Is there life after Civ2?

[EyesOfNight]

Like I said, you're an idiot. The only time building on a mountain is good is when you're using a choke point or something. It kills your production too much in the early game. in addition, that city is no longer capable of building settlers fast so you are now losing out on expansion speed which has a cumulative effect. Basically you have cut your expansion speed in half if you are starting with 2 settlers. There's nothing to gain from building on top of a mountain that you can't gain more of by building on a grassland square and then using the special on the mountain. I would think this would be obvious, then again, even Bhaal didn't realize this. This is the number 1 beginner rule. Never build on specials, never build on mountains except under very special circumstances. Hills are also bad to build on, although I'm guessing you don't know why that one is either.

[rah]

Your ignorance is showing.
Getting the free food for building on the gold and the road bonus for the extra trade is worth it. If it can get you to monarchy four turns earlier or more it's an advantage. And if you get lucky and pop an archer (or enough money) that you can disband early enough to rush/buy a settler you can even not lose what's in the food hopper. And the obvious that a single warrior makes you safe from any early barb intrusion. Of course most icsers quit if they lose their capital early to barbs.

The first 1000 years is about getting to a different government, not icsing. Especially when you're a despot taking happiness hits on the fifth city (in deity)

It doesn't take many extra turns in Monarchy to offset less growth in the earlier turns.

[EyesOfNight]

The only time it's worth it is on Deity 1x1x very early. That's just one setting, every single other setting it's not a good idea. I always know I'm playing vs a beginner when they build on top of gold and iron. Considering the settings you play, you really can't talk to me about being competitive.

[rah]

It actually works on 2x1x if done correctly also, but obviously you're not looking for a discussion, you're just pulling down your zipper and bragging, so please don't waste you time. We'll agree to dissagree and you can consider me a non-competetive noob and I'll consider you a typical ladder jerk. fair enough. A good reminder why my attraction for ladder type games is so low.

And just for the record, I usually only play one setting since I enjoy it the the most and we could always find 4 to play those settings. 2x1x deity raging hordes, so there's another reason for you to call me a non-competitive noob.

[rah]

I just read the other thread
Drixnak, is that you eyes? If so, I apologize, I assumed you were an ordinary ladder jerk. If I had known it was you, I would have just conceded the arguement immediately.
Welcome back. Didn't think you were playin anymore.

[EyesOfNight]

lol Is that sarcasm?

[rah]

No serious, we've had this arguement many times over the years and the result has always been the same. Neither of us changes our opinion. So there's no reason to have it again. And I am truely pleased to see you posting again, it's good to know that some of the old timers are still around. And your posts and tirades are usually very entertaining.

[EyesOfNight]

I probably will give the game up in a little bit. I'm tired of all the beginners at civ2liga calling me a cheater and a newbie. Especially when they side with a guy like SunTzu. There's nobody left.

[rah]

The sad thing is we'll probably be playing even less now that we playin more IV. 12 person games are a riot. And as I've said in the past, I'm really competitive by nature, but If I'm not having fun, I'd rather spend my valuable spare time doing something else, but have to admit that the 10 person games where 7 people are eliminated in 3-5 hours, are a lot of fun.

[EyesOfNight]

I don't have the time or desire to waste so much time on huge pointless games. I like to win, and I like to fight on the forums. Civ4 doesn't allow any of that. You spend hours grinding it out even vs average players as you throw catapult/axeman stack after stack and nobody seems to go anywhere. Dominating in civ4 simply isn't possible, which is why the duel is dead and all the good players have gone to other games.

[rah]

When over half the people are eliminated, I'd say someone was dominating. But with that many players there are going to be a couple of people dominating, but I can live with that. Especially if you're one of the couple dominating. And then you can taunt on the boards or call the guy that always gets eliminated first every game clueless. There's still some potential for chest pumping, but I never like duels in II so I really won't miss it.

[EyesOfNight]

Duels are what made the ladders and tribes possible. You don't have a healthy competitive game without 1v1s and it is like that in every single game in existence.

[Ming]

Duels are just one style of play. I'm sure many enjoy them and bask in the glory of accumulated points and the right to beat on their chests. If that's the only way you can get enjoyment out of a game... to each their own. But that is just one form of competition. To say that other styles of playing civ aren't competitive is just being myopic. It is quite obvious who the better players are in our games, because they excell week after week. Granted, in any given week, one can have problems, but overall, there is a health competition to be a winner on a regular basis. You really don't need an organized point system to have a competitive game. But if that's the only way you can get your rocks off...

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
The fact that you think it's just a horse rush competition shows how little you know about the game. You'd do well on civ2liga I think.

Unlike you - who lost 6 in a row - 4 on your own settings.

[EyesOfNight]

DD you should really think twice before you start supporting someone who would have gotten removed from gameleague with the saves I posted. When you can show me how to get that kind of gold that fast and freeze the timer then maybe you should be so boisterous.