The Difference Between Good and Great Players

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
In 2 x 2 king, most players do not garrision every city. 2 or 3 citys on a river early in the game and enemy horse starts turn on that river and *poof* there goes thoose citys.

Welcome to the wacky world of 2x2x King

I don't even know why you even bother posting your tips because most people here play 1x deity, in the Australian case with raging barbs (because we like the cash, he he). Your tips are irrelevant to the game as we play it.

[Flatlander Fox]

Well, strategic king wasn't in there when I showed...

That was maybe 7-10 mins after your post...

You didn't wait very long...

[rah]

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
Since when is explaining a lose whinning about it? There are always reasons, if someone out plays me, ill be the first to give cudos.....

Sorry Strat, didn't intend for that whinning comment to seem to be directed at you. (and since I've never played you, it would be difficult for me to ***** about you whining in a game )
I have heard a lot of whining when people lose cities early (to barbs or other players) because they put a heavier emphasis on expanding then defense. As far as I'm concerned,that's the calculated risk that they take and when it doesn't work, they shouldn't whine about it.

Glad to hear you'd be the first to give cudos, others have been known just to offer excuses.

RAH

[Hydey]

The difference between good and great players appears to be good players play the game often , win some and lose some but great players rarely play and quit games they do not get great starts in but don't count that as a loss.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ming


A great player is one who can win on any settings... not just the pinball version of civ called 2 x2 king...

Yes!
And this enthusiasm isn't directed at an individual; it just echoes what I (and my Tribe mates) have advocated all along, and War4 has been one of them.
Though he, for instance, may prefer 1x, he doesn't piss his pants over playing 2x, and that's what it's all about.
Again,

[StrategicKingMi]

You are wrong. My tips here are not "tips" at all. They are universal truths. They hold there value at 1 x 1 deity as well as 2 x 2 king.
1) low science rate, more beakers from caravans...
How can anyone argue about this in 1 x 1 deity? the extra trade bonus helps the citys happiness, the trade route payoffs are not halved thus are even more important on 1 x 1 deity.
2) fundy instead of communism in 1 x 1 deity is a no brainer. the biggest problem is unhappiness and with fundy, there is no unhappiness.
3) sun tzus always sucks, no matter 2 x 2 or 1 x 1 deity. routes still payoff pretty good in 1 x 1 so you can just as easily buy barracks.

[StrategicKingMi]

Bye the Bye...you got to love the Red Wings, they win the Stanley Cup and make yours truely alot of cash, then lose Hasek and then go out and sign Curtis Joesph .
*SMILING* WITH THE THOUGHT OF SELLING CuJo CARDS ALL THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!! and of course a repeat performance as NHL champs!!!

[rah]

I guess I suck, since I dissagree with your universal truths. If you get warrior code from a hut, STWA is not an automatic loser. (and getting warrior code from a hut isn't what I'd call rare) For 300 shields (or the cost of in gold) I don't have to bother building barracks. 7 barracks would be 280. (or the cost in gold) When I have 20+ cities in the empire, it seems like a deal, and when I get gunpowder, I don't have to rebuild them. Instead of building/buying barracks, I can be building caravans, so the trade off you claim is not that large.

When a close neighbor gets Mono. Vet pikeman are the only defense early in the game. The smaller the map, the more you need them. And since your idea of a small map is our idea of a large map, I can see why you might think differently. So feudalism is not always a wasted tech. Enough Vet crusaders will romp over phalanxes on any terrain. Vet pikeman can make the difference.

And don't discount that vet ship concept. That can make a big difference early when you're trying to jam caravans down someone's throat by sea. If it saves just one or two ships that are carrying caravans, the cost pays for itself. You yourself try to compare the benefits over time, you just don't look far enough out.

So while I agree that quite a bit of the time you are correct that it's a bad investment, it is far from a universal truth. There are circumstances where it can make sense. The good players learn to recognize the exceptions and take advantage of them instead of blindly following so called "universal truths".

RAH
I also think there are exceptions to some of your other universal truths, but I'll save those for another day. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that there are exceptions.
CIV IS ABOUT ADAPTING TO THE GAME SITUATION.

[Ming]

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
Bye the Bye...you got to love the Red Wings, they win the Stanley Cup and make yours truely alot of cash, then lose Hasek and then go out and sign Curtis Joesph .
*SMILING* WITH THE THOUGHT OF SELLING CuJo CARDS ALL THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!! and of course a repeat performance as NHL champs!!!

Congrats to the Owners of the Wings and to the Detroit Fans. I only wish that The Black Hawks owner would do what is needed to bring a winner here.

I have to disagree that they are universal truths. Again, all trade strategies can be disrupted by aggressive neighboors and people who kill caravans or ships on site. Playing with Raging Hordes... or having a neighboor next to you that won't let you get away with not defending your cities is part of the game...
So they aren't universal

And as far as sun tzus goes... I don't think anybody races to it... or considers it a must. In that, I will agree with you. However, in some multiperson games (4 or more) it can be very useful. I hear you on your reasoning... but it doesn't fit every situation. If you are cornered early, or early aggression is your only strategy path left... why not. If you get locked out of the better wonders by other players, at least it is something. It's ability to turn any unit into a vet after combat makes slightly better than just having barracks.

[Caesar the Great]

2x2x... king... zone...

you must know exactly what you're talking about

[atawa]

Originally posted by rah
I guess I suck, since I dissagree with your universal truths. If you get warrior code from a hut, STWA is not an automatic loser. (and getting warrior code from a hut isn't what I'd call rare) For 300 shields (or the cost of in gold) I don't have to bother building barracks. 7 barracks would be 280. (or the cost in gold) When I have 20+ cities in the empire, it seems like a deal, and when I get gunpowder, I don't have to rebuild them. Instead of building/buying barracks, I can be building caravans, so the trade off you claim is not that large.

The 6 caravans that you use to buils ST will get you enough beakers for at least 3/4 techs witch is very powerfull this early in the game.

Also with the money from the initial routes and the bonus each turn you'll be making enough extra money to buy baracks in all the city's you need.

I have to agree with strate on this one

[War4ever]

yes...and while your getting your techs....my dips are taking them......especially in single continent worlds....

the diplomat is the even upper.....and it comes real early

[atawa]

On a 32x32 map you might get away with it , but I usualy play 50x60 island maps, with all that money from the traderoutes I can get enough units to defend far from my city's.

[Ming]

We usually play on anywhere between 35/45 and 39/49 depending on the number of people. But it is indeed usually a single continent with only a few islands at best. You better defend yourself early... long before you get trade

[War4ever]

yes but if someone sneaks units around your perimeter..which can be done....your screwed....x2x2 king don't defend...this game isn't about not defending...

its lame to see the top five cities without defenders...thats why barbs even it out...even though they dont' really

we don't play 32 32 maps.... we play larger than that...but island games give you 1k years to build without facing adversity....how is that strategy