Announcement

**cavebear** · December 16, 2000, 14:05

I feel your pain.

One one hand, I appreciate learning things about the game that different players have discovered by careful observation and testing.

On the other hand, I miss the intuitive sense of the contest, free of the micromanagement required to keep up with those whose mathematic or note-keeping skills allow them to keep the many such factors in mind easily.

But how can it be avoided? It would require software that used some sort of built-in randomizing of the formulas used in the game. I think that would make people too frustrated and feel that too much luck was involved, like rolling dice each time.

**klesh** · December 16, 2000, 14:31

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by deity on 12-16-2000 04:06 AM</font>

I guess I've always played on an intuitive/realistic basis but the more I play with Apolytoneers the more you realise that understanding the maths model underlying the programmimg the better chance you have of winning.
But this is kind of boring too.
It's lost something.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I agree. I have never been interested in doint eqautions based on hit points and firepower etc. I just try to have fun, and develop a nice storylinein my head. Yeah so I'm not launching for AC at 3000 BC or anything, or using all those things you mentioned, but I'm having fun. Winning every single time by out-computing the computer is an exercise of monotiny (sp?)

**Lan_Rover** · December 16, 2000, 14:50

I agree, this micromanagement stuff is for the birds. I tend to stay away from multiplayer games with certain people for this very reason (eyes of night). If winning is so important that you have to use those tacktics (or cheat) I don't want to play you. I want to have fun. Some of this stuff is not cheating but does remove the fun (to my mind). Some simple programing changes would cure some of these, perhapes they could be incorporated into civ III. (hint-hint)

**Clay Pigeon** · December 16, 2000, 15:14

I wish to be the first to welcome you back to the world of the not so good players. Well for as long as this mood lasts. Where winning is not the whole game. Though i have noticed myself slipping into using the things you mention. It's a "how much is my opponent using" type of thing. If he uses, and I don't, I lose.

I'm hoping that civ.3 clears up some of these issues. The problem is that it is not a cheat if it is there, it's a "what is the sprit of the game" issue. any issue by definition is subject to a person's interpretation. Therefore the door is open. I wish the rules could be the rules without a hidden open door

I hope Civ. 3 dosen't encourage things like ICS, inc. buying, wonder trading, and micro mgn.

------------------
if i display a lack of skill, please note the enthusiasm

**Sean Leitzinger** · December 16, 2000, 15:44

I don't "micromanage". And I certainly don't use these little things you apolytoners have come up with. I'd like to kill the computer geek that came up with "ICS" as a term. I do incremental buy however. Actually I have my cities set to basically one thing and that's settlers. Then later in the game I change every single city to caravans. That's all you need for this game. Settlers and caravans. At least on 2x2x.

**cavebear** · December 16, 2000, 19:10

Sean, but isn't the world wider than "2x2"? Still, your 2x2 theory doesn't allow for the compass point horses which you also demand. Your hiding something.

**Sean Leitzinger** · December 17, 2000, 16:54

ummmm...what's there to hide? I've already given you some of my strategies on the gameleague forum. Believe it or not this game is very simple and only requires simple explanations.

**Lan_Rover** · December 18, 2000, 15:48

Hey now -don't get me wrong, I did not say that eyes was a cheater- I said I do not like his playing style. I have played him a few times, and sorry but that is not my prefered playing style, I like long games, involving tech. and personal interaction. Not an all out hunt using the "run a horse out far and see who he is closest to. Then hunt down that city and kill it - then get the next all before Any defences can be built." Just not my idea of a fun game, no offence eyes I just don't want to play that kind of game. (and that is my choice.) The cumpas horse is not cheating but I refuse to use it. I also do not trade carravans- again my choice and my playing style. My idea of a cheater is someone who hosts a game but has a modifyed rules.txt and dosen't tell any one.

**drake** · December 18, 2000, 16:24

In the case of 2x2x games versus 1x1x, here's how I compare them:

2x2x is checkers
1x1x is chess

Both great games, but one requires more sophistication and patience to be good at.......

------------------
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an off hand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way

**Lan_Rover** · December 18, 2000, 16:50

I like 1X1X for king level, but I like 1 movement and 2 production for diety level. I lack the skill and atention to detail that 1x1x diety level requires. I do not like 2 movement at any level..

**drake** · December 19, 2000, 11:50

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>I do not like 2 movement at any level
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I agree.....it makes weak units strong and strong units un-stoppable. 2x2x is strictly for the barbarians

(not that i have anything against barbarians!)

------------------
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an off hand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way

**Sean Leitzinger** · December 19, 2000, 19:32

I think Dr. Marion Tinsley said it best when he said, "Chess is like looking over a vast ocean, checkers is like looking down and endless well". Checkers is just as hard as chess and if you'd like a lesson in that I'd be happy to show you. Personally I find your analogy of chess to civlization pretty pathetic. 1x1x is for those who can only grow. 1x2x is for those who can grow and fight at the same time. And 2x2x is for those who can expand and do everything at once. It is not my fault that you can not comprehend the depth of this game. There's alot of really good 1x1x players, however I find there are only a select few really good 2x2x players. Anyone can play 1x1x. There's only so much you can do on it, especially on deity. On 2x2x there are far more factors in the game.

**Civfan** · December 19, 2000, 23:42

I thought GNP was the total trade of your empire.... Goods = 200 million. set taxes at 100% and u get 200 gold a turn..... is that so?

------------------
Civfan (Warriorsoflight)

**ml_4da3** · December 20, 2000, 20:46

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Civfan on 12-19-2000 10:42 PM</font>
I thought GNP was the total trade of your empire.... Goods = 200 million. set taxes at 100% and u get 200 gold a turn..... is that so?

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Nope.. It is like deity said..
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by ml_4da3 (edited December 20, 2000).]</font>

Announcement

Does everyone know this... ?

Does everyone know this... ?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment