you agree you were calling tactics "strategy"? We have no difference of opinion there then.

your attempt to belittle me and make me look foolish wont work. maybe just maybe thats what you thought i thought, you would be mistaken.

**brandonjm8** · January 10, 2010, 21:25

Originally posted by Senethro View Post

Brandon, I think you could do more to silence all the naysayers here by playing an example game on Prince than by drowning them on words. Maybe do it on something approaching their settings rather than your own, just to really shut them up.

How about
Prince
Standard size
Normal or Epic speed
Continents - 2 continents (although pangaea would really scare them)

i can already tell people wont play my settings/maps, they dont want to play what i specialize in so i dont crush them. for that reason alone i wont change up my settings vice versa for what they might specialize in. if they want a fair comparison between themselves and I, play my settings/maps, simple. then afterwards i'll do the same.

in case you didnt pick it up:

planet_generator_map_0_68 map script from civfanatics.com, mid huge map (4th from biggest available, will be 2x bigger than huge, need powerful computer with 4 gigs ram).
no barbs/espionage/events
perm alliances
city flipping after conquest
complete kills
12 civs/prince/7 continents (this is what i will be doing my next game)
i havent chosen my leader yet but if we get enough of you that want to try this out, i may chose my best leader thus far.

if i get some takers, once im done with my current game i'll upload 4000 B.C. save file.

**Senethro** · January 10, 2010, 21:38

Yeah, thats beyond my system specs. Count me out.

**brandonjm8** · January 10, 2010, 21:44

Originally posted by Senethro View Post

Yeah, thats beyond my system specs. Count me out.

yeah i like things big, AI included. alotta havoc and need to multi task against huge powerful AI's too.

i was lucky and got my machine on sale for around $700. its a powerful computer, dual-core, 4 gigs, 600 gigs hdd, nvidia g-force g100 (9800) graphics card. i can play huge games on high settings, its awesome.

Announcement

Noble to Prince - unbearable

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment