Emperor level needs a rethink.

[Arrian]

Everyone has to choose the extent to which they will adapt their playstyle to improve. Personally, I remain a Monarch player precisely because there are things I do not like to do to play on a higher level and acheive the same level of success I'm used to - mostly to do with city spacing, but also wonder building and other things.

However, I recognize that it is my playstyle, coupled with my expectations, that results in difficulties up on Emperor.

That was Catt's point to you. And I fail to see how he was in the wrong here. This probably also stems from the fact that I've known Catt on these forums for a while, and have known him to be a reasonable and knowledgeable poster.

In other words, I think you've misjudged his intention and character. Probably because of, as you put it, your defensiveness towards criticism.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Hey, we've all got our hotpoints, pet peeves, peccadillos (sp?), and idiosyncracies.

Jeem may be combative at times, but this has led to some interesting discussions. And I made a promise to myself a LOOONG time ago not to argue with Catt the Lawyer. I hope you guys can cool it a little bit, review, and LEARN.

Let's settle down and play a little C3C/BETA.

And Aeson, sweet jay-sus, where did that treatise come from? WOW. If it's OK with you, I am going to link to it in the Winning Early thread.

[Aeson]

Well, I think I've just about said all I know. (that was a very long post ).

I feel for you on the point that there are gaps in the difficulty spectrum, and being inbetween them in prefered playstyle does take some of the enjoyment out of the game. Emperor-Deity gap was always a problem for most of us, which got us the new difficulty level of Demi-god. So maybe if enough people want a Monarch-Emperor level it will happen.

Otherwise, if it really is a big deal, perhaps just edit one of the difficulty levels you never play to give Monarch AI bonuses and use Emperor corruption, or vice versa.

-------------------

It seems the new patch helps the player a bit. Only played part of a game with it (continued this one as it's an interesting map/playstyle combination), but corruption is a little less of a problem so far with the new patch. The gpt bug being fixed means the AI won't have such huge treasuries.

Here's my game up to now, just about to finish The Republic. Grabbed the Pyramids, Mausollos, The Great Library, and Zeus so far. Good chance at The Great Wall and Hanging Gardens, no shot at Artemis I'm afraid, and the cascade from it will likely hit Sun Tzu at least (really the only danger I see for The Great Wall and Hanging Gardens). I could have cut into my expansion a lot and gotten the Collosus or Lighthouse for sure, but both would have been impossible. Aztecs will love having traded me that Ivory later!.

Aztecs are expanding much faster than they did the first time around, and it seems to have kicked in when I switched to the beta patch. Probably just coincidence. I'm going to hold back Literature as long as possible this time to keep the AI's culture down.

Playing this way will require the trimming of at least one civ for Cultural victory I think. Not to keep their culture down so much as to get some extra room for new cities. I'm almost 1000 culture back where I was before building Artemis in the other game already.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Arrian
In other words, I think you've misjudged his intention and character. Probably because of, as you put it, your defensiveness towards criticism.

-Arrian

That's your viewpoint and your welcome to it Arrian. I feel I've been pretty open to suggestion from other quarters (esp Aeson's excellent gameplay tips) and somehow, only Catt has managed to get me slightly irritated.

I'm quite convinced there is a clash of personalities involved. That requires two people, not one. Perhaps Catt is used to people fawning over him and meekly accepting all his 'head banging' posts, but I am not that type of person. That is what I personally believe is happening here.

There are ways to criticise, and ways not to criticise. Aeson has it figured perfectly. Catt has it figured poorly, if not at all.

[Theseus]

Nah, I've seen Catt posting for a long time, and this really hasn't been indicative of his style. You've just been rubbing him the wrong way (me TOO, at times, as I've posted!).

Not the end of the world. Again, Jeem, your contributions are great... but... ah, I've said it already.

You are, however, specifically disallowed from (this is historical 'poly stuff): 1) b*tching about culture flipping; 2) claiming to have invented the Horse Rush in MP; or 3) posting anything in 733t.

Edit: Oh, and one more: Claiming to reliably get GLs in the first 30 turns of every game.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Everyone has to choose the extent to which they will adapt their playstyle to improve. Personally, I remain a Monarch player precisely because there are things I do not like to do to play on a higher level and acheive the same level of success I'm used to - mostly to do with city spacing, but also wonder building and other things.

However, I recognize that it is my playstyle, coupled with my expectations, that results in difficulties up on Emperor.

If I may say so, I think there is a very close comparison here between us. I can see your point on Monarch vs Emperor because the gap is absolutely massive IMO. It seems to me that the game gets serious at Emperor level. Seriously out of whack in many respects.

I know what you mean about wonders. Early wonders are a pipe dream on Emperor, save a good start or some serious 'hard' playing by the player. The only reason I play Emperor is because I find Monarch to be just too easy. As I mentioned much earlier in this thread, you can often get a more enjoyable game on Monarch.

I think Aeson's point in adding a level between Monarch and Emperor is a good one. Then again, it's not that much different from my first statement on this thread - now that Sid has been added, perhaps a rebalancing of all the levels could be in order? If you find one too easy, up to the next.

I dunno the exact stats on the changes between levels, but it seems to me that the difference between Monarch and Emperor is the biggest by far. Emperor level is where the early unhappiness kicks in - that's a major difference in itself. The corruption problems add a further difference. Then there's the AI build bonus, which makes the Culture game a nigh-impossibility without utilising exploits.

My biggest problem with Emperor is actually the 'fun factor' in the early game. The AI is too willing to trade, too powerful in military and infrastructure in the ancient era. But, if I can make it to the Industrial era, I'm going to win. It seems that the early game is all about survival - missing out on wonders, expanding asap etc. This hurts a cultural/builder game played 'normally'. I can see why a Monarch level player would be content to stick with it, because you don't feel that the early era is all about getting through it in one piece. Is this a fair comment?

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Nah, I've seen Catt posting for a long time, and this really hasn't been indicative of his style. You've just been rubbing him the wrong way (me TOO, at times, as I've posted!).

I appreciate that. This whole thing started because of others comments on the 4-roll thread, and the fact that we both see the game in a different way. I got really defensive on that thread because I was subjected to a myriad of negative posts - not by Catt originally, but by others. However, that whole thread turned into me vs Catt and by then it was getting too close to personalities for me.

That's why I tried to put an end to it. I did try - it's there for all to see. I thought that was that until Catt ressurected this thread again. I am not going to meekly fall into line everytime Catt disagrees with me and I really do think that by flipping back a page, you will see that Catt's reaction to my 'pretty similar game' comment was OTT.

You are, however, specifically disallowed from (this is historical 'poly stuff): 1) b*tching about culture flipping; 2) claiming to have invented the Horse Rush in MP; or 3) posting anything in 733t.

Didn't I already tell you that I was the grand-daddy of the 12-archer-vs-3-pikemen-behind-walls-rush?

[Theseus]

Yep, you get that one.

Henceforth: 'Jeeming'.

An absurd force against seemingly insurmountable odds, yet with an actually better-than-expected chance of winning ( :smirk: Applicable in a *variety* of situations. ).

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Yep, you get that one.

Henceforth: 'Jeeming'.

An absurd force against seemingly insurmountable odds, yet with an actually better-than-expected chance of winning ( :smirk: Applicable in a *variety* of situations. ).

I'm still claiming it. Don't anyone even try to argue it was their idea first!

Next in line is the Musketeer/Mountain tactic. In this one, you play the French and the AI ignores your units until Cav you so long as you never, ever leave the mountain. I think there is a real potential for French/Mountain starts and very late game GA's here.

[vmxa1]

Jeem I would bet that if you started to use pumps and camps, you would soon be able to get a few ancient wonders. I find it is not hard to get at least one and often two.

This is without any prebuild type moves, other than a handfull of turns. If you created a coastal city as the 2nd or 3rd city, you can usually get colossus and one main wonder (pyramids or Gl).

If you want Pyramids, you need to have the tech as your start tech or it gets very hard. Slap down a mine on a shield grassland and have a forrest, that will get you rolling. If you can hook up one lux, then you have to consider getting a temple to allow more citizens working.
You should be able to have 5 workers yielding 10 shields plus the city square.

One camp can really keep the AI off your back or at least make it wish it had left you alone. The second city is best for a camp, but the 3rd will work.

BTW if you do not like Emp, you will really hate Demi. 2 extra defenders, 1 extra offensive unit, 1 extra type 1 and 2 units (workers and settlers). 4 extra free support units, 1 more bonus for each city and on and on. Note these are only in comparison to Emp stuff. So it is 9 troops and 3 workers/settlers to start.

Very nasty if you are next to one of the civs that can get archers as starting units.

[dexters]

Nice discussion. I'm just going to comment on the thread starter post and give my 2 cents.

I think the whole AI bonus scheme needs a rethink (too late for Civ3, but hopefully for Civ4). A mild AI bonus on the harder levels is ok, but currently, on the highest difficulty, the AI bonuses are just insane and forces humans to play insanely strange gambits and strategies designed to beat the AI bonus and not the AI itself.

That's why I was scratching my head with Firaxis when they decided to add Sid level difficulty. It's no longer about having a vicious AI go toe to toe with the human player it feels much more like one of those one dude vs. an army of millions games where the order of the day is attrition and more attrition and the only gameplay is thinning down the enemy troops until you get to the final castle and then kill some more troops.

What is really needed is some sort of autopatcher system (hopefully for Civ4) that allows Firaxis to upload small tweaks and updates to the AI from time to time, and feed the AI new moves. And perhaps even go the opposite and allow the game to upload player moves that Firaxis can then sort out and study to see if there are oft used (unreported) moves that exploit AI weaknesses and then fix those. Constant improvement to make the AI genuinely more difficult and smarter, and not simply give it an overwhelming numbers advantage is really what we need in the next generation.

[Catt]

Emperor level, on a huge map, played 'normally' is proving to be one hell of a challenge in a lot of games. Maybe that's the way it should be, but my original point was 'Now that Sid level has been added, I feel the game could be a bit friendlier to Emperor level players'.

In other words, do a few minor tweaks to turn current demi-god into emperor as it is now (as Aeson said, playing my way I *should* lose most games at emperor), and change the current emperor to be a little less harsh to the mere mortal.

That’s all I’ve been asking for in each of my posts – that you actually address your own thesis – they very topic of this thread. This is the first time you’ve actually addressed the thread topic in a very long time.

Based on my own personal preferences, the AI has too many advantages on a huge map.

I don’t know what that means, but someone else can probe; I think I’ve had enough of this topic.

Oh, and BTW Catt - I do think your ressurecting of this thread was 'driven by less than pristine motives'.

I was prepared to let this one go, just like I've let the 4-roll thread go. I mentioned in that thread that I wouldn't carry on any disagreements there onto other threads.

Your reaction to my suggestion that your game and mine were pretty similar to a point suggests to me that the whole point of ressurecting this thread was to in some way demean me - if you look at what I said there is no reason for your reaction.

Sorry you feel that way. I’m not going to engage in any further long quote & counterquote bits, but here is a summary of our discussion, from my viewpoint: Jeem posts opinion. Others weigh in with differing views. Jeem holds his ground. Jeem then opines that others’ views are not applicable because extensive huge map play is required prior to offering an opinion. Facing further dissenting opinion, Jeem posts a save game saying in effect: this game proves that peaceful play is impossible at Emperor on a huge map. Jeem also posts a 4000 BC save of the same game saying play this first and then I’ll listen to you. So Catt actually plays the game. Catt posts his intermediate results, with very little commentary on his game. A good portion of that post deals only with the thread topic – emperor “brokenness” for a peaceful player – and Catt’s opinion on that topic (after he’d “paid his entry fee” by playing the game). Catt did not comment on Jeem’s game at all (indeed hadn't even looked at it yet). Jeem asks for a save. Catt posts it. Jeem views Catt’s save and posts comments. Catt believes Jeem’s conclusions are wildly off the mark and responds with his own comparison of relative position; but Catt again reiterates that the thread topic is “peaceful emperor – doable or not.” Jeem continues with dissection of both games and misstates numerous actual ingame facts. Catt interprets Jeem’s post as implicitly arguing that actually playing a peaceful, huge map, emperor game, even one posted as “play this or there’s no point in discussing,” to a position of ingame leadership doesn’t actually have any bearing on the thread topic – it musn’t, because Jeem doesn’t ever address the thread topic. Catt’s interest is perked when Jeem quote’s Catt’s fundamental point and challenge – that peaceful play on emperor huge map was achieved – but dumbfounded when Jeem’s response has nothing, nothing to do with the quote or the thread topic – it is another comparison of Jeem’s results. Catt posts again specifically on the thread topic and nothing more. Catt finally responds to Jeem’s interpretation of his own game, and corrects misstatements. Catt repeatedly points out that the point is peaceful play on emperor huge, and that a multitude of Jeem’s commentary has nothing to do with that topic. Catt, for the third or fourth time, posts his request for Jeem to actually address the thread topic instead of save games. Jeem responds with a long post (to counter Catt’s long posts ) – but again, never addresses the fundamental point; Jeem is still focusing on saved games and has nothing to say about his own thread topic and the very reason Catt actually spent any time playing the damn game in the first place.

Rereading the thread now, I still don’t think I’m reading it from a very skewed perspective – yours and others’ views may differ.

If my goal was to demean you, I would’ve posted a save, provided numerous comparisons between your game and mine, and clamored on loudly about how you screwed up X, Y, or Z. I didn’t – I posted a very brief summary of the state of my game, a paragraph on how I expected the game to play out, and a paragraph of similar length on how, if at all, my previously expressed opinions on the thread topic had changed now that I had “passed the test” by actually playing your huge map game. You asked for the save; you commented on the games; you focused exclusively on the games and various approaches / tactics / strategies / ingame AI curiousities. I only responded when I felt you were either: (i) off the mark with your conclusions about the difference between games; or (ii) clearly misstated actual facts.

I'd rather we got on a bit better. That starts with you getting of your high-horse and me being a bit less defensive towards criticism.

Sorry, I’ll try to be more sensitive to sounding as if I’m on a high horse.

Perhaps Catt is used to people fawning over him and meekly accepting all his 'head banging' posts, but I am not that type of person. That is what I personally believe is happening here.

I am going to try this one last time (after trying it several times, unsuccessfully, in the 4-roll thread). If you want to get on better with me then actually address arguments, opinions, and facts (particularly those that are on-topic). Making comments about a poster (me or anyone else) or his/her “motives,” especially when the only information you have to rely on is your own “guess” as to what might underlie another’s opinion, is both intellectually immature and thoroughly insulting. And that’s just for ordinary comments on those subjects – making insulting comments about a poster or “suspected motives” is just about the worst f*cking stink bomb you can drop into a discussion. I’ll jump on you or others who behave this way in the future; if that makes it seem as if I’m on a high horse then so be it – I have no intention of putting up with that sort of bullsh*t just to come off as Mr. Nice Guy and Humble Pie wrapped into one.

Catt

[dexters]

I don't want to butt into a debate but I want to make a comment about Catt's character.

I've been a regular on and off for a good 2+ years now and Catt is one of the most agreeable and helpful posters you can come across.

On one occasion, there was the appearance that we were arguing indirectly across several threads and I got a nice PM IN my box explaining that whatever disagreements we had were not personal and welcomed me back (this was after my return after C3C's release last month)

Disagreements happen, egos gets bruised. Sometimes we may have spoken too soon only to discover we might be wrong. Whatever the case here (and I don't know the specifics) lets work this out without having to attack the person. And judging from the passion of your posts Jeem , poly certainly has a nice poster in its community. Dont' let this disagreement with Catt sour you on the rest on the community and coming here.


... and Merry Christmas.

[Jeem]

{donning my best anti-defensiveness hat}

Originally posted by Catt
That’s all I’ve been asking for in each of my posts – that you actually address your own thesis – they very topic of this thread. This is the first time you’ve actually addressed the thread topic in a very long time.

I was going to start this paragraph with - 'Actually Catt, ...' but decided that was probably too combatitive.

However, I have to say that this thread has metamorphed into something well beyond my original point. There are parts in it that have nothing to do with my original point, from both you and myself. For instance, you repeatedly questioned my Celt game on the basis that I was trying out a 'cultural peacenik' game when in fact I didn't say that was the point. When I reiterated many times that this was a pure test game (which started on another thread), you continued with the 'culture, peacenik' point.

On the other hand, my reasons for posting the Celt save were purely to show just how mental the AI can get on huge maps at emperor level. I should have made that clearer, but instead got embroiled in more nonsense that detracted from my initial point.

I did not comment on your game except to ask your opinion on the (what seems to me) wasted shields on galley sinking. I offered a comment to another poster that there really isn't a huge deal of difference in our games, save one or two major differences in the way the AI played it out. Anyone checking both maps will see that we have both placed our cities in almost identical fashion - the AI has also placed it's cities in almost identical fashion too.

I don't believe your response to that was merited. You stated that you rarely give criticism of other posters games unless asked, but in this case you ripped into my game and offered 'advice' that was neither valid (for my game) nor asked for. I responded by pointing out some hard stats about both game positions, and you responded with theoretical discussion of how the games would compare at a future date.

If my goal was to demean you, I would’ve posted a save, provided numerous comparisons between your game and mine, and clamored on loudly about how you screwed up X, Y, or Z.

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. You posted a save, and clamored on loudly about how I screwed up X,Y and Z. You didn't provide any comparisons because at that stage they would have been seen to be unfavourable. That's just my PoV, and that's why *I* posted some comparisons.

...If at all, my previously expressed opinions on the thread topic had changed now that I had “passed the test” by actually playing your huge map game.

Well, you actually held me to task regarding my 'culture peacenik' game that I was supposedly playing, even though I'd pointed out that it was nothing more than a test on agr/rel civs and rush building culture improvements ASAP. There was nothing said about the differences from level-level, and at this stage I had long forgotten what the original post was meant to be about.

You asked for the save; you commented on the games; you focused exclusively on the games and various approaches / tactics / strategies / ingame AI curiousities. I only responded when I felt you were either: (i) off the mark with your conclusions about the difference between games; or (ii) clearly misstated actual facts.

Nah. You haven't once mentioned that the Russians are all but unstoppable in this game. The whole point of me posting this save game in this thread was to show how the Russians went ape, and how it can happen in Huge map games (but I stated I wasn't saying it was a typical huge map game more than once.)

Sorry, I’ll try to be more sensitive to sounding as if I’m on a high horse.

In order to address this, you first need to admit to it. I am well aware of my many faults Catt, and this in turn helps me to notice others' even when they do not.

I am going to try this one last time (after trying it several times, unsuccessfully, in the 4-roll thread). If you want to get on better with me then actually address arguments, opinions, and facts (particularly those that are on-topic). Making comments about a poster (me or anyone else) or his/her “motives,” especially when the only information you have to rely on is your own “guess” as to what might underlie another’s opinion, is both intellectually immature and thoroughly insulting. And that’s just for ordinary comments on those subjects – making insulting comments about a poster or “suspected motives” is just about the worst f*cking stink bomb you can drop into a discussion.

You were the one who brought up the 'less than pristine motives' part Catt - not me. In my experience, anyone who starts a point mentioning this does have less than pristine motives at heart - otherwise, why bother? It must have entered your own mind that this was the case, otherwise you wouldn't have stated it first.

I’ll jump on you or others who behave this way in the future; if that makes it seem as if I’m on a high horse then so be it – I have no intention of putting up with that sort of bullsh*t just to come off as Mr. Nice Guy and Humble Pie wrapped into one.

Catt

Glad to hear it. I'm sure the 'dark side of Catt' is providing much enjoyment for others here who don't usually see you acting in this fashion. I'm pretty sure they can make up their own minds regardless of chest-beating though, so I'll leave it to them to do so.

I have little or no interest in continuing with this ****e Catt. You're a good poster when you don't get too irate with a bit of banter and I'll continue to treat each post you make on it's own merits. Can you do the same with me? I've already made it clear that is my preference. If not, then hell-mend you because if you think you can be stubborn and lawyery, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Merry Christmas everyone!

[Jeem]

First of all Dexters - I agree with your 'dynamic patch' idea. There is no reason why Firaxis can't fine tune the game further on the request from players who play the game at certain levels. It's not like they're getting paid to play Civ3 all day, is it? Or are they?

Originally posted by dexters
I don't want to butt into a debate but I want to make a comment about Catt's character.

I've been a regular on and off for a good 2+ years now and Catt is one of the most agreeable and helpful posters you can come across.

I've heard it so many times I can hardly disagree with it. However, this leaves only a few choices as to why Catt has been somewhat less than comely towards me in this (and the 4-roll) thread.

1) Catt has suffered a brain tumour, and is actually now 'Evil Catt'.

2) I am just a total ***** not worthy of discussion (this one will get a few votes for sure)

3) Neither of us is perfect, and there is a (minor, imo) personality clash involved.

And judging from the passion of your posts Jeem , poly certainly has a nice poster in its community. Dont' let this disagreement with Catt sour you on the rest on the community and coming here.

Heh. I keep getting this same message too! People enjoy reading my posts because at best I'm wholehearted and extremely good at lawyering points. At worst, I'm entertaining.

Has it been know for other 'opinionated' posters to dissapear from this forum in the past? I ask because of the number of times the same point - "Don't bugger off, regardless of what happens" has been brought up more than a few times.