comparison game for woodan and whom else

[brandonjm8]

No, you're not. You're going out of your way to pick a fight.

if some people try to trump my own opinions/strategies with their own instead of stating that they disagree and offer their insight only, then this will happen. aint no need to poke fun of the original poster ya know.

I said many times what others do don't justify what you do.

i treat others how they treat me, everybody starts with my respect its only lost.

Then don't post anything but that.

i was.

I have to disagree with that. More does not make it harder. The human ALSO has more cities and has bigger SoDs.

with this instance, we have the worse locale, and to keep it even relative to size of map, you need to keep on par with the AI's. since for most of us the vast majority of our AI's are bigger than us thus able to produce more units, since most of us are smaller, that could spell our doom hence making winning more difficult (more micromanage, i think of them as one of the same).

All the bigger map means in this regard is that armies are bigger on both sides. That doesn't make it harder. It just makes it taker longer, with more micromanagement.

only if we were able to keep on par as far number of cities we have. since well most of my AI's have close to 50 cities and i may have 35, i will be fighting bigger multiple stacks than my own, i hope i can divide and conquer and ally myself with brennus to help me out once i get communism.

And my armies will get big, really big too. My army can and will be bigger than most I've ever done, reducing the challenge.

i cant wait to see your game saves, all of us have not been able to keep with with number of cities thus far, im getting there but i got two wars to fight now.

You really think you'll get so you win on Deity on these maps? What makes you think so?

i hope so, thats my goal thus far. im not saying i want to master deity, that would be nice, but if i can win more than once on deity, then i met my goal, then switch up settings and start the climb again.

[brandonjm8]

Although generally avoiding the discussion, I do have to agree with Wodan on a point here. Bigger armies does not make it harder, rather the reverse.

The human can generally, assuming they are competent, use their armies better than the AI, if they are near the same size. Actually, a good player can have half the size of the AI (talking SoD only, not all troops) and beat the AI up.

It doesn't matter if you're talking 40 units versus 20 or 200 units versus 100, the actual size doesn't matter, its the relative size that counts. And, IMHO, if the stacks are larger, it favours the human who will use his forces more effectively.

i agree, promos too. but it can be easier to get overwhelmed when say two or three equally larger SoD's are coming after ya

[brandonjm8]

I always found that Astronomy & foreign routes >>> Colossus & Stonehenge. It's Scientific Method that's always the one I have to make a hard choice about if I have a lot of monasteries and/or ToA-Parthenon-Great Lib.

i agree.

[rah]

i agree, promos too. but it can be easier to get overwhelmed when say two or three equally larger SoD's are coming after ya

I agree with them, it's still a matter of relativity. Two or three stacks of 20 or 30 units is no different then larger stacks if your defense is relatively the same. And based on your own comments, you have larger defenses on your larger worlds.

[Boracks]

1325 AD : We are not alone! Finally got caravels out, found Fred and Mansa on one side, Ragnar on the other, got an explorer each way and open borders so mapping will commence

Slow slog but should start to get interesting soon.

[wodan11]

to keep it even relative to size of map, you need to keep on par with the AI's

What's your basis for this conclusion?

since for most of us the vast majority of our AI's are bigger than us thus able to produce more units, since most of us are smaller, that could spell our doom

hence making winning more difficult (more micromanage, i think of them as one of the same).

As I said before, I personally don't think minutae = more difficult. We're just going to have to disagree there.

But anytime you say "more difficult" I'm going to read it as "more micromanagement". That's what you just said, right? They're one and the same? Since I don't think they're one and the same, I'm going to have to use the words I think you mean, in my vernacular.

This also has ramifications on discussions of difficulty level.

only if we were able to keep on par as far number of cities we have.

Agreed. But that's the result of difficultly level, not size of the map or number of AIs (crowdedness of the map).

Why are you behind in # of cities? Because you're playing on Prince. (And also because you spread your cities out more than the AI does.) If you played on Deity it would be worse... you'd be even further behind in # of cities. If you played on Settler you would surely be ahead on # of cities.

i cant wait to see your game saves, all of us have not been able to keep with with number of cities thus far, im getting there but i got two wars to fight now.

I haven't decided if I'm going to REX in the first place. You talk like that's the goal.

We talked about several things, "crossover", tech rate, possibly ability to go for a Domination win (though we also left open cultural wins, diplomatic wins, and space wins).

Nowhere do I recall us saying "the goal is to have the most cities".

More cities can be a benefit, because you have more build queues, but it's also a considerable negative, particularly in regard to maintenance costs and micromanagement effort.

Honestly, since I don't really enjoy micromanagement I don't see a lot of reasons why I should choose a REX strategy.

i hope so, thats my goal thus far. im not saying i want to master deity, that would be nice, but if i can win more than once on deity, then i met my goal, then switch up settings and start the climb again.

Well consider the fact that you'll be even further behind in # of cities, and that seems to be one of your main benchmarks. On Deity you have to play smart and use mistake-free and top efficiency in strategy. You've got your work cut out for you, I think.

[Brael]

I always found that Astronomy & foreign routes >>> Colossus & Stonehenge. It's Scientific Method that's always the one I have to make a hard choice about if I have a lot of monasteries and/or ToA-Parthenon-Great Lib.

It is. But my decision really came down to, is it good enough to warrant delaying corporations for. After I've got corporations I'll certainly switch.

[wodan11]

I tend not to run Colossus as much as most people, I fear. I only run it if there are some very strong water incentives... lots of sea resources, freshwater lakes, etc. Otherwise, I find that it takes too long to get, requires too many hammers, prevents me from running as many cottages or specialists, and ends too early (or I have to make a choice not to get Astronomy -- which is not necessarily a negative).

[rah]

If you have copper and are along the coast on a pangea map, it is more desirable.

[wodan11]

If you have copper and are along the coast on a pangea map, it is more desirable.

That's what I'm saying. Your statement isn't always true.

[rah]

Correct, that's why I said more desirable. Obviously if you start landlocked or with just one coastal city, you're going to prioritize other things. It doesn't take much exploring to decide if it should be a priority. In SP game most of the time that I decide I would like it, I can get it. In MP, I am more likely to lose the race. It is only one way to assist in your revenue stream. There are many other ways to deal with it so it is not a necessity.

[wodan11]

Well I wasn't even talking about landlocked or 1 coastal city. Even if I had a majority of coastal cities, I wouldn't automatically assume the Colossus is a good idea. In fact, my expectation would be the opposite: most of the time it's suboptimal.

[Brael]

I tend not to run Colossus as much as most people, I fear. I only run it if there are some very strong water incentives... lots of sea resources, freshwater lakes, etc. Otherwise, I find that it takes too long to get, requires too many hammers, prevents me from running as many cottages or specialists, and ends too early (or I have to make a choice not to get Astronomy -- which is not necessarily a negative).

This map was built for it in my opinion. Give it a shot when you get a chance and take a look. You can't get copper early game (well, unless you found a city halfway across the continent which due to map size and difficulty level you actually can do despite it being a bad play) but you do get a virtually unlimited supply of forests.

[rah]

Well I wasn't even talking about landlocked or 1 coastal city. Even if I had a majority of coastal cities, I wouldn't automatically assume the Colossus is a good idea. In fact, my expectation would be the opposite: most of the time it's suboptimal.

I have games like that but then look at a city and it tells me only 4 or 5 turns to build it and I say what the heck. It's worth it to deny it to another player. But then, I've never really run the numbers on it either. It's like early in the game if you've connected stone and your cap has the choice of building an axeman in two turns or GW in 5 turns. Even If you weren't even thinking about it, you sometimes go "what the heck:.

[brandonjm8]

I agree with them, it's still a matter of relativity. Two or three stacks of 20 or 30 units is no different then larger stacks if your defense is relatively the same. And based on your own comments, you have larger defenses on your larger worlds.

my D this game was weak along with everyone elses that i looked at, main reason we are by ourselves. i steadily built but focused on expansion and infrastructure mostly. as far as SoD's go, i meant if you are at war with 2 or 3 AI's that have many more units then you and you get really unlucky and they all come at the same time, your screwed if that happens. and with this map style and majority of the AI's will get bigger than you, there is a strong chance of that happening. if its one at a time then you are correct.