Noble to Prince - unbearable

[brandonjm8]

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

getting to 300k in three cities isnt easy nor plausable all the time.

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

kinda funny you didnt quote everything i said regarding this, instead you cut them apart and replied to them separately when it didnt need to be. a definition of a pro in my opinion is someone who can adapt and win alot, simple. you dont have to purposely play every single strategy to be called a pro .

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.

you think your better yet you've never played me , now whos cocky? .

i guess you think you set the definitions for all others to follow , as i always say "what i say is just my opinion, take it for what it is" not what i declare to be for all .

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

yet you look to criticize my hybrid style, me not being a "pro" compared to you, not purposely playing different styles ect ect ect, sometimes its better to disagree. you could pick better words when criticizing as i could too .

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

i said we could debate whos right but in the end it wouldnt matter, implying we shouldnt

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

are you serious? did i hurt your feelings? i didnt know i degenerated people's opinions,

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.)

im not good at my own strategy? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL . ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . whatever helps you sleep at night

Sure, I'm sure everybody here respects that.

then accept the fact that i may be just as good as you or anyone else or have the potential to be better and stop asking or bringing up what i think of my play style and whether i believe im a pro or not .

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.

what so now since i prefer one strategy over the other i dont try new things? just like ming you assume too much of others. oh and everytime you play your strategies you always refine them unless you play the same exact game from the starting point the same way

and just because i plan accordingly and make it easier to win for myself doesnt take the fun outta it. i guess you like to not plan as much as i and hope alot more than i, id rather go on probabilities and ensure myself instead of wasting resources/units in a lost cause

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

idiot, did i say your not? NOPE. my quote in its entirety "we all have our comfort zones, even you. denying it would not be wise", next time remember the whole quote

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. You're only making yourself look foolish.

me looking foolish coming from you doesnt mean much .

as far as the warlord strategy goes if you dont do it much then you dont much about it thus you shouldnt be promoting something your not good at doing often

as ive said numerous times ive played other strategies as well , stop assuming and comprehend what you read alittle better. grammars one thing, comprehension is something more, dont be like ming and narrow your thinking

Since any number > 0, I agree.

i guess theres a reason ive won every game but one til now and will keep my winning % >90

That's all good strategy in some games.

what??? an act of kindness from you, didnt think you had it in ya

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.

umm k, most of my games i can amass a balanced army of 50 on marathon speed during the mid game in < 20 turns starting with nothing , and in late game a 80 unit SoD in < 10 turns.

you keep your warlord strategy that you havent used since last year and fight withing your own borders and i'll send my SoD's out to OTHER nations and take the domination win .

and yes building a vast army early game stifles the economy , your smaller as a nation thus your free unit support aint as much and your economy sucks.

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

see this is how i know you are full of ****, you havent even been paying attention , theres 10 civs on 5 continents, and im on the huge one with 4 others and they all have more cities than me and im still going to win and not to mention i had the worst starting locale on this narrow small peninsula while the other 4 had the entire continent to themselves

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.

but there are times they have built accordingly and do prove to be most difficult, maybe you need to play some different strategies if thats infrequent for you

it can be easier for the human economically key word "can be" meaning sometimes. and killing the AI's O units arent a given if you havent planned accordingly and if you did then it should be easy cuz you did it right, thats what you planned to do and it happened OMG

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

pick up the planet generator map on civfanatics and pick the mid biggerst huge map and pick 5 or more continents and 10 or more AI's and tell us how fast you win

if i wanted to win very fast i would play small maps or pangea. as stated I LIKE LONGER GAMES THAT REQUIRE MORE STRATEGIZING, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

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

you have your opinions and i have mine, if you dont like my choice of words tough luck, ignore me then

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.

wow you must think you are inside my head and be one of those know-it-alls , you have no idea what im thinking and it looks like you dont believe what i say, i know what i meant and i mean what i meant, its up to you to ask for clarification if you get confused by someone, not the other around. aint nobody here to please you

and i'll say it again in caps so it sticks in this time:
cough cough "I RESPECT ALMOST EVERYONES OPINIONS HERE AND ENJOY HEARING THEIR STORIES".

still dont believe me?

[brandonjm8]

Oh man that was funny on several levels. Nice.



I think your sarcasmadar is broken, Brandon.

i did mean what i said, im in the end a enthusiastic person with a hint of sarcasm

[brandonjm8]

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.

FINALLY, an open-minded person here
i thought i was the only one that was here
dont take what these clowns say personally, i betcha they wouldnt in person. and some are those know-it-alls that are always right and they tend to be very narrow minded and focus on what helps their cause instead of the whole post and/or quote used in its entirety as it was intended (and if you get confused, just ask the poster prior to assuming what you think he meant) for. im trying really hard not to judge a select few here but its either that or just ignoring them.

as far as my massive SoD's, there isnt a single CG unit in them other than the freebies i get from being protective leader, all riflemen have drill and shock or cover (from my very first SoD from beating the japs) or mounted promos and/or strength, all the units i sent all 78 and counting are attackers, i take cities in one turn and ive yet to lose one, i leave my injured with a few riflemen with the medic in newly captured cities to restore while the rest continue onward, im also trying to take the south eastern part first for basing reasons against the japs afterwards, then i'll move upward where the majority of his big cities are (genghis's).

thanks for the backing btw, much appreciated

[brandonjm8]

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.


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.

itd be nice if you got to know a brother before assuming what he is or how he is, instead of reading what others have said to me and how i replied, hows bout you just not judge me and we all can be civil but attacking and/or belittling anything anyone says wont get you a thank you or a "i'll try it out" from them, maybe some of the things they've offered ive already done and the way i do it now is the product of such exp, ever think about that? i may not state every little single detail but im bad at essays and like i say, if you want more details and/or clarification just ask, and when you reply to posts be clear with what you want to say and make sure what you think they or i said is what actually was or is said and i'll do the same, agreed?

[wodan11]

getting to 300k in three cities isnt easy nor plausable all the time.

Course not. Just as going for a Diplomacy win isn't easy or plausible all the time, or any other kind of victory.

For CV, however, I personally would decide if I wanted to go for it from turn 1, and then only if I started missing things (such as if I got beat out to Sistine) would I change plans and gear up for a Domination or Space victory.

That said, there ARE some good ways to do a late game CV attempt, especially with Corporations. But doing it with religion or wonders really takes planning from early in the game. Doing it with artists I'd say could probably be done if starting the attempt from midgame, though clearly starting earlier would be a huge benefit.

kinda funny you didnt quote everything i said regarding this, instead you cut them apart and replied to them separately when it didnt need to be.

That's two different things.

I don't quote everything that is said when I think the person is rambling on and on. That's silly. Instead I try to focus on what *I* think is the heart of their point. I get it wrong sometimes, of course, but obviously the person will point that out regardless if I quoted them in entirety or not.

Secondly, if someone strings separate points together in one rambling monologue, quoting the whole thing is confusing. For example, this quote right here. You made 2 points, not 1. Yet, I quoted them together. I could just as easily have broken the quote into two and replied to one and then the other.

Imagine if you made 10 points in one rambling paragraph. It would be highly confusing to quote it all together and then reply to all 10 points in sequence.

So, breaking a quote apart is my attempt to bring order out of chaos.

a definition of a pro in my opinion is someone who can adapt and win alot, simple. you dont have to purposely play every single strategy to be called a pro .

I totally agree with the latter. Still not sure if I agree with the former. Actually, I'm positive I don't agree with it. It's possible to "adapt and win alot" on the Settler setting. And I don't think anyone who only plays on Settler skill level would be called a "pro" by anyone.

you think your better yet you've never played me , now whos cocky? .

i guess you think you set the definitions for all others to follow , as i always say "what i say is just my opinion, take it for what it is" not what i declare to be for all .

I didn't say I was better. I was walking through YOUR logic. To be honest, it's not fair to do what I said which is "posit you are a pro and apply my definition". But that's what YOU did, not me. I was just trying to figure out what you were doing.

Here it is flat out: I don't think the term "pro" applies. You can call yourself that if you want, but "pro" is something determined by relation to a community. The very term is only appropriate when examined in context of the community. If Tiger Woods only played by himself on a single golf course and only in good weather and never played anyone else / anywhere else / in any wind, then would he be a "pro"? No way.

yet you look to criticize my hybrid style, me not being a "pro" compared to you, not purposely playing different styles ect ect ect, sometimes its better to disagree. you could pick better words when criticizing as i could too .

There's a fine line between being critical and giving feedback or having a discussion about alternative pros/cons. You can call it "criticizing" but at some point that is being defensive.

If you want to be defensive, then we have nothing to talk about.

If you want to have a discusson about strategies and pros/cons, then we can continue to discuss.

are you serious? did i hurt your feelings? i didnt know i degenerated people's opinions,

Yes, no, and yes you clearly did.

im not good at my own strategy? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL . ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . whatever helps you sleep at night

You misunderstand. This was an EITHER-OR not an AND.

You would either (a) play the strategy you've described in depth, or (b) play a different strategy that you have stated you have little to no experience using. If you chose to do (a) you would be predictable and clearly would be at a disadvantage. If you chose to do (b) you would clearly be at a disadvantage. Either way, you would be at a disadvantage.

then accept the fact that i may be just as good as you or anyone else or have the potential to be better

Sure, that's fair, and I have always thought this. Feel free to point out something where I said otherwise.

See, I had to break up your quote here. Otherwise, it would be confusing.

and stop asking or bringing up what i think of my play style and whether i believe im a pro or not .

If you don't want to have an intelligent discussion of pros/cons, then don't post about your strategy. By posting you are tacitly inviting a discussion. That is the default. This is a discussion forum, you realize?

Alternately, you should clearly state something like "I'm going to tell you about my game but I do NOT want feedback or discussion about it."

what so now since i prefer one strategy over the other i dont try new things? just like ming you assume too much of others. oh and everytime you play your strategies you always refine them unless you play the same exact game from the starting point the same way

I don't assume anything. Your exact words:
"i post what works best for me cuz thats what i specialize in"
"i dont play pangea maps"
"early conquest is never an option"
"i only play huge or gigantic maps with continents"
Just for a few.

idiot

You just crossed a line.

, did i say your not? NOPE. my quote in its entirety "we all have our comfort zones, even you. denying it would not be wise", next time remember the whole quote

Well, I denied it, what does that make me?

Stating something as an ultimatum is pretty antagonistic, is the point.

as far as the warlord strategy goes if you dont do it much then you dont much about it thus you shouldnt be promoting something your not good at doing often

Are you seriously saying... for example: Dan Marino is not good at Quarterback and should not be promoting it? Whoa.

as ive said numerous times ive played other strategies as well , stop assuming and comprehend what you read alittle better. grammars one thing, comprehension is something more, dont be like ming and narrow your thinking

All I can go by is what you've said, this is true. It's not fair of either of us to cherry pick statements that have been made.

i guess theres a reason ive won every game but one til now and will keep my winning % >90

Yes, yes, that means a lot to you.

what??? an act of kindness from you, didnt think you had it in ya

Go back and read all my posts, please. You'll find I'm not the person you think I am.

umm k, most of my games i can amass a balanced army of 50 on marathon speed during the mid game in < 20 turns starting with nothing , and in late game a 80 unit SoD in < 10 turns.

Numbers mean nothing outside the context of a game. In one game, 50 may be a lot. In another game, 50 may be nothing.

you keep your warlord strategy that you havent used since last year and fight withing your own borders and i'll send my SoD's out to OTHER nations and take the domination win .

Couple of points.
1) I never said I stayed in my borders. In fact, I clearly said that at some point in the game you make the strategic decision to go attack. Remember the discussion about ~25 warlord units being able to kill anything?
2) The Warlord strategy is often best used in conjunction with a CV or Space victory. Given that a CV can often be obtained before a Domination win could, this is an important point. I don't think you understand how fast a CV can be obtained, since by your own admission you have never tried that strategy from game start.

and yes building a vast army early game stifles the economy , your smaller as a nation thus your free unit support aint as much and your economy sucks.

Three things.
1) A Warlord strategy does not build a "vast army".
2) Smaller does not necessarily mean less economy, in fact it is usually the othr way around. You do understand that city maintenance costs go up with number of cities?
3) Unit support is moot if you are under the limit (whatever it is).

see this is how i know you are full of ****

You crossed a line again.

, you havent even been paying attention , theres 10 civs on 5 continents, and im on the huge one with 4 others and they all have more cities than me and im still going to win and not to mention i had the worst starting locale on this narrow small peninsula while the other 4 had the entire continent to themselves

Again, giving one example does not a trend make. This is what's called observational selection. You have consistently said you always play on these superhuge maps. And, that you do not scale the # of AIs to match.

but there are times they have built accordingly and do prove to be most difficult, maybe you need to play some different strategies if thats infrequent for you

I have quite often chosen to forego things such as an easy early rush for territory, in order to make for a challenging and/or modern era conflict.

That doesn't make the AI any more smart. It just means I'm purposefully giving them an advantage to half-assed compensate.

That also doesn't mean when I kill their O units they aren't a pushover. Perhaps you don't know how the AI works. When it builds a unit, it gives it a, let's call it a "job". This is a simple system variable that indicates what it is going to do with that unit, usually city defense or for attack. Anyway, the end result is that when you DOW an AI, it will compile and send all its "extra" O units and throw them at you. You can even kill them on a killing field in your borders that you have prepared ahead of time, if you're smart. Then, you can invade with relative impunity. Each city will have its own static defenders. The AI will do new builds and you'll have a few oddball units coming into the situation, but by and large the "challenge" is over.

pick up the planet generator map on civfanatics and pick the mid biggerst huge map and pick 5 or more continents and 10 or more AI's and tell us how fast you win

Fast does not mean more skilled. It would really depend on what victory type I felt like doing. To be honest, Domination would be so easy yet so much micromanagement I would not enjoy it at all. It's an exercise of minutiae.

if i wanted to win very fast i would play small maps or pangea. as stated I LIKE LONGER GAMES THAT REQUIRE MORE STRATEGIZING, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

I think you're confusing strategy with tactics?

This "quick" discussion arose from your statement about desiring overkill on the AI and quick wars. Are you saying that getting overkill requires more strategy?

you have your opinions and i have mine, if you dont like my choice of words tough luck, ignore me then

Dude I was just commenting. Don't get so defensive. Seriously, look. You said you like quick domination wins. I said that I would define a quick domination win as measured from the start of the game. Which makes sense. You YELLED AT ME and got all defensive that you have your own opinion.

wow you must think you are inside my head and be one of those know-it-alls , you have no idea what im thinking and it looks like you dont believe what i say, i know what i meant and i mean what i meant, its up to you to ask for clarification if you get confused by someone, not the other around. aint nobody here to please you

What you think isn't relevant. It's what you say. You're responsible for your own words, and if you get called on it, that's on you.

Yes, please, if I "read between the lines" and mischaracterized you, then please do clarify. But also please consider that you may have been antagonistic yourself, even if inadvertently. Being unapologetic doesn't help any.

[wodan11]

itd be nice if you got to know a brother before assuming what he is or how he is, instead of reading what others have said to me and how i replied, hows bout you just not judge me and we all can be civil but attacking and/or belittling anything anyone says wont get you a thank you or a "i'll try it out" from them, maybe some of the things they've offered ive already done and the way i do it now is the product of such exp, ever think about that? i may not state every little single detail but im bad at essays and like i say, if you want more details and/or clarification just ask, and when you reply to posts be clear with what you want to say and make sure what you think they or i said is what actually was or is said and i'll do the same, agreed?

Fair enough! Deal!

[brandonjm8]

Course not. Just as going for a Diplomacy win isn't easy or plausible all the time, or any other kind of victory.

For CV, however, I personally would decide if I wanted to go for it from turn 1, and then only if I started missing things (such as if I got beat out to Sistine) would I change plans and gear up for a Domination or Space victory.

That said, there ARE some good ways to do a late game CV attempt, especially with Corporations. But doing it with religion or wonders really takes planning from early in the game. Doing it with artists I'd say could probably be done if starting the attempt from midgame, though clearly starting earlier would be a huge benefit.

i usually dont get the sistine since i go for angkor wat and philosophy takes a bit early game sometimes. i have on occasion gotten both and did make an effort for the CV in my wonder whoring cities but alas i win before i get too 300k.

if im smallish as a nation late game going for the CV might look alot better doing since other wins might not be possible. but im usually not small and i either take the diplo or domination win relatively early for a marathon game (around turn 750 (250 when compared to normal) and with the size of my maps and AI's that is pretty quick and the fact i play with no tech/brokering every game, you have to learn all your techs and balance what you go for wise too).

That's two different things.

I don't quote everything that is said when I think the person is rambling on and on. That's silly. Instead I try to focus on what *I* think is the heart of their point. I get it wrong sometimes, of course, but obviously the person will point that out regardless if I quoted them in entirety or not.

Secondly, if someone strings separate points together in one rambling monologue, quoting the whole thing is confusing. For example, this quote right here. You made 2 points, not 1. Yet, I quoted them together. I could just as easily have broken the quote into two and replied to one and then the other.

Imagine if you made 10 points in one rambling paragraph. It would be highly confusing to quote it all together and then reply to all 10 points in sequence.

So, breaking a quote apart is my attempt to bring order out of chaos.

wouldnt it be less confusing if you asked for more clarification of a post/quote prior to making one of your own so that as to not be confused/confusing?

see then your picking what you want to reply at instead of the whole which is the point, some of us like me use more words and examples and ect to make a good point. could i use less words? sure, but thats not me. could you not pick quotes apart? sure, but you dont like to.

im replying to your posts in sequence, it aint that hard, scroll up and down.

I totally agree with the latter. Still not sure if I agree with the former. Actually, I'm positive I don't agree with it. It's possible to "adapt and win alot" on the Settler setting. And I don't think anyone who only plays on Settler skill level would be called a "pro" by anyone.

well we both know im not on settler , on prince and above if you can adapt to whatever's thrown at you and yet still win you are pretty good, your a "pro" cuz your in the top half of civ players. to me being a pro is just being better than average and thus a possible challenge for any other above average player.

I didn't say I was better. I was walking through YOUR logic. To be honest, it's not fair to do what I said which is "posit you are a pro and apply my definition". But that's what YOU did, not me. I was just trying to figure out what you were doing.

Here it is flat out: I don't think the term "pro" applies. You can call yourself that if you want, but "pro" is something determined by relation to a community. The very term is only appropriate when examined in context of the community. If Tiger Woods only played by himself on a single golf course and only in good weather and never played anyone else / anywhere else / in any wind, then would he be a "pro"? No way.

dont presume to know my logic, dont assume anything, assuming leads to chaos/confusion. if i thought that you are better than me then i wouldve said "woodan your better than me", but i didnt say that. to be honest i dont know if your better than me or not, weve never played each other and talk is cheap. and replying to your flat out response: if you need to be told by others who and what you are woodan then fine by me, i dont need approval and/or support for my claims. you either accept the fact i may not be full of it or you assume i am.

There's a fine line between being critical and giving feedback or having a discussion about alternative pros/cons. You can call it "criticizing" but at some point that is being defensive.

If you want to be defensive, then we have nothing to talk about.

If you want to have a discusson about strategies and pros/cons, then we can continue to discuss.

if you have problems with people defending their ideas and beliefs then yes we have nothing to talk about, if you want to cross examine me be prepared for the same. asking questions helps learn quickly which is what for the most part weve been doing.

for discussion purposes, if you dont want to be grilled under the microscope then when you discuss pros n cons and strats do it like this "i did this and this happened, i changed this by doing it this way and this happened", not "your not good at your own strategy, your predictable all the time no matter what you do cuz by your own admission which I (woodan) assume means your not good at others, ect ect ect", you could too yourself use better words when giving your advice. think of it like this, dont try to change people (it'll never work), instead say what you did and what happened and thats it, then afterwards if someones misunderstood you go into more depth for whatever it was.

yes you clearly did.

just your opinion, dont assume anything with me. last time i say it.

You misunderstand. This was an EITHER-OR not an AND.

You would either (a) play the strategy you've described in depth, or (b) play a different strategy that you have stated you have little to no experience using. If you chose to do (a) you would be predictable and clearly would be at a disadvantage. If you chose to do (b) you would clearly be at a disadvantage. Either way, you would be at a disadvantage.

i never said the other strategies ive used but havent posted im not good at, ive constantly said ive had to switch it up many times throughout games, try paying more attention please to my words and how i use them (if you dont know what i mean ASK). you have no idea how to play me cuz youve never played me, you think you know but in reality you dont. dont assume with me , im as unpredictable as they come .

If you don't want to have an intelligent discussion of pros/cons, then don't post about your strategy. By posting you are tacitly inviting a discussion. That is the default. This is a discussion forum, you realize?

Alternately, you should clearly state something like "I'm going to tell you about my game but I do NOT want feedback or discussion about it."

then keep it intelligent and dont degenerate others yourself , if you want to discuss my stories then discuss my stories not me. and i yes i know this is a discussion forum, why do you think i came here. notice prior to someone attacking me im nice and offer insight without being too pushy?

if people want to reply to my stories thats fine, but beware "for every action there is an equal opposite reaction".

I don't assume anything. Your exact words:
"i post what works best for me cuz thats what i specialize in"
"i dont play pangea maps"
"early conquest is never an option"
"i only play huge or gigantic maps with continents"
Just for a few.

i didnt say i only specialize in one strategy, you assumed there woodan.

nope, i play huge maps w/ continents so as to give us all equal chance of being huge, which is why i give us ample room by not overcrowding the game with extra AI's.

early conquest in never an option, you will never win before 1 A.D..

i love it when we all get big and huge and start warring with one another, it can be quite difficult at times adding to the tactics/strategies thus helping refine them and learn new ways of quickly defeating different examples of fortifications.

You just crossed a line.

well sorry, but for a minute there you were starting to act like ming, at the time i thought you were. i see now you are a much better person than ming but we all have our own pro's and con's of what and who we are so i apologize.

Well, I denied it, what does that make me?

Stating something as an ultimatum is pretty antagonistic, is the point.

you completely and utterly took that out of context and seriously misunderstood what i was trying to say to the point to where im not going to clarify it anymore, its forgotten already.

Are you seriously saying... for example: Dan Marino is not good at Quarterback and should not be promoting it? Whoa.

i didnt know we were discussing football here .
but seriously since its been so long since you did "your" warlord strategy, you shouldnt be promoting it. you've yet to say how often and how much you used to do it, alls you said is you've done somewhat, thats not a confident stand point nor should you be promoting something you dont prefer enough to do alot, i wouldnt promote early "bull rushes" for example cuz i dont do them much. get my point?

Yes, yes, that means a lot to you.

dont presume to think you know me nor try to make my own decisions on what i do or dont value. stop assuming, you are assuming right now. i use it as a point that im smarter and better than your average bear, i'll continue to say til it sinks in or stops needing to be said. i have no problems i'll lose more going up levels nor a problem reporting such losses if and when they happen. im confident cuz well ive been playing civ for years and there isnt much i dont know, yes i still need to learn on "SOME" of my other strategies but im a well versed player that does whats needed to win which is why i have a nice winning %, thats all. im not better than anyone, we are all equals with equal potential, i mean that sincerely.

Numbers mean nothing outside the context of a game. In one game, 50 may be a lot. In another game, 50 may be nothing.

true, but having alot of extras opens the window of error thus making it easier. accept the fact that your 25 warlord units could and will lose to well promo'd SoD's of 50+, even at 99% you can still lose. me personally id rather have a huge/balanced well promo'd force than a small elite special forces, if i could id have both .

Couple of points.
1) I never said I stayed in my borders. In fact, I clearly said that at some point in the game you make the strategic decision to go attack. Remember the discussion about ~25 warlord units being able to kill anything?
2) The Warlord strategy is often best used in conjunction with a CV or Space victory. Given that a CV can often be obtained before a Domination win could, this is an important point. I don't think you understand how fast a CV can be obtained, since by your own admission you have never tried that strategy from game start.

as i said before, you have more exp with CV's than me thus you will be better at it than me. with my hybrid scheme i can either out-vote or crush my competition. as i go up levels im sure i will need to sharpen my CV skills and a few others.

Three things.
1) A Warlord strategy does not build a "vast army".
2) Smaller does not necessarily mean less economy, in fact it is usually the othr way around. You do understand that city maintenance costs go up with number of cities?
3) Unit support is moot if you are under the limit (whatever it is).

in order to get your GG's for you warlords you need to build an army whether mid to big size you need to build an army, or just build D units and start wars with the AI. itd be easier attacking an AI rather than defending them thus weaken your economy once your SoD is built then leaves to conquer.

my biggest have been by far by far by far the best, my game alittle bit ago (the one where i had that "awesome D" built that ming loved so much ) i had 50 cities and 4400 beakers @ only 70% (over 5000 beakers if i went to 80%, +131 gold/turn) and +600 gold/turn, if i turned my science way down i could make +3000 gold/turn. so dont go saying bigger isnt better, if you know what you are doing it is. im a very good builder and planner as well as a dominator(so far) .

since im good at economics, unit costs have little effect on me.

You crossed a line again.

dont get mad when someone calls you out for talking out yer @$$, you were wrong in saying i had less than 10 civs thus you didnt know what you were saying, you were dumbfoundedly wrong in that statement and made yourself look foolish. take more time when posting and/or replying, for me i try not to make mistakes posting so my posts/replies take a good 30 mins plus. im not perfect i do make mistakes which is why i always say ask when you get confused, i cant read your mind so it is UP TO YOU to ask for clarifications.

Again, giving one example does not a trend make. This is what's called observational selection. You have consistently said you always play on these superhuge maps. And, that you do not scale the # of AIs to match.

nope, i like having to play big really big AI's. i scale it according to keeping that possible.

I think you're confusing strategy with tactics?

they both go hand in hand.

This "quick" discussion arose from your statement about desiring overkill on the AI and quick wars. Are you saying that getting overkill requires more strategy?

all i said is its "sometimes funny to go overkill on the AI", not that i do it alot. i build enough with some extras just in case to get the job done then those units left go on to the next.

What you think isn't relevant. It's what you say. You're responsible for your own words, and if you get called on it, that's on you.

its relevant to me and to quite honest i dont care what others think, if they dont want to ask for more clarification since i cant read minds and stay confused, more power to them.

Yes, please, if I "read between the lines" and mischaracterized you, then please do clarify. But also please consider that you may have been antagonistic yourself, even if inadvertently. Being unapologetic doesn't help any.

well i did apologize, but dont think your chit doesnt sometimes stink either. misunderstandings can easily be overcome if people would just ask questions prior to making up their minds. i am very open minded and welcome to new ideas, but be careful how you go about giving that advice. treat others how you want to be treated, everyone starts with my respect, its only lost. and i dont kiss @$$ nor take unnecessary chit from anyone. i can/could either just ignore or grill them back.

[Brael]

if im smallish as a nation late game going for the CV might look alot better doing since other wins might not be possible. but im usually not small and i either take the diplo or domination win relatively early for a marathon game (around turn 750 (250 when compared to normal) and with the size of my maps and AI's that is pretty quick and the fact i play with no tech/brokering every game, you have to learn all your techs and balance what you go for wise too).

No tech brokering makes things easier for the player, not harder. It lets you really control technology since you can make yourself the only source of a tech. For example, I got Rifling first and then sold it to everyone other than who I was planning to attack. With leaders like Hatsheput out there it let me ensure the only way my potential victims would get the tech is to research it themselves.

well we both know im not on settler , on prince and above if you can adapt to whatever's thrown at you and yet still win you are pretty good, your a "pro" cuz your in the top half of civ players. to me being a pro is just being better than average and thus a possible challenge for any other above average player.

I hardly think handling prince at this point puts you in the top half of players... handling deity maybe. Most people playing civ 4 at this point are pretty good at strategy games, or atleast this game. The ones who play lower difficulty for the most part play for a couple months at easier settings than they can handle since they like to guarantee wins, and then quit.

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.

but seriously since its been so long since you did "your" warlord strategy, you shouldnt be promoting it. you've yet to say how often and how much you used to do it, alls you said is you've done somewhat

There's six ways to win and multiple ways to achieve each victory, he said he does it about every 6 months and rotates his victory methods around, it's quite possible to only try it that often.

true, but having alot of extras opens the window of error thus making it easier. accept the fact that your 25 warlord units could and will lose to well promo'd SoD's of 50+, even at 99% you can still lose. me personally id rather have a huge/balanced well promo'd force than a small elite special forces, if i could id have both .

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.

in order to get your GG's for you warlords you need to build an army whether mid to big size you need to build an army, or just build D units and start wars with the AI. itd be easier attacking an AI rather than defending them thus weaken your economy once your SoD is built then leaves to conquer.

The attacking in this case would all be done inside your borders. You just talk to civs and declare war. By fighting inside your borders you don't get war weariness, other civs do (slowing them down), and you can make use of the double GG points from the great wall.

if i turned my science way down i could make +3000 gold/turn. so dont go saying bigger isnt better, if you know what you are doing it is. im a very good builder and planner as well as a dominator(so far) .

All I have to say to this is, this was on an Immortal game. I was Cyrus and made good use of my UU. Some of the things you can do in this game are simply amazing, granted it's not 3000+ per turn (at 70% science) but I think it gets the point across seeing as how it's a single city.

Spoiler:

If you can't read that text with the image scaling, here's what it says

Spoiler:

I love the NE/Wall Street combo oh so very much.

[Ming]

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

[brandonjm8]

No tech brokering makes things easier for the player, not harder. It lets you really control technology since you can make yourself the only source of a tech. For example, I got Rifling first and then sold it to everyone other than who I was planning to attack. With leaders like Hatsheput out there it let me ensure the only way my potential victims would get the tech is to research it themselves.

you've never played no tech trading and brokering have you? with those enabled you cant trade or get techs from anyone anytime (only if you play with espionage and steal some, other than that you must learn your own), you have to and must learn every single tech by yourself til you get communism and possibly ally yourself with an advanced partner, so in essence its fair ground for techs. the human must make decisions whether to wonder whore or try to conquer knowing that he simply cannot trade his for the ones he didnt go for, you must learn ALL techs yourself.

I hardly think handling prince at this point puts you in the top half of players... handling deity maybe. Most people playing civ 4 at this point are pretty good at strategy games, or atleast this game. The ones who play lower difficulty for the most part play for a couple months at easier settings than they can handle since they like to guarantee wins, and then quit.

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.

i dont plan on not playing anytime . i handled monarch easily on vanilla prior to switching to bts, ive only had bts for alittle over a month, im on my 4th prince game. i'll be back up in the levels in due time, my games last alot longer than most. after a couple more easy victories for me on prince on to monarch and so on and so on. if you dont think im a pro thats fine but i still think i am.

as far as doing play by plays on my games, not going to happen, sorry. i give stories and details on my current games and crossovers for each, the crossover idea is a very good way of rating players, at least i think so.

There's six ways to win and multiple ways to achieve each victory, he said he does it about every 6 months and rotates his victory methods around, it's quite possible to only try it that often.

i go for which i believe i have the best chance at and the quickest, sometimes i gotta change on the fly and sometimes not. i dont play time wins so i'll never win of them, ive won diplo AP and UN, ive won conquest, ive won domination, ive won space, ive won culturally.

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.

id be laughing my @$$ off watching that , thats nor always possible or often enough to rely on. as far as my highest exp i think it was around 60 or so, that was my warlord and man was he one tough macemen . i got that from destroying monty . i could see myself getting warlord units that high if let my games last that long or provoke fights with everyone and always have war. but alas thats not me, i'll invade when im ready and i'll defend when i have too. i wont give in either so thats how most of my wars start, then i repel their attack, build up, then take em out one by one til i got the domination win. id really like to see a ONE MAN ARMY

The attacking in this case would all be done inside your borders. You just talk to civs and declare war. By fighting inside your borders you don't get war weariness, other civs do (slowing them down), and you can make use of the double GG points from the great wall.

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

[brandonjm8]

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

just ignore ming

im not the only one who doesnt like him

[Ming]

If you took a vote, you would see that I'm not the problem here.
All you do is brag about your hollow victories at levels for newbees. And then insult people that question your limited knowledge of the BTS. It's funny watching you run at the mouth about how great you are, when with most of your posts, you keep proving just how little you really know.

But keep on bragging and insulting people. People can see you for what you are with every post you make.
And I'm sure your response to this will just be another example of your typical post, and prove my point even more.

So enjoy... live in your little fantasy world. It's obvious to people here. But I'm sure all you will do is laugh it off, and think people actually agree with you

[Brael]

you've never played no tech trading and brokering have you? with those enabled you cant trade or get techs from anyone anytime (only if you play with espionage and steal some, other than that you must learn your own), you have to and must learn every single tech by yourself til you get communism and possibly ally yourself with an advanced partner, so in essence its fair ground for techs. the human must make decisions whether to wonder whore or try to conquer knowing that he simply cannot trade his for the ones he didnt go for, you must learn ALL techs yourself.

Ever since it was added I've played with no tech brokering, I've never done no tech trading however because I like having it available for a diplomatic option. That said, I'm completely aware of what it does and how it gives you more room to manipulate the other civs. See my example, it ensured a civ I was going after would be unable to make units that could oppose me since I was the only one with the tech. The AI actually used it against me at one point too because I wasn't thinking... I accepted a tech that had three turns left to complete which I had intended to use as trade fodder. That was a costly mistake.

as far as doing play by plays on my games, not going to happen, sorry. i give stories and details on my current games and crossovers for each, the crossover idea is a very good way of rating players, at least i think so.

The crossover scoring method eliminates the strategy portion of the game. The turn number you get a crossover when pursuing different types of victories varies by your strategy, not to mention it doesn't the way you get the victory into play. It's simply an alternative scoring mechanism and how inaccurate the scoring in civ 4 (and all civ games really) is has already been covered.

i go for which i believe i have the best chance at and the quickest, sometimes i gotta change on the fly and sometimes not. i dont play time wins so i'll never win of them, ive won diplo AP and UN, ive won conquest, ive won domination, ive won space, ive won culturally.

From your description of your games so far, it sounds like you take a generic approach to all games, you basically expand, research, build up, and fight. If you conquer enough you get a diplomatic victory, if the AI resists enough you get cultural or space.

id be laughing my @$$ off watching that , thats nor always possible or often enough to rely on. as far as my highest exp i think it was around 60 or so, that was my warlord and man was he one tough macemen . i got that from destroying monty . i could see myself getting warlord units that high if let my games last that long or provoke fights with everyone and always have war. but alas thats not me, i'll invade when im ready and i'll defend when i have too. i wont give in either so thats how most of my wars start, then i repel their attack, build up, then take em out one by one til i got the domination win. id really like to see a ONE MAN ARMY

I make those sorts of units almost every game, usually one as I hadn't thought of making an entire army based around a small number of them. In my current game thanks to Alexanders non stop sneak attacks I've gotten 4 of them. I then transported those 4 to his continent and burned half his cities to the ground. Even in vanilla I was making those units (pre warlords), I once made a navy seal that had 200+ exp and he was capable of taking down civilizations on his own. On the attack a unit with 80% retreat that's always getting >99.9% victory chances is going to lose less than 1 in 5000 battles. High exp units are absolutely insane.

makes sense, you could speed it up to by having that 100% GG leader trait too.

There's 8 or 9 leaders with Imperialistic, of those Augustus/Julius for praets or Cyrus for Immortals and faster promotions look to be the best ones to pull it off with. Maybe Joao too, he doesn't need to wait until astronomy to cross oceans with units.

I would go Cyrus personally, then again I play Cyrus pretty well and am biased. About the only reason I don't feel Immortals are more broken than Praetorians is that it's always a gamble if you get horses or not. Played right, if you get horses you're handed the game before your second city is even founded.

[brandonjm8]

If you took a vote, you would see that I'm not the problem here.
All you do is brag about your hollow victories at levels for newbees. And then insult people that question your limited knowledge of the BTS. It's funny watching you run at the mouth about how great you are, when with most of your posts, you keep proving just how little you really know.

But keep on bragging and insulting people. People can see you for what you are with every post you make.
And I'm sure your response to this will just be another example of your typical post, and prove my point even more.

So enjoy... live in your little fantasy world. It's obvious to people here. But I'm sure all you will do is laugh it off, and think people actually agree with you

well Senethro dont like you much either, woodan even said you could be better how you go about giving advice. and those are just two that happened to voice their own opinions, most people wont for the simple fact this is very childish and all you keep proving is that you still have some growing up to do despite your age. thought id state the obvious

[Ming]

More people have voiced their opinions about your "supposed" pro opinions. You will find it hard to find people that actually agree with you. But again, you live in your own little fantasy world, ignoring what you want.

If you bothered to actually take the time to read what people are you saying, you might actually learn something.
But all you will continue to do is brag about how you can trash the AI at low levels. Well, most beginners can.

Let us know when you actually try a challenge... and not rig the world that plays toward your style of play. And yeah, let us know when you kick the crap out of the AI on a real level. And I'm sure your response will be that you are working you way up to it... and that you are sure it won't be a problem. Well, if it won't be a problem, why don't you just do it instead of boring people with your stories on how you win at beginner levels.

Or why don't you try some MP. But no, you will just crow about how good you are, and do nothing that actually proves it.

Enjoy.