Noble to Prince - unbearable

[brandonjm8]

I don't think you've ever tried to play a Warlord strategy? Probably gotten a couple of Warlords, but that's hardly a game strategy. Hopefully my description (above) will sound interesting enough that you give it a try?

if i played pangea maps maybe, but most of my GG go to my HE city so i can build very exp'd units.

as far as WHIP'ing (slavery, sacrificing) i prefer not too unless i have too as above mentioned.

for me WHIP'ing means sacrificing only not drafting, i dont know what you think i meant by bringing up CE with it too, if you are still confused after reading my posts i just posted just ask.

[wodan11]

some cities have 3-5 cottages some dont, depends on the land available for that particular city, i do tend to do a hybrid but i almost never exceed 5 cottages in any city, even my holy cities, id rather have them produce units too when needed since their capacity for more priests mean they will have high production and build units/buildings fast, i give them enough cottages to have at least 300+ beakers and sometimes get to 750+ gold/turn.

Interesting. So you give up Universal Suffrage and run Priests instead for bonus hammers with Wangor, yet you don't get max priests to leverage the most of your Angkor and Representation bonuses because you do a lot of cottages.

Anyway, I play different strategies most every game. I tend to do more pure strategies and leverage the most of civics and other benefits, rather than marginalize them by mixing them up.

Your other info is interesting and generally tells me you play much the same way each game. For example, sounds like you've never really gone for a culture victory with cathedrals, and either cottages+slider or artists. Or, done a SE with all scientists all game which honestly is the main way people usually do a SE.

The priest strategy is strong but usually relies upon Shrines and often a single money-generating city with either all merchants or max cottages. Frankly the priest strat is something most people don't even discover until they start experimenting with widely varied strategies. The fact that you do this one favored strategy all the time (with minor variances) says you have really focused your efforts on a single strategy and have worked hard to perfect that strategy.

(I myself would do your strategy somewhat differently as I see you losing some benefit by sprinkling cottages here and there, and also you haven't mentioned religions which I personally would prioritize because you surely are generating a ton of Prophets so it would be easy to have several Shrines, the income of which would more than replace those suboptimal cottages.)

well you only need 3 cities at legendary for CV so i only plan for that "at least" some other cities might get there too but with me needing 300k now itd take me 1500 turns give or take 200 to even reach it unless my science is rocking and i change to free speech fast but then i'll probably get the domination win since i have superior units throughout if that happens.

The typical CV uses 9 cities churning out temples and missionaries. 1500 turns is ridiculous... you're missing out on a lot of multipliers you could be using. A maximized CV strategy can win the game quite fast and is very reliable.

i do priests for as many as possible provided i have several religions and got the angkor wat wonder, but whatever early high hammer producing cities tend to the wonder whoring for me if at all, and my holy city or cities gets wall street and extra great priests.

Yeah, all that has nothing to do with going for a culture victory. You're pumping units and such instead of maximizing your culture in your big3.

not by much im afraid, plus the intel and security buildings take alot of hammers in marathon speed and id rather if needed build units then and when i have enough i'll build those buildings.

If you're going for a CV your big 3 should build NOTHING except things that will provide culture. Otherwise, like I said, you're "backing in" to a culture win.

This is kind of like conquering the world and getting a Diplomacy win simply because you have so much that you're outvoting people before you get the Domination victory.

if i get the sistine chapel then my culture skyrockets from all of my specialists/religious buildings and thus making CV more probable.

If you're going for a CV you should ensure you get the Sistine chapel, just as you ensure you get Angkor in your current strategy. It's a big priority. There's no "if" about it.

yep , i dont well it isnt my main way of winning but if needed i'll take it.

Well we're still talking about being a "pro"... I'd suggest you experiment and teach yourself some of these other strategies, such as culture victories, before saying you're a pro.

i have done that but prefer to stick to my hybrid when possible, its a great balance of commerce and production and allows me to dominate most of the time.

Most players tend to get in a "comfort zone" and prefer a single strategy which they know backwards and forwards, rather than experiment, suffer some losses, but teach themselves new things and become more of a pro player.

im no monty here , i micromanage thus i plan alot and bide my time and attack when the times right and im ready, i dont give in either, NEVER MUAH HAHAHAHA COME GET SOME TOKUGAWA/MONTY/GENGHIS . i say bring it if they want but seldom do i start wars unless they've attacked me prior or im ready to wipe them out or make them my biatch. but if i do see an army coming for me i'll DoW on them and we'll fight in the open instead of in my land unless i didnt catch the army with my scouts. my D units are only units given the drill promos so they can attack too, i only give units CG if they are too never leave the city/fort. i keep my defenders with drill in my cities and build separate SoD's for conquering/attacking invaders then and if they should fail i have plenty of reserves to mop up the rest and then when i want to destroy not vassalize i'll send some of those defenders with my SoD to ensure TOTAL DESTRUCTION, i build alot of units and balance it out. for example this game i have over 50 cavalry/40 riflemen/10 soon to be cannons and my outdated defenders with promos yet to be upgraded so an extra 80-90 future riflemen then infantry, i send my attackers on conquering missions and leave some to defend with my older units while im slowly upgrading them and my SoD is capturing cities. im sending like 25 cavalry and 30 riflemen and 10 cannons to genghis to capture some cities and make him my biatch againts his macemen/knights shouldnt be hard i could send more but i got two strong AI's on my continent that could attack at anytime and im focused on genghis at the moment.

I'm ignoring all this because it appears to have nothing to do with what we were talking about. (Warlords)

thats late game buddy , only some of my games make it that far.

Anytime past Astronomy you can have Warlord units nearly this strong. If you don't have bombers you can send airships, or some cannon or artillery.

What is killer is the CRIII, Combat VI, and Drill IV. (By Astronomy time, they should be Riflemen.) They should easily take out the defenders they'll be facing.

and early game you dont have those awesome units so to kill a strong AI that has been building up for 300-600 turns will take alot more units if you wish to destroy them or less if you wish to only vassalize them.

You're confident in your certitude. Despite your beliefs, quality can trump quantity. As can superior strategy and/or tactics.

early conquest is never possible with my settings, i play only continents its more realistic and tends to be more of a challenge since im fighting fortified strongholds as opposed to newly ancient era civs.

No offense, but it's these kind of statements that are most frustrating about your posts. Using words such as "never", "always", and "impossible" really say that you preclude any possibility but things you have experienced yourself. That's kind of arrogant. It tells other people that their experiences aren't valid and don't matter to you.

[rah]

early conquest is never possible with my settings, i play only continents its more realistic and tends to be more of a challenge since im fighting fortified strongholds as opposed to newly ancient era civs.

It's more realistic ?????????????

Agreed with Wooden. It seems the intent of your posts is more to brag than any real attempt to solicit tips because you seem to believe that you don't need any help since you're already a pro.

[brandonjm8]

It's more realistic ?????????????

Agreed with Wooden. It seems the intent of your posts is more to brag than any real attempt to solicit tips because you seem to believe that you don't need any help since you're already a pro.

if thats the way you feel then thats the way you feel, i really dont care. people will perceive what they read however they want and the poster doesnt always have control over that. plus youd want me to post more on my strategies that didnt work and i had to switch or strategies that slowed me down. i post what works best for me cuz thats what i specialize in, i dominate this way IF i get what i need thus not needing other strategies since i dictate what happens cuz of my production/power. there will be times when others (AI's) are in control and such and i have to change up my gameplay, just because i dont post much of that or other strategies ive had to use doesnt mean i havent. if you think im bragging oh well, thats your opinion. people can and will take whatever info for either their benefit or look to attack it, thats human nature. BTW, ive learned alot since reading others posts like leaders attitudes ect and ways to critique other strategies i may or may not use, knowledge is power, and if you dont believe me, thats your problem not my own.

[brandonjm8]

Interesting. So you give up Universal Suffrage and run Priests instead for bonus hammers with Wangor, yet you don't get max priests to leverage the most of your Angkor and Representation bonuses because you do a lot of cottages.

Anyway, I play different strategies most every game. I tend to do more pure strategies and leverage the most of civics and other benefits, rather than marginalize them by mixing them up.

Your other info is interesting and generally tells me you play much the same way each game. For example, sounds like you've never really gone for a culture victory with cathedrals, and either cottages+slider or artists. Or, done a SE with all scientists all game which honestly is the main way people usually do a SE.

The priest strategy is strong but usually relies upon Shrines and often a single money-generating city with either all merchants or max cottages. Frankly the priest strat is something most people don't even discover until they start experimenting with widely varied strategies. The fact that you do this one favored strategy all the time (with minor variances) says you have really focused your efforts on a single strategy and have worked hard to perfect that strategy.

(I myself would do your strategy somewhat differently as I see you losing some benefit by sprinkling cottages here and there, and also you haven't mentioned religions which I personally would prioritize because you surely are generating a ton of Prophets so it would be easy to have several Shrines, the income of which would more than replace those suboptimal cottages.)

i easily max out my priests, most of my cities are huge. ive had cities with over 10 priests, i balance out my cathedrals for my big cities that need more capacity for priests, i even sometimes need to use cathedrals in a border city for the added culture.

if im out-teching the AI the need to max out scientists is minimal and id rather pump out units to get the early domination win, if im not out-teching then i am maxing out scientists.

yes im near perfecting this strategy and does rely on a few things, i almost always get multiple religions thus having multiple money producing cities. i also require angkor wat with this strategy to have a high production otherwise i have to build more mines instead of the better commerce windmills. since i dont prioritize a CV win i often dont get the sistine chapel, if i do then i do try the CV but often i win before reaping the rewards.

and yes i usually get more than one religion for myself but i like the added commerce so as to out-tech everyone, i will farm cottages if im not maxing out priests/scientists too, but i usually am able to plan accordingly and not run into that often.

The typical CV uses 9 cities churning out temples and missionaries. 1500 turns is ridiculous... you're missing out on a lot of multipliers you could be using. A maximized CV strategy can win the game quite fast and is very reliable.

if i get multiple religions and the sistine chapel i will go for the CV and build multiple cathedrals in my high culture producing cities and use free speech too. on average i dont get sistine chapel (which does make CV that much easier using the SE) and i can win the domination faster than a culture, i have some games not been able to get the domination win and went for the CV to only get the diplo win or either the space. ive won a number of times with the AP. sometimes the early game dictates what victories i go for and i then plan accordingly.

Yeah, all that has nothing to do with going for a culture victory. You're pumping units and such instead of maximizing your culture in your big3.

read above.

If you're going for a CV your big 3 should build NOTHING except things that will provide culture. Otherwise, like I said, you're "backing in" to a culture win.

as said i dont go for the CV as often as you may so your strategies for that will be better than my own. i do try to build culture in my big 3 but more often than not i either get attacked or see an opportunity for the domination win and thus start making units then after going back to culture producing.

This is kind of like conquering the world and getting a Diplomacy win simply because you have so much that you're outvoting people before you get the Domination victory.

yes, i usually dictate world politics and sometimes try to spread my religions to others to get the early AP win. if not that my mass armies will attack multiple AI's throughout either wiping them out or vassalizing them for the domination win.

If you're going for a CV you should ensure you get the Sistine chapel, just as you ensure you get Angkor in your current strategy. It's a big priority. There's no "if" about it.

answered above.

Well we're still talking about being a "pro"... I'd suggest you experiment and teach yourself some of these other strategies, such as culture victories, before saying you're a pro.

i have experimented and tried many things, i also win with other strategies as well but i often get to dictate what kind of strategy i forgo thus winning early. i am a pro simply because im very resilient and adaptable when it comes to doing whats necessary to win. now as i go up in levels i will lose some but my other strategies will get better with more exp, if im not a pro on your level thats just your opinion, you have yours and i have mine, we can debate whos right but in the end it wont matter, im not the kind of person that needs approval. if you think im wrong or full of it oh well, no skin off my back. but if you think i may be a challenge even to you then isnt it fair to call me a "pro", i never have claimed to be the best nor am i, maybe one day i will be but that day hasnt came yet, i only claim to be able to hold my own thats all, take it for however you want, thats up to you.

Most players tend to get in a "comfort zone" and prefer a single strategy which they know backwards and forwards, rather than experiment, suffer some losses, but teach themselves new things and become more of a pro player.

i will need to experiment more and will lose some as i go up levels, remember you've been playing bts longer than me, i havent even had civ4 for a year yet, be patient. i consider myself a pro since i do what it takes to win and often and can switch up many things to achieve victory. just because i dont use a different approach every game doesnt mean im not a pro, once you find your specialty and win often and fast with it, it becomes your "default" whenever possible. we all have our comfort zones, even you. denying it would not be wise. you seem to be more of a barbarian and look to start fights with the AI's and hope you dont get wiped out, id rather plan for the victory and ensure a win, patience is a virtue . now im not saying your always the barbarian so dont go thinking that, you just do that more often than i.

I'm ignoring all this because it appears to have nothing to do with what we were talking about. (Warlords)

im not as much as a barbarian as you, i seldom start wars so getting alotta GG isnt easy early game, plus i dont make warlords unless necessary, id rather put them in my HE city as to make level 4+ units and the more fighting those units do the more GG i get to put in their thus making even more exp'd units. the only time i make a warlord unit is generally for the medic in my SoD's.

Anytime past Astronomy you can have Warlord units nearly this strong. If you don't have bombers you can send airships, or some cannon or artillery.

thats only if you've been fighting the entire time thus weaken your economy thus slowing your science down. when i play i try to give us all ample room to expand so when we go to war we have an equal chance of being very strong, i like the hard wars i get more enjoyment outta it, i dont care if it takes longer i like more difficult games with big AI's sometimes bigger than myself, its alot of fun sometimes. politics means more sometimes and other aspects of the game.

You're confident in your certitude. Despite your beliefs, quality can trump quantity. As can superior strategy and/or tactics.

i dont always have supreme numbers, and if i do its because after wiping out one its on to the next right afterwards, its a means to an end for the AI. i strategize and use tactics all the time, but going overkill on the AI is quite funny and leads to a quick domination win for me.

No offense, but it's these kind of statements that are most frustrating about your posts. Using words such as "never", "always", and "impossible" really say that you preclude any possibility but things you have experienced yourself. That's kind of arrogant. It tells other people that their experiences aren't valid and don't matter to you.

well early conquest is "NEVER POSSIBLE", i have multiple continents thus once you get astronomy its no longer the early eras thus making "EARLY CONQUEST IMPOSSIBLE". i consider astronomy to be a mid game tech, and if you get confused JUST ASK. if you mistake my confidence for arrogance then you really dont know me well and more power to ya if thats what you believe, your entitled to your opinions and i wont try to change them, thats up to you. and i do appreciate others opinions and/or stories/strategies to help mold my own whether you agree or not, thats not up to you.

[Brael]

Small question that's back on the idea of CG vs Drill. I remember early in the game one of the developers at the time made a post here detailing how city flips are calculated. Has that changed at all in the various BTS patches? If not, that's a good reason to go with CG units earlier in the game, unit strength is used to calculate part of the flip resistance and CG adds to that while Drill doesn't.

[brandonjm8]

Small question that's back on the idea of CG vs Drill. I remember early in the game one of the developers at the time made a post here detailing how city flips are calculated. Has that changed at all in the various BTS patches? If not, that's a good reason to go with CG units earlier in the game, unit strength is used to calculate part of the flip resistance and CG adds to that while Drill doesn't.

me personally i dont know, however id still use drill so they can attack and be good at too. with CG they are weaker attackers then what they could be with drill and others, the only time id give a unit CG is if im protective leader or that unit will never attack just defend, CG promos are great for holding forts on choke points or protecting ports.

[brandonjm8]

minor update to my game:

started my war with genghis, right after he made peace with victoria . was hoping to get him distracted while i invaded, oh well. took his city with colussus in it with a great merchant, not bad. took his capital too, bout to take two more cities in a few turns, war weariness is starting to take its toll in my big cities, had to switch outta free speech to help alleviate it. im killin him just killin him , i sent 78 units there 35 riflemen/31 cavalry/12 cannons with more coming, had to build 23 more galleons to transport them all, delayed the invasion alittle bit. hes toast, i havent lost any units yet, he still doesnt have any gunpowder just macemen/bows/knights/trebs no match for well promo'd riflemen/cavalry/cannons, as soon as i got communism allied myself with giglamesh, yesssssssssssssssssssssss . he jumped to 2nd in score and im cruising in 1st. he has alot of cities and quite powerful, which will help out once hes modernized since i had alotta techs he didnt. i'll take as many cities as i can til the war weariness forces me to wait til fascism and the mt rushmore then if i havent vassalized him by then take him out, will have well over 100 units over there by then. im sending more cavalry/cannons for now, got enough riflemen there for now, plus im researching infantry right now and once i upgrade all of my riflemen hes dead, then its tokugawa afterwards then pacal (bastard thinks hes safe being f'ing huge, kinda weird ive out-teched him now and im the superpower now with a damn good ally). will probably win this weekend if not early next week. its not even 1700 A.D. yet and i still have only 30 cities, damn.

[Senethro]

Brandon, I think you're a great player and you're wasted here. You shouldn't be talking to Ming and all these other losers on this dying site. You should be over at the Civfanatics strategy forum sharing your 14 years of Civ insight and pro-ness. They'll appreciate some of your long posts and won't mind that your shift key is broken.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=155

[brandonjm8]

Brandon, I think you're a great player and you're wasted here. You shouldn't be talking to Ming and all these other losers on this dying site. You should be over at the Civfanatics strategy forum sharing your 14 years of Civ insight and pro-ness. They'll appreciate some of your long posts and won't mind that your shift key is broken.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=155

thanks, im flattered .
i have an account at civfanatics too, same name there as here. the number of forums they have there is alittle daunting to . i'll probably start posting more there in the future. i appreciate the fact you at least show others respect, not so much of that going around here. alotta biased people and buddies that like to bully . civ is my fav game and ive put most of my gaming hours in that game alone, way back to the snes civ1 days, ahhhh memories of being a kid gives me goosebumps . and yeah my grammar aint the best, i dont care, i try to be clear but nobody's perfect nor will i try to be. if people have trouble understanding me all they have to do is ASK, simple.

as far as the "great" player goes, i try to be, i still have some tinkering to do at some things ect. i will be at deity in due time but my games last alot longer and i like to get used to a level prior to going up. deity here i come in like 5-6 months ,

[wodan11]

i can win the domination faster than a culture

That's because you don't go for the CV from turn 1. It requires preparation to do it optimally / in minimium time.

i am a pro simply because im very resilient and adaptable when it comes to doing whats necessary to win.

Hmm. Interesting definition of "pro". Not sure what I think of that.

if im not a pro on your level thats just your opinion

Hunh? I never called myself a pro, or said you were below my level in some fashion.

I did state my definition of "pro", and if we posit you're a "pro" and apply my definition, then I suppose we would infer that (a) I'm a pro and (b) you're not a pro on my level.

But anyway I didn't say all that and didn't mean to imply it. We were just talking.

you have yours and i have mine, we can debate whos right

Nobody's right and nobody's wrong, in the subject matter.

but in the end it wont matter, im not the kind of person that needs approval. if you think im wrong or full of it oh well, no skin off my back.

IMO where you're wrong is in implicitly denigrating other people's experiences.

but if you think i may be a challenge even to you then isnt it fair to call me a "pro"

Where'd this come from? But since you asked, I don't think you'd be much of a challenge. You would be either predictable or be using a strategy you aren't good at, by your own admissions. Predictable = dead against a human. (Predictable against AI doesn't exist.)

i never have claimed to be the best nor am i, maybe one day i will be but that day hasnt came yet, i only claim to be able to hold my own thats all, take it for however you want, thats up to you.

Sure, I'm sure everybody here respects that.

just because i dont use a different approach every game doesnt mean im not a pro, once you find your specialty and win often and fast with it, it becomes your "default" whenever possible. we all have our comfort zones, even you.

Phaugh. I purposely experiment all the time. Heck, when I go out to eat, I specifically order something I haven't had before.

I do play strategies I've used before, but to refine them. Not because they're easy or familiar. Easy = not fun. I guess that's the heart of where you and I differ.

denying it would not be wise.

What, so I'm not wise now? Where did that come from?

you seem to be more of a barbarian and look to start fights with the AI's and hope you dont get wiped out

You're taking that from my description of the Warlord strategy? I play that maybe once every six months. The last time I played it was in 2008 I think.

I have specifically said I play different strategies. Thus, you shouldn't try to infer things about my play style. I don't have a single play style. Inferring something that is opposite to something that was specifically said is not really a good point to try and make in a debate.

id rather plan for the victory and ensure a win, patience is a virtue . now im not saying your always the barbarian so dont go thinking that, you just do that more often than i.

Since any number > 0, I agree.

i seldom start wars so getting alotta GG isnt easy early game, plus i dont make warlords unless necessary, id rather put them in my HE city as to make level 4+ units and the more fighting those units do the more GG i get to put in their thus making even more exp'd units. the only time i make a warlord unit is generally for the medic in my SoD's.

That's all good strategy in some games.

thats only if you've been fighting the entire time thus weaken your economy thus slowing your science down.

I guarantee my economy using the Warlord strategy is better than yours using your Priest strategy. The whole point of Warlord is that you have very few but strong units. You have 0 unit maintenance.

The simple fact of "fighting the entire time" does not necessarily weaken your economy. Only if you're fighting outside your borders, and I specifically said to fight within your borders.

when i play i try to give us all ample room to expand so when we go to war we have an equal chance of being very strong

Yeah, I noticed that. Less than 10 AIs on a 2xHuge map.

i like the hard wars i get more enjoyment outta it, i dont care if it takes longer i like more difficult games with big AI's sometimes bigger than myself, its alot of fun sometimes.

Frankly, I don't think fighting someone bigger than myself is automatically more difficult. In fact, it's often easier. The AI doesn't build infrastructure as well as a human can, and frequently has very high city and unit maintenance. The infrastructure lack also affects tile improvements and city specializations, meaning the AI can never research as well as a human can. It's quite easy to have a better economy and research than the AIs. More cities just means the AI is able to churn out more units. Once the AI's O units are killed, he's easy meat and you can take down city after city.

i dont always have supreme numbers, and if i do its because after wiping out one its on to the next right afterwards, its a means to an end for the AI. i strategize and use tactics all the time, but going overkill on the AI is quite funny and leads to a quick domination win for me.

I would probably define "quick" as counting from the start of the game, not from start of the war.

well early conquest is "NEVER POSSIBLE", i have multiple continents thus once you get astronomy its no longer the early eras thus making "EARLY CONQUEST IMPOSSIBLE". i consider astronomy to be a mid game tech, and if you get confused JUST ASK.

Picking one example of where the word "impossible" is inarguable doesn't mean you haven't used similar words in inappropriate times.

Anyway, enough. I just request that you recognize that couching blanket statements in a description of your own games nevertheless in the fact of being a blanket precludes other people's opinions and experiences. So, while you espouse the party line saying you respect others opinions and such, between the lines you are doing anything but.

[wodan11]

Small question that's back on the idea of CG vs Drill. I remember early in the game one of the developers at the time made a post here detailing how city flips are calculated. Has that changed at all in the various BTS patches? If not, that's a good reason to go with CG units earlier in the game, unit strength is used to calculate part of the flip resistance and CG adds to that while Drill doesn't.

I believe it's base strength. In any event, Drill does indeed affect the combat calculator. (In Bts. I think Vanilla it ignored Drill.)

Anyway flip happens pretty seldom (unless you're playing the Revolutions mod or someting), and I hardly would waste unit promos trying to fight it. I would rush culture buildings or settle an artist. Just me.

[wodan11]

Brandon, I think you're a great player and you're wasted here. You shouldn't be talking to Ming and all these other losers on this dying site. You should be over at the Civfanatics strategy forum sharing your 14 years of Civ insight and pro-ness. They'll appreciate some of your long posts and won't mind that your shift key is broken.

Oh man that was funny on several levels. Nice.

thanks, im flattered .
i have an account at civfanatics too, same name there as here. the number of forums they have there is alittle daunting to . i'll probably start posting more there in the future. i appreciate the fact you at least show others respect, not so much of that going around here. alotta biased people and buddies that like to bully . civ is my fav game and ive put most of my gaming hours in that game alone, way back to the snes civ1 days, ahhhh memories of being a kid gives me goosebumps . and yeah my grammar aint the best, i dont care, i try to be clear but nobody's perfect nor will i try to be. if people have trouble understanding me all they have to do is ASK, simple.

as far as the "great" player goes, i try to be, i still have some tinkering to do at some things ect. i will be at deity in due time but my games last alot longer and i like to get used to a level prior to going up. deity here i come in like 5-6 months ,

I think your sarcasmadar is broken, Brandon.

[Senethro]

I think perhaps it is your "sarcasmadar" that is broken wodan. I don't see anything funny about mocking a guy who came here to share his experiences and opinions with us. Can't we be a little civil?

Some of the worst bias is against the way he plays the game. I prefer pangaeas, Normal speed and size, and military victories, but I don't think his huge defensive stacks on his inaccessible continents and slow game speed are a "wrong" way to play Civilization. So much judgemental here.

[wodan11]

I think perhaps it is your "sarcasmadar" that is broken wodan. I don't see anything funny about mocking a guy who came here to share his experiences and opinions with us. Can't we be a little civil?

I agree with your intent. But if you were serious then you don't know how CFC would be if Brandon posted this stuff over there. I have over 3,000 posts on there and have been an active member of strategy discussions for years. While I'm not terribly proud of what some people have posted on Poly, CFC can be far worse.

I just re-read your post several times. Even if you weren't being sarcastic, I can't conceive how you wouldn't think everyone else here would take it that way, so doesn't that make you a troll? (Serious question.)

Some of the worst bias is against the way he plays the game. I prefer pangaeas, Normal speed and size, and military victories, but I don't think his huge defensive stacks on his inaccessible continents and slow game speed are a "wrong" way to play Civilization. So much judgemental here.

Quote where I said it was the wrong way to play, and I'll gladly apologize. In fact, I have several times said he has good strategy.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll gladly discuss the game with Brandon and welcome him, as long as he doesn't denigrate my opinions or approaches. I'll offer any insights I have and suggestions for improvement. That's why we're here in this community.

I would expect the same in return, if I posted details of one of my games or strats. What I *wouldn't* do is get defensive and say why the advice given me is worthless and what I'm doing is the best way it could be done on my settings. I would ask questions to be sure I understand the suggestions, and try it out that way in my next game.

And please don't lump me in with others who may have been more antagonistic on here. I happen to think I'm pretty calm.

All this said, the internet brings out the worst in people. You have to have a tough skin. But regardless, it's best to assume someone has a valid point when they say something, even if they say it in a way which may come off hashly. See past that, and be big enough to say "you may be right, I'll think about it and/or try it myself." Otherwise, you're no better than they are. And, Brandon and Ming have traded in kind. So I won't cry any crocodile tears for Brandon, sorry.