Emperor level needs a rethink.

[Catt]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Cat is doing what many of us would do, packing in as many cities as are required to make use of all land and to secure borders. Perhaps making use of some early camp cities as well (dunno, can't see them but can see gaps big enough for them in the core).

Nah. No camps nor any grand design. I expanded towards food bonuses and quality terrain, intending to settle some of the desert near the start later. I grew a bit tired of the game by the time it came to settle the desert, and figured I wouldn’t bother (and at the same time increase the corruption in further, but better developed, cities). I was occasionally a bit short of workers (despite a 2-turn worker pump) and citizen laborers briefly worked unimproved tiles – I didn’t rush to settle the desert which would need roads and irrigation just to be comparable to other prospective city sites.

And hey! -- I though this was a fairly spread empire! I thought I had a number of cities at 4 and 4+ tile distance.

Catt

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Puma
As for myself...

I've noticed that if you're trying to avoid warfare on emperor, success depends on many situations. It's especially hard if a crazy civ like the romans is next door or if you don't suck it up and give the AIs whatever they ask for whenever they ask for it. If you even reject a single threat your whole game will become militaristic.

It's extremely annoying. At first, my pride would get the better of me and I wouldn't even give in to demands for my territory map. I soon learned that discretion is the better part of valour...

This is one of the hardest aspects of cultural/diplomatic victory in emperor (and I play huge maps often) ... you have to suck it up and give them whatever they want. The best tactic to this is to not have any spare or lead at any time.

Yep. If you've got a tech over a stronger neighbour, they'll demand it of you - making you wish you'd accepted their offer of 20 gold for it a few turns earlier...

I still agree that cultural victories are very difficult in emperor. I've never done it with the Americans for example. If not carrying the appropriate civilization trait, the happiness settings do not allow you to to rush libraries and temples without catastrophic and long lasting results. Scientific and religious civs alwasy seem to kick a88 in emperor and I think this is partly due to the fact that they do not carry the same happiness limitations that the human player does ... but it's not impossible.

I find that religious civs aren't the problem in regards culture, but scientific. You get more culture from libraries and universities, and on Emperor level the AI will build them before AD some games because the tech is so fast. That's a long, long time of double culture for libraries and Uni's for scientific civs.

It has a lot to do with perspective.

Yep. Perspective, world size, number of enemy civs and level!

[Catt]

@ Jeem: Look, I’m not trying to be an ass, even if it sounds like it. I played a very sloppy and “what the heck” game (and I don’t presume that your game is his your best effort either). I actually spent the time to play a buggy game on a huge map and then post only because you were so insistent that huge map games were so devilishly difficult that my opinions, and the opinions of others, were inapplicable to huge map games. Since I have a very limited experience with huge map games, I felt I should at least take on the early game before I continued on much further in the face of your insistence that huge maps are different.

Try downloading my latest save game and then tell me that with a straight face Catt.

So I did download it and I did play it, at least through the near-end of the Middle Ages. And I’ll repeat my opinion that your troubles with playing a builder game at Emperor level, huge map or otherwise, are of your own making, not an inherent imbalance in the game – that is the topic you started the thread with, and that is the topic I was responding to.

If you’re trying to learn something by comparing my game to yours (as your recent post would imply), then consider the following:

We hold a similar land area and the cities are similarly placed, although his cities are much larger than mine. I did struggle badly in tech in this game because the Aztecs and Vikings also did, so Monarchy was later than desired.

You struggled in tech because (1) you went to Monarchy; (2) you viewd population as better used in rushing than in growing, and viewed citizens (I’m guessing) as better employed as entertainers instead of scientists or taxmen when appropriate (which is very powerful in C3C); and/or (3) you could use more experience in researching and trading techniques.

At around the same stage, I had a much larger military than Catt's (twice the size actually, and 30+ Swords compared to 11). I also had a better culture value, and was well ahead of the Aztecs in that respect. The overall scores are pretty similar I think.

Except that the challenge was to play peacefully at Emperor. You military is way too large – if not objectively too large, it is at minimum disproportionately weighted towards spears / pikes and away from workers (best unit in the game!) and mobile offensive troops. Scores mean nothing in such a game. And it wasn’t at the same stage -- it was ~ 400 years apart. Your actions not only slowed your own development, they also slowed your continent’s development, and that put you at a huge disadvantage versus the other continent. You argued in the past that huge maps were more difficult because “[a]t emperor level (on a huge map at least), you can only really affect what is happening on your continent for a long time.” If you know that only you and a collective minority share one continent, you’d best either (1) own your continent; or (2) do everything you can to strengthen the collective power of your continent (i.e., trade, or even give away, techs to bolster your AI continent-mates). The last thing you should do is stunt your own development and slow the development of others unless you’re laying the groundwork for a massively powerful empire in the later game – you’re inviting the emergence of a technologically superior foe out in the fog of war from the distance.

The main difference is, the Russians haven't run amok on the other continent and Catt's game is pretty balanced overall. He will need to take out the Aztecs at some stage though (if he means to win by a cultural victory).

The main difference is in the human approach to the early game. This start makes it fairly easy to turtle and play builder if one isn’t thrown off balance by being in a horrible hole in terms of technology early. Your game shows that the overseas civs were in much better shape than you were – it wasn’t Russians running amok that caused the problem, it was you allowing 5 overseas civs to develop amongst themselves, and doing your best to slow AI development on your home continent and within your own civ instead of accepting a trailing position but drafting behind the leaders with little effort.

It's not all that different really. In my game, I was in a very good position until the Russians met me (remember, they had Navigation and most likely were in the Industrial era before I was out of the ancient era). It can happen sometimes on a huge map, and does quite a lot. Expansionist in the AI's hands is the main problem most games I find. If it's not the Russians, it'll be the Arabs usually.

You were in a terrible position. In your own words, you would still be in the ancient age if you hadn’t gone a’ warmongering to capture the Great Library and catapult forward to a respectable tech position. Even with the tech position, you don’t have the infrastructure to compete yet and you’re still in the hole one would typically expect at the higher levels, except it is the late Middle Ages instead of the early Ancient Age. It’s not hopeless, but if you think your position and my position in the game are similar, you’re (and my position is far, far away from an optimally-played, or even very-well-played position would be).

This whole thread, which you started, is about how Emperor level prevents peaceful play and requires warmongering. In fact, the sum total of your arguments up to now, and the posting of this game both at both 4000 BC and at 9XX AD was to prove your point that Emperor on a huge map doesn’t allow peaceful building, and later in the discussion that the GL is a must have, and that militaristic expansion is required. My effort was intended as evidence to dispute that assertion, which you practically demanded by repeatedly insisting that others’ limited experience with huge maps made their views suspect. I just don’t understand your conclusions at all.

Catt

[Dominae]

I'll reserve my further comments for after the patch comes out. For now:

Originally posted by Catt
If you know that only you and a collective minority share one continent, you’d best either (1) own your continent; or (2) do everything you can to strengthen the collective power of your continent (i.e., trade, or even give away, techs to bolster your AI continent-mates).

This is very sound advice. I try to put the AI civs into one of two categories: Really Good Friends, or Really Dead Enemies. A Really Good Friend civ is not simply one you've been at peace with the whole game, it's one that you've also gifted techs and Luxuries to, too. The need for such civs is most evident when rushing for the earliest possible Spaceship launch: you can do it a lot faster if you help the other civs help you. When an Emperor-level (or higher) game lasts past 1700AD, it's usually because the human player has not been as cooperative as he/she could have been with the AI civs.


Dominae

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt
If you’re trying to learn something by comparing my game to yours (as your recent post would imply), then consider the following:

I wasn't.

You struggled in tech because (1) you went to Monarchy

Because I didn't have the Republic.

(2) you viewd population as better used in rushing than in growing, and viewed citizens (I’m guessing) as better employed as entertainers instead of scientists or taxmen when appropriate (which is very powerful in C3C)

Actually, I viewed them as a means to building temples and libraries faster. That's why my culture value was miles ahead of the Aztecs, and yours is behind.

and/or (3) you could use more experience in researching and trading techniques.

10 turns after your save, I'm 1 tech from the industrial era. I have a more powerful military. I have a better culture. I have the Aztecs in my back pocket. You've got a bigger population and haven't had a GA yet.


If you read my posts on why I chose the Celts, you'd see that it was because I came to a 'logical' conclusion that Agr/Rel looks like a powerful combination for attempting a cultural victory at emperor on a huge map. That was the *entire* point of the exercise. Nothing else. I gave up when after pursuing this goal, my measly 8500 culture was dwarfed by the Russians 21500 (I was 3rd best btw).

You military is way too large – if not objectively too large, it is at minimum disproportionately weighted towards spears / pikes and away from workers (best unit in the game!) and mobile offensive troops.

Then again, that military was built in a few turns in order to capture the GL from the Aztecs. Mission accomplished. The only reason I did it was because I was sound in infrastructure but falling behind in tech. The Aztecs were building coloseums and starting to bite into my culture lead. The fastest way for me to get construction was to take the GL.

Scores mean nothing in such a game. And it wasn’t at the same stage -- it was ~ 400 years apart.

I wasn't talking about the save game I uploaded - I went back to my 600AD save.

Your actions not only slowed your own development, they also slowed your continent’s development, and that put you at a huge disadvantage versus the other continent.

That's utter rubbish Catt. There was *nothing* I could have done to stop the Russians from running away with that game. They didn't do it in your game because they got unlucky - being an expansionist civ that's the breaks.

You argued in the past that huge maps were more difficult because “[a]t emperor level (on a huge map at least), you can only really affect what is happening on your continent for a long time.” If you know that only you and a collective minority share one continent, you’d best either (1) own your continent; or (2) do everything you can to strengthen the collective power of your continent (i.e., trade, or even give away, techs to bolster your AI continent-mates).

Let's assume I'd done what you did in your game Catt. The Russians would still be miles ahead in tech, and have almost 4 times your culture level.

The last thing you should do is stunt your own development and slow the development of others unless you’re laying the groundwork for a massively powerful empire in the later game – you’re inviting the emergence of a technologically superior foe out in the fog of war from the distance.

Take the Russians out of my game and I'm doing pretty well. I'd be leading the tech, close to leading the culture and have my nearest neighbours running scared of me.

The main difference is in the human approach to the early game. This start makes it fairly easy to turtle and play builder if one isn’t thrown off balance by being in a horrible hole in terms of technology early. Your game shows that the overseas civs were in much better shape than you were – it wasn’t Russians running amok that caused the problem, it was you allowing 5 overseas civs to develop amongst themselves, and doing your best to slow AI development on your home continent and within your own civ instead of accepting a trailing position but drafting behind the leaders with little effort.

That is just nonsense Catt. I really hope you don't think that by simply sacrificing 15 ships in order to cross the ocean, you somehow affected the performance of the Russians. You didn't - the Russians didn't get the uber-start they did in my game. You got lucky.

You were in a terrible position. In your own words, you would still be in the ancient age if you hadn’t gone a’ warmongering to capture the Great Library and catapult forward to a respectable tech position. Even with the tech position, you don’t have the infrastructure to compete yet and you’re still in the hole one would typically expect at the higher levels, except it is the late Middle Ages instead of the early Ancient Age. It’s not hopeless, but if you think your position and my position in the game are similar, you’re (and my position is far, far away from an optimally-played, or even very-well-played position would be).

I think my position is better actually. If I'd 'optimally played' the game I'd be in an ever better position. The Russians won't attack me, and if they do it'll be nothing I can't cope with (because I've got a decent military).

Most importantly, there is only one power on my continent in my game - me. Yours is the same, but it's not you - it's the Aztecs. I could easily sweep through the whole continent if I desired, but the point of this game was to win on culture.

This whole thread, which you started, is about how Emperor level prevents peaceful play and requires warmongering. In fact, the sum total of your arguments up to now, and the posting of this game both at both 4000 BC and at 9XX AD was to prove your point that Emperor on a huge map doesn’t allow peaceful building, and later in the discussion that the GL is a must have, and that militaristic expansion is required. My effort was intended as evidence to dispute that assertion, which you practically demanded by repeatedly insisting that others’ limited experience with huge maps made their views suspect. I just don’t understand your conclusions at all.

Maybe you need to consider that in my game, I'm :-

Further ahead in tech than you.
Better placed on my own continent (militarily, tech and culturally) than any of my rivals.
Have a higher culture value than you do.
Have almost twice the military you do.

But I'm still a country mile behind the Russians.

And I was only attempting a cultural victory!

[vmxa1]

Jeem, I don't think Catt meant to say that reachng the Russians did anything to them, so much as it did something to him. It gave him contact and that help his research. Since he may have help the Aztecs as well, it could help both.
Gentlemen I have enjoyed the jousting. I do feel that with only about 6 or 7 huges games palyed all the way over the last two years, I am not in a good position to speak with that much conviction on their impact.

I can say that having your GA yet to come is very powerful. It can lead to some very impressive improvement, now that you have a decent empire.

[Catt]

This thread is titled, by you, “Emperor level needs a rethink.” You put forth the opinion that Emperor level foreclosed playing in certain ways. After being challenged on your conclusions, you rephrased it as “[m]y comments on Emperor level should probably be taken as meaning 'Emperor on a huge map'. Try it, and keep trying it - you'll soon see just how horrendous it is.” After being challenged further, you confirmed “I erred at first in assuming most people played on huge maps. However, my comments ARE valid on Emperor level on huge maps.” In the same post, you conclude “Perhaps Emperor level doesn't need a rethink, but Emperor level on a Huge map does.” You were challenged still, and others even provided links to posted games on Emperor or higher, including huge map games, which were played peacefully. You ignored them and posted an example start that would prove that peaceful play was not possible on Emperor.

Your thesis, repeated in this thread a dozen times or more, is that Emperor level prevents peaceful play. Alternatively, your thesis is that Emperor level on a huge map prevents peaceful play. How do you address evidence to the contrary? Do you even address it or do you just ignore it? Forget comparing my game to yours -- the challenge you presented was that this game confirmed your conclusion that Emperor precluded peaceful building. How do you address evidence to the contrary?

Catt

[Aeson]

Sure they do. Late game, Ind/Com is a powerhouse that is hard to match.

I'm not talking about the +commerce and +production portions of the traits. Those are rather inconsequential. Games can be won or lost by then, and will be in most cases. Games that are still on the brink tend to be hinged on ToE (Science), Internet (Culture), or massive Tank/Artillery/Modern Armor (Military) plays.

Commercial is a powerful trait because the OCN is increased. This makes all cities throughout the game a few percent less corrupt. It basically gives you a few extra cities that will be productive, and the number scales pretty well by map size (as the OCN scales by mapsize and it gives a % of OCN advantage). Far and away a bigger influence on the game than the additional commerce you get for cities later in the game.

With Industrial, it's all about faster workers. Means you can have fewer Workers you are supporting and/or keep ahead of city growth with terrain improvements. In C3C it's toned down a lot, but still one of the biggest advantages of any of the traits.

I'm not saying it helps as much with Cultural victory as Religious and Scientific, but the difference is not as much as you'd expect. If the Babalonians or Egyptians (probably the best combinations for Cultural 100k victory) hit 100k on turn X, the Zulu (probably the worst combination for Cultural 100k victory) will finish around turn X+30 in a comparably played game.

(those 1 and 2 % I typed should have been 10 and 20 % btw)

With culture, it's all about the earliest possible building of temples and libraries

Not at all. For example, if you build a Temple right off, instead of a Settler, then you have 1 city, 1 Temple. Another player who builds a Settler first has 2 cities, no Temples. Lets say from then on everything is played the same, 1 city becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, up until the corruption limit. Cultural improvements are fit in between Settler builds when possible, rushed when possible too. The player who builds the Settler first will have 2x (or close) the number of cities up to that point, some with cultural improvements. The player who built the Temple right off will have 1 extra Temple and the Culture it's accumulated, but with only about half the cities, and probably only about half the cultural improvements.

There are times in the expansion phase where population growth isn't fast enough to continuously pump out Settlers. A player who takes advantage of those opportunities to build Cultural improvements will outexpand a player who is inflexible and trades off cities for Temples/Libraries.

- ind/com cannot compete with either in that case

The variation isn't a lot, but 'cannot compete' is subjective I suppose. If you mean the player (Ind/Com) can't compete with the AI (Rel and or Sci), I definitely don't agree. If you mean the player can do better with Rel/Sci than with Ind/Com, yes, about 10-20% faster in relation to turn number.

Ind/Com compares pretty well to most of the civs with Rel or Sci but not both.

This is my main point on cultural victories - they aren't actually chosen at game start.

I played that Zulu game specifically for Cultural 100k victory. I took into account the civ I was using, the terrain, my neighbors, and played the game in the way where I felt 100k could be achieved fastest. I didn't use a Palace jump in that game, ICS, or any of the other 'dodgy' (I really think that word is awful in this context, read below) tactics except for disbanding a few military units which became obsolete though. So it wasn't an optimal date, but was a gamestyle I felt comfortable with and enjoyed.

I'm playing your Celt game now. It's sorta a weird map, the way the AI starting positions are so close to the player with all that free land on the other side. I can see why it's not optimal to play 100k (or 160k as is) on it, but it certainly is possible to do so. I wouldn't say it's indicative of most Huge map games though, normally civs are a bit more spaced out when the number of civs to landmass ratio is similar.

370BC right now and I have a solid core, just about to switch to a Republic, haven't fought a war, and have 3x the culture of either of the AI's on the continent.

I just built Artemis with a Scientific leader (my first one ever! From Currency, second to last tech in the Ancient Era, so I've been keeping my continent ahead of / up with the other one at least). I want to see how much help/damage all those free Temples do (most of my cities had Temples already though). When Artemis expires all the Temples I hadn't built by hand will go away, losing a lot of cultural doublings right? Just wonder if the early culture and keeping it out of the hands of the AI will make up for that. Probably not, but it's one of those things that I haven't had a chance to see the effects of very much.

A better use for the Leader would have been to rush the Palace down south once my FP gets finished (another thing where I'm not sure if it's going to pay off or not, but just want to see). Sure is a lot of fantastic terrain down there. I'm planning on grabbing most of it, but making it productive would probably seal the game. Letting the AI's split it would be almost suicide.

It can happen. With so many players playing the game worldwide, you will get the odd occasion where a race can just blow all others away in whatever manner they choose. They aren't common though.

On a Huge map it's almost always possible (at least up to Deity, Sid I'm not sure on). Certainly the extent of victory is relative to the starting position, but the best players consistantly win regardless of starting position, and in any manner which they care to.

I run the HOF over at CFC, help with the GOTM, and keep up with AU games that are played. See amazingly well-played games all the time.

I never use any of the game-breaking tactics (although I might in an MP game, naturally)

I tend to use them once in SP, just to illustrate how powerful they are. If something looks promising, I try to perfect it. Then I don't use it, partially because they tend to be a hassle to do right, and partially because it's more fun to find another way to accomplish the same thing. These tactics aren't necessary to win, and all I mentioned disbanding units for is that it is possible to play that way (obviously), and I wanted something to compare Civil Engineers to to illustrate how powerful they can be.

When it comes right down to it though, playing on Huge maps tends to be an exploit of the AI. They don't deal with large open spaces well. Very 'dodgy' to play on them.

I assume you play Deity level based on these comments? I probably would if I used every option available to me, but I'm trying to keep the game balanced as much as possible without resorting to 'breaking' it.

I've played most every difficulty, every setting several times over (though obviously not every permutation thereof). Deity (PtW/Vanilla) and Demi-god (C3C) tend to be my favorite. Like I said, I do try to break the AI down as much as possible, but don't play that way once I've done it.

I have beaten Deity level peacefully to Diplomatic (&OCC), Spacerace, Cultural 20k (&OCC), Cultural 100k, and once almost to Domination (not truely peaceful in that case as I was demanding lots of stuff from the AI and fighting 0 turn wars with them ). I've lost too, which is why Deity is fun. I don't know going in if I will win for sure, but there's always a good shot if I make the right decisions. Demi-god is somewhat the same at this point, probably because of the corruption and gpt problems (can make it too easy if taken full advantage of though).

Peaceful victories can be done, and (non-OCC games) tend to be easiest on Huge maps.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Most people who play the game will not even have considered most of the really dodgy tactics the game allows. I consider myself no better than an average 'player' of the game, and maybe that's why I see such a massive disparity between Monarch and Emperor games.

You can limit your effectiveness however you want. It's not a problem with the difficulty level though. If you don't want to take advantage of game mechanics, fine, I do it myself all the time. It is fun to play a 'close' game, even if the closeness is only due to limitations or disadvantages you've placed on yourself.

There are still 'valid' ways of playing that break the AI. Military tactics (especially bombardment), city specialization (Worker and Settler factories, and Units for upgrading), mass upgrades, city spacing (even OCP is better than what the AI uses) and various diplomatic functions (buying and selling techs especially) are all somewhat broken. The AI can't use them, at least not anywhere near as efficiently as the player. Using them to your advantage is the only way to overcome the build in advantages the AI is given to make a difficulty level what it is.

If you want to play like the AI and win, you better get a great starting location. Otherwise you are manipulating game mechanics in a manner which the AI isn't capable of. Call it dodgy or whatever, it doesn't matter, everyone who beats the AI is doing it to some extent or the other... or just getting lucky.

If the game is balanced so that a difficulty level is beatable every time by playing only 'valid' tactics, then what are players who want to use 'dodgy' tactics left with? A game which has absolutely no difficulty left in it. There are 8 difficulty levels, and somewhere in there is a difficulty close to what just about everyone is looking for. It might not be perfect, but they give a good representation (except for whatever should be between Deity and Sid IMO) of the spectrum.

In cases where you want a slight adjustment, the editor is there. No need to mess with the 'stock' difficulty as each player can make any changes they feel necessary.

[Aeson]

You military is way too large – if not objectively too large, it is at minimum disproportionately weighted towards spears / pikes and away from workers (best unit in the game!) and mobile offensive troops.

How's my "military"?

[Dominae]

Are all those Settlers en route, or are they just hanging around now that your expansion is over?

I'm doubt I've ever had that many Settlers in the field at the same time...but then again Huge maps are not my thing.


Dominae

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Aeson


How's my "military"?

Hard to say, since we don't know how many cities you have, but I would guess it strong compared to those guys.

[Aeson]

No, my military is rather insignificant. (upgrading will change that)

All those Settlers are in transit. Population is not a problem on this map.

Because of the weird map setup (sorta like a pentagon, with you at the top, and the 2 AI on the left and right top, tons of free space down below) the expansion phase can last a long time. Just looked at Jeem's save, and his continent is still only about 4/5ths of the way filled up at 950AD. The player can pretty easily claim most of the southlands. Then you're basically be a Palace jump/rush away from completely dominating.

It really looks like a civ or two should have been placed down there.

[Jeem]

Aeson - fair comments for the most part. I understand what you mean by me handicapping myself by disallowing exploits - that's why I assumed you played demi-god. What I meant to say was that if I used every exploit available to me, I'd probably play at demi god level. I feel that doing so would seriously affect my enjoyment of the game, as I'm micromanaging less and less (both save games I've posted, I'm letting the AI govern my cities (set at happiness and production) - and they haven't a clue most of the time).

Another big difference between my game and Catt's is that there was never much chance of the 3 of us on the continent of getting our respective act together on the tech front. The Aztecs declared war on the Vikings 3 times - and the Vikings are getting slaughtered. They are no longer a viable civ in my game and are contributing nothing to the research effort.

This, and the uber-Russians conspired to ensure I was pissing against the wind in this particular game. Like I've said before, it's no way indicative of my usual huge map game, but I do see it happening quite a lot.

I've only had one scientific leader also - in my french game. I got it with democracy, was one turn from building Bachs then next turn afterwards I built Smiths. I've got my doubts whether anyone will use Scientific Leaders to boost research in a city for 20 turns.

[Catt]

10 turns after your save, I'm 1 tech from the industrial era. I have a more powerful military. I have a better culture. I have the Aztecs in my back pocket. You've got a bigger population and haven't had a GA yet.

22 turns after my save (your posted save) you’re two required techs away from the Industrial Age, and your infrastructure means that, if you’ve been playing it out as you apparently did before, those two techs will take you approximately 100 turns to research on your own. This is true whether you come out of anarchy into Republic, Monarchy, or Feudalism. If you undertake some “dodgy” moves like disbanding most of your spears and pikes, and selling off a bunch of improvements, and then taking control of your citizens to eliminate entertainers in favor of scientists and taxmen, you might get that total time down to around 40 - 50 turns. Turning off research and fighting instead might be your best bet, but again this is supposed to be a “peace” game.

In my save, if I never build another culture improvement, and none of my existing culture improvements hits the 1000 year mark and doubles output, I’ll have quite a bit more culture than you do by the time I reach 950 AD, the date of your save. Considering that I’ll also complete quite a few universities before then (and I am far too lazy to see if I have any doubling coming up soon), I think it is safe to assume that I’ll exceed your total culture by a wide margin when I get to 950 AD.

Then again, that military was built in a few turns in order to capture the GL from the Aztecs. Mission accomplished. The only reason I did it was because I was sound in infrastructure but falling behind in tech.

So you built those 56 spears and pikes, and a bunch of regular warriors, for your Aztec campaign? And did so in a few turns? And you felt the best tactical use of such units was to fortify them in groups of 2 or 3 in cities 20+ tiles from the Aztec border?

The fastest way for me to get construction was to take the GL.

In your pure peacemonger game, the fastest way to Construction was conquering the neighboring GL rather than researching, and you’re in the late AD years?

That's utter rubbish Catt. There was *nothing* I could have done to stop the Russians from running away with that game. They didn't do it in your game because they got unlucky - being an expansionist civ that's the breaks.

Really? Nothing? You couldn’t have gifted techs and gold to the Russians’ neighbors if you thought the Russians were growing too strong? I’m sure bringing a neighbor up to Chivalry against the Russians might have slowed the Russian dominance on the other continent?

Take the Russians out of my game and I'm doing pretty well. I'd be leading the tech, close to leading the culture and have my nearest neighbours running scared of me.

But you want to play culture and peace! You’re nowhere near the tech lead (despite temporary position), and you’ll only fall back rapidly from here. Your tech position comes only because you went on the offensive – something your entire playstyle is supposed to disavow! Absent the Great Library built near your border (within easy reach), you’re still in the ancient age in the 900’s AD

That is just nonsense Catt. I really hope you don't think that by simply sacrificing 15 ships in order to cross the ocean, you somehow affected the performance of the Russians. You didn't - the Russians didn't get the uber-start they did in my game. You got lucky.

I’ll repeat from above -- you couldn’t have gifted techs and gold to the Russians’ neighbors if you thought the Russians were growing too strong? I’m sure bringing a neighbor up to Chivalry against the Russians might have slowed the Russian dominance on the other continent?

I think my position is better actually. If I'd 'optimally played' the game I'd be in an ever better position. The Russians won't attack me, and if they do it'll be nothing I can't cope with (because I've got a decent military).

It’s not about a better position – it’s about playing peacefully or not. That said, your military is no help – what are all those spears and pikes going to do for you if the Russians come? Fortify bravely in cities? Your military is all defense; the little offense you have is south. Forget what your military advisor says – you’re weak as hell militarily, and the retreating Aztec forces that you faced just before making peace and posting the save, testify to it.

Most importantly, there is only one power on my continent in my game - me. Yours is the same, but it's not you - it's the Aztecs. I could easily sweep through the whole continent if I desired, but the point of this game was to win on culture.

Hey! – there’s an interesting challenge. Please play on from your 950 AD save and post a later save showing how you “swept through the whole continent” and please pay particular attention to how you did so “easily.” I’d love to see that AAR. Please post it.

But guess what – I could also present a military challenge to my continent. All it would take was deviating from the entire point of this challenge (peaceful play) and to go on the offensive.

Maybe you need to consider that in my game, I'm :-

Further ahead in tech than you.
Better placed on my own continent (militarily, tech and culturally) than any of my rivals.
Have a higher culture value than you do.
Have almost twice the military you do.

I did consider it but didn’t have to. As noted above, you’re simply misstating facts here on the forums; if you actually believe that my position is weaker than yours, you’re If you want to change the objectives of the challenge now, I’d say that’s moving the goalposts a bit, and doing so unfairly. But if I have until 950 AD (as is your save), I’ll put myself in any or all positions you want. You suddenly want to compare games, after you’ve gone conquering, and you also want to take a static picture at 950 AD after you’ve been forced into a peace treaty; you’re in anarchy; and any of Republic, Monarchy, or Feudalism doesn’t do a thing for you, because your empire is set up in a way as if to deny any opportunity; you enjoy a temporary position of relative tech parity due to the recent capture of the GL and the fortuitous contact with the Russians; a tech position that you can’t retain unless you conquer your neighbors and radically alter your existing empire; the French, Byzantines, Russians should all rapidly distance themselves from you; and it wouldn’t surprise me if others currently far back technologically quickly overtook you absent some radical changes in your approach.

I’m usually a fairly good-natured poster (at least I like to think so), and I would almost never launch into a harsh critique of another’s posted game even if they asked, but:

By all means check out the save and tell me exactly what I could have done in order to win that game through culture.

Following that quote you attempt to reject any and all advice offered (revisit asleepatthewheel’s lone attempt to offer feedback and your responses and then your reposnse to my post offering a mild critique!). All your energy is spent on disputing the advice!

Even if I were completely wrong in believing that I am generally a fairly good-natured poster, I’d readily admit that you bring out the very, very worst in me, inducing me to respond in ways that are impolite and unfriendly – you insist on certain views, and then do everything you can to weaken any challenge to your views no matter how uncivil (attacking a poster personally; insisting certain circumstances mean others cannot comprehend what you understand intimately); you refuse to address any counterpoint, even when the counterpoint calls into question the fundamental thesis of your own thread, and instead try to take the conversation off in different directions (a new French game? Your militaristic Celt game versus my pure peace save?; civ traits discussion?); you misstate (whether unknowingly or deliberately who knows?) basic facts (the tech and cultural status of your game and my posted save). Are you unable or unwilling to talk a straight game?

How do you ignore the fact that your challenge in this thread was about playing peacefully on Emperor, or on huge map Emperor?

To repeat, with emphasis:

This thread is titled, by you, “Emperor level needs a rethink.” You put forth the opinion that Emperor level foreclosed playing in certain ways. After being challenged on your conclusions, you rephrased it as “[m]y comments on Emperor level should probably be taken as meaning 'Emperor on a huge map'. Try it, and keep trying it - you'll soon see just how horrendous it is.” After being challenged further, you confirmed “I erred at first in assuming most people played on huge maps. However, my comments ARE valid on Emperor level on huge maps.” In the same post, you conclude “Perhaps Emperor level doesn't need a rethink, but Emperor level on a Huge map does.” You were challenged still, and others even provided links to posted games on Emperor or higher, including huge map games, which were played peacefully. You ignored them and posted an example start that would prove that peaceful play was not possible on Emperor.

Your thesis, repeated in this thread a dozen times or more, is that Emperor level prevents peaceful play. Alternatively, your thesis is that Emperor level on a huge map prevents peaceful play. How do you address evidence to the contrary? Do you even address it or do you just ignore it?

My goodness! Wait until Aeosn posts some results. He went to the effort to actually colonize the south; and he's a much better player than most (including me, without question). I suspect he has more self-control than I am displaying now, and will post results in a neutral manner rather than calling you on your BS statements throughout this thread.

Catt

[Dominae]

It's the holidays (around here, anyway). How about we all come back to this "discussion" in a couple of weeks?

Enjoy the beta patch.


Dominae