Return Of The King To Civ Gaming

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by CyberShy

How about no? If a military buildup is equal then OBVIOUSLY the one with a better infrastructure wins.

Only if it's equal.
But the person who focusses most on non-military buildup will have a worse military buildup (obviously) and thus the player who focusses most in military buildup in the early 1vs1 game will win.

Military buildup is obviously more then just only building military units. Everything that helps to boost your military buildup is a part of the military buildup.

- building new cities
- mining
- building roads
- building barracks

How many 1vs1 games last long enough to build universities?

ROFLMAO
That's a strategy game for you. Strategy game is about strategic decisions. So, in this case you should decide how much of your resources goes for a military buildup and how much of it goes for infrastructure. That's like a strategy lesson for dummies 101, i don't believe i'm forced to say something as obvious as that. If you make a wrong choice, you lose. That's how it should be in a strategic game. Once again, read that article already! Sirlin said it all perfectly and much better than me. You're citating his scrubs once again. "This trick is cheap and no fun, let's build universities instead!"

1vs1 don't last until universities because someone makes mistakes earlier and dies (and in ladder there is a turn limit anyway where game is decided by score). Or just a general skill level between duellists is too different so someone is totally outclassed much earlier. And even then, universities are just inefficient, that's a bad game design (that equalisation thing again, you got universities? so what, they'll pay for itself when you'll launch a spaceship )

And finally, well, by your definition building infrastructure is building a university in your only city? Or maybe building a university is a part of a military buildup too because you'll get Tanks faster? No? Then let's not go to the extremes. Military buildup is a military buildup, infrastructure is infrastructure (like more cities etc.) and you certainly need a balance between them. And making univercity is not a strategy, it doesn't require skill etc. Deciding if you should build or you shouldn't build a univercity in this particular situation requires some skill (though negligible one).

[Robert]

Dude, you really don't understand my postings.
You really don't get me, you're in a different debate then I am.

That's no problem, were it not that you're arrogant. A very misplaced arrogance since you don't understand me. You are not debating with me, but with the person in your head about whom you think it's me.

You're sure that you're not Eyes of Night?

When I asked if you have ever build a universe in a 1vs1 game, it's not because I think you should!!!!!
I ask that question to show that:
1. games never last that long
2. building a university in a 1vs1 game isn't smart

You draw conclusions and put words in my mouth, and based upon the words YOU put in my mouth, you conclude that I'm an idiot.

This debate will never work because you guys (you and EoN) project your idea of a n00b on us and bend all our message in such a way that it fits with your n00b projection.

You draw conclusions from things I've never said.
It's impossible to debate with people like you guys. Not because I disagree with you, but because your completely lack any knowledge about any form of debate and are completely uncapable to understand what the other party is saying.

In a good debate the first thing is: understand what the other party tries to say.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Dude, you really don't understand my postings.
You really don't get me, you're in a different debate then I am.

You don't understand my postings even more

Originally posted by CyberShy You're sure that you're not Eyes of Night?

Yes, i'm sure. I'm using the same nick everywhere for about 8 years already.

Originally posted by CyberShy
When I asked if you have ever build a universe in a 1vs1 game, it's not because I think you should!!!!!
I ask that question to show that:
1. games never last that long
2. building a university in a 1vs1 game isn't smart

Well, it's you who used it as an example of a non-military buildup. I used it to prove my point as well. Of course, i knew that you didn't want to say that it's ok to rush for universities and build them. My point is that a game is still not only about a military buildup, even if you don't build universities.

Originally posted by CyberShy You draw conclusions and put words in my mouth, and based upon the words YOU put in my mouth, you conclude that I'm an idiot.

This debate will never work because you guys (you and EoN) project your idea of a n00b on us and bend all our message in such a way that it fits with your n00b projection.

You draw conclusions from things I've never said.
It's impossible to debate with people like you guys. Not because I disagree with you, but because your completely lack any knowledge about any form of debate and are completely uncapable to understand what the other party is saying.

In a good debate the first thing is: understand what the other party tries to say.

No, i don't think you're an idiot. Idiots can't win on Immortal, if anything. And your posts don't look stupid either.

Actually, i'm trying to show you that because of your preconcieveness your arguments about 1v1 in Civ 4 look idiotic Since you didn't want to understand it another way, i used that tactics (that included some exaggeration of your points in your posts, naturally). I see it worked all too well, with the exception of the part where you should have thrown away your preconcieveness after seeing how idiotic your arguments are

[Robert]

Ok, thanks for your kind response.
I may have mixed you too much up with EoN in my head, my fault.

I never intended to use the University thing as an example of how it should be done.

I believe that a 1vs1 game is totally different then a 8+ player game.
In the latter it's a good idea to build some universities (and if you have a huge science city, 8 may be a good idea to build the OU)

But in a 1vs1 game a university is not a good idea. Not that you'll ever make it that far.

Many RTS games involve the building of improvements and armies. But mostly you can build both at the same time. In Q&Q, ie, you can build barracks while building tanks.

In civ you have to chose. You can only build armies or city improvements in a certain city at the same time.
You have to make a strategic choise.

Some buildings only pay off on the long term. If you expect the game only to last shortly, there's no use to build them. Since 1vs1 games naturally end much earlier then 8+ player games, it's only normal that you skip many buildings.

And if you don't expect your cities to grow really large, there's no need to build many smiley-generating buildings.
If you don't expect to build up a large empire, there's no need to found a religion.
If you don't expect to fight culture wars, there's no need to build theaters and monuments.

Therefor a 1vs1 game is much more limited in the possible strategic choises one makes then an 8+ player game.

I think that civ4 is much more build with the idea of a broad range of strategic choises.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I believe that a 1vs1 game is totally different then a 8+ player game.

Yes, of course.

Originally posted by CyberShy In civ you have to chose. You can only build armies or city improvements in a certain city at the same time.
You have to make a strategic choise.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Some buildings only pay off on the long term. If you expect the game only to last shortly, there's no use to build them. Since 1vs1 games naturally end much earlier then 8+ player games, it's only normal that you skip many buildings.

And if you don't expect your cities to grow really large, there's no need to build many smiley-generating buildings.
If you don't expect to build up a large empire, there's no need to found a religion.
If you don't expect to fight culture wars, there's no need to build theaters and monuments.

Therefor a 1vs1 game is much more limited in the possible strategic choises one makes then an 8+ player game.

I think that civ4 is much more build with the idea of a broad range of strategic choises.

Are you sure that it's really a strategic choice to make a happiness building, for example? In a long games, there is another extreme - buildings will pay for itself for sure so you can just make them without really thinking about it. While in 1v1 you should really think if you need an extra combat unit, worker, settler or building - and margin of error is really small, you may die even because of one such wrong choice.
So, maybe choices in 1v1 doesn't look as epic (extra cottage in 1v1 = extra university in a long game) but their importance is actually has a much bigger impact on a game (generally someone loses much earlier in 1v1 because of the wrong choices while in FFA enemies can't focus all resources on you so you have a chance to recover, diplomacy is another equalizer etc.), some no-brain decisions become really important, there are new things to think about in 1v1 that you rarely see in FFA (mostly tactical and military ones though, like early chocking/counter-chocking, civilization development under enemy choke/scout pressure and threat of an all-out attack etc.).

I think that makes 1v1 more strategic than any FFA because almost all your decisions really matter and you lose if you do the wrong ones. That's why most players don't like 1v1, it makes it obvious that you did it all wrong and lost because of it. In FFA you have a lot of chances to fool around, end just fine anyway (maybe not on a 1st place though) and tell to himself that you did ok despite that actually you did it all wrong All these "choices" in FFA are not really important, "broad range of strategic choices" is just an illusion. University or Cottage are just a pixels on a screen, after all, even if University sounds bigger and more imporant Your decisions and how it affects a game is that really matters. So, in 1v1 your choices are at least as "broad" because unimportant things become a real strategic choices.

P.S. And i forgot to say that with a time limit in duels, infrastructure does matter too. If both players survive, game is decided by score.

[MJW]

I feel serious.

The root cause of Civ4's problems is that the AI is trained to role-play. It also does not punish people who don't role-play.

This causes jank gameplay for the person who powergames. There is no objective line between powergaming and role-playing. So this screws over any GOTM style gaming. It also causes the strongest ideas in MP and SP not to line up. So SP or MP is going to be critically imbalance. Firaxis chose to sack MP. However SP is still jank because the AI role plays. On lower levels the easiest way to win is to rush your nearest AI kill it take it's land and use that edge to win. This works 100% of the time because, unlike Civ2, the AI does not hate you if your the strongest empire. On higher levels the only reason why you can win is because the AI role-plays. I don't like this and the arbitraryness this causes. The 'cheap' tactics used to kill the ai's are not exploits. They are just the extreme end of the most efficient strategies.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Dulaak


..... many very long posts, and detailed posts, I have made about the problems with the game and how to fix them....

Here on Poly (and if so, what forum) or elsewhere?

[MJW]

Originally posted by Beta


Here on Poly (and if so, what forum) or elsewhere?

Check out some of the some of the threads started by eyesofnight in the off-topic area. Oh and EyesOfNight was dumb enough to buy BtS .

Oh, I was just talking about why nothing can touch the huge empire idea.

[Beta]

Thanks MJW. That probably explains why I have not seen them. I avoid that forum like the plague. Donning my radiation protection suit and going for a look.

And funny to hear that Eyes bought BTS.