The Difference Between Good and Great Players

[StrategicKingMi]

Ok, why is it that I can win on 1 x 1 deity (if I have a mental lapse and decide to play it with as much no-doze as the local 7-11 can supply me) yet you 1 x 1 deity players are helpless on a 2 x 2 king game and just wont win a game where huts and land are even or hell slightly in your favor????
There is nothing that tough about playing 1 x 1 deity. I am sorry, you know 80% of the obasticales at the beging of the game.
In 2 x 2 king...you dont know the obsticales to winning because they are generated by a human brain and are different game to game. The number of move combinations are stagering.
In 1 x 1 deity, you dont have very many units outside your city, you cant move horses 4 spaces, you cant move catapults 2 spaces. Simply put, all you have is a very set group of restrictions that does not change.
The number of combinations of different move possibilities is extremely limited.
And as far as raging horses and barbs popping up here and there, I got to laugh if you think this is a good thing...
One thing that can not be argued about civ , is that the computer generated random elements such as huts and starting positions and AI movings are , in a word -non-sensical..... A civ in the lead, gets 2 free citys from huts the other civ get an empty and warior code...game probably over....
One civ starts in a valley with many rivers and whales, other player starts in woods with no rivers no specials and have to climb over 3 rungs of rough terrign..again..game over before you start the game due to the computer having control over the game and not making it playable.
Question.....:
With the track record of the programing of civ 2, do you want to allow the computer to have more imput or less?

[Alexander's Horse]

Is anybody reading this drivel?

[rah]

I have yet to see many dedicated 1x1x players in this thread. Why do you keep assuming that's what we play?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by rah
I have yet to see many dedicated 1x1x players in this thread. Why do you keep assuming that's what we play?

Because I don't care what you play

[StrategicKingMi]

Well, then for godsake, someone step up to the plate and play a 2 x 2 king, island board game.
Why is it that you people think that an all one cont, no island board is a hard way to play???????????????
Sorry, that is a rookie way to play. Islands force so many more decisions to be made, so many more strategies.
On an all one cont board all you need do is kick out the horses and gather huts, ZZZzzzzzzzzzz...rookies...jeezzze thats the way I played all the time 3 years ago. I got to believe that some have evolved since then... but seeing the collective intelect here, maybe you people are nothing more then one cell organsims......

[rah]

We do it so things happen quickly. Island maps just delay contact. (and makes LH way too important) This is the way we LIKE playing. It has nothing to do with evolving into the false godhood that some claim. It's called FUN.

I personally think cats moving two turns is ridiculous and streaching what little realism one can pretend there is in the game past the breaking point. BUT THAT"S JUST MY OPINION.

And all you can do is say zzzzzz. rookies... jeeezzze.

No one is right or wrong when it comes to settings, and throwing a hisssy fit trying to insult people will have absoluting no effect. It makes you sound like a three year old.
You have more class than that.

Different strokes for different strokes.

RAH

And I haven't seen anybody here jump up and say playing you is FUN. Bragging and slow turns isn't Fun in my book.

It's only a game.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by rah

And I haven't seen anybody here jump up and say playing you is FUN. Bragging and slow turns isn't Fun in my book.

It's only a game.

I fully agree. The real difference between a good player and a great player is not skill at all but whether they are an enjoyable playing partner. This is a social activity.

[ramses II.]

I just build some wonders to prevent the AI building them. And they count 20 points in the final score.
In my last game (deity, 7 civs, raging, map 125x80) I build 25 wonders. My monitor always looks like a camel breeding farm ...but I wouldn't miss a single wonder. But I'm a "bad" player.

I think a good player knows the advantages of vet units, especially of vets spies ...
You cannot produce a lot with size-1-cities (that had poisoned to this size by my "sun tzus always sucks"-vet spies). And you'll not earn a lot with camels from size-1-cities delivered to size 1 cities (they'll never reach my cities!).
And your research will be down on the floor.

Sometimes I let my cities be bribed only to weaken the treasury of my enemies. Then it's my turn to bribe. I have already managed to conquer the world without firing a shot.

StrategicKingMi would call me a bad player. Should I be proud of that?

[Hydey]

Originally posted by ramses II.
StrategicKingMi would call me a bad player. Should I be proud of that?

I don't think it would be a bad thing

[Messer Niccolò]

Originally posted by ramses II.
StrategicKingMi would call me a bad player. Should I be proud of that?

I don't think StrategicKingMi will call you a player at all .
You're talking about SP strategies and AFAIK he was referring to MP players.
In SP you can handle the game in various ways in MP life is harder 'cause you don't have a dumb AI to beat but (I suppose) a more efficient adversary...
And I don't care if SKMi will call me player or not, I've already won $50 on the Eyes vs Strat match (which, of course, has never been played )[and thanks Hydey for the $50 loan ].

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by ramses II.

You cannot produce a lot with size-1-cities (that had poisoned to this size by my "sun tzus always sucks"-vet spies).

Does Sun Tzu make your newly built spies vets?

I thought it didn't and only being in Communism did, but as I (more than) rarely build Sun Tzu (too bad it's not enough to be called a great player ), I haven't checked that...

[ramses II.]

No -but's easier to get them. Try to damage an enemy unit .... Try to poison water etc etc.

[ramses II.]

@Messer Niccolò
No, StrategicKingMi wasn't reffering especially to MP players. In MP games, you need a totally different strategy than in SP. And the strategy depends on the map size and other parameters, too (huge continents or archipelago, lots of mountains or fertile land and so on). Sometimes your strategy depends on the start techs. Or the first huts you open. I had had games where I owed 5 cities in 3600 BC ... advanced tribes.

[Dank]

I see that Strat. is stirring the pot again....lol...someone just play him on his settings....I have to kinda agree with him...he does make some good points but he comes off as being a know-it-all.....all in all....he's still better than Eyes is in telling stuff...

[Ming]

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
There is nothing that tough about playing 1 x 1 deity. I am sorry, you know 80% of the obasticales at the beging of the game.

Huh... making up a meaningless and incorrect statistic doesn't make you sound smart about the game, it makes you look desperate

In 2 x 2 king...you dont know the obsticales to winning because they are generated by a human brain and are different game to game. The number of move combinations are stagering.

If this is so true, why do you always use the same strategy... Doesn't sound to different from game to game to me

In 1 x 1 deity, you dont have very many units outside your city, you cant move horses 4 spaces, you cant move catapults 2 spaces.

Such enlightment... DUH

Simply put, all you have is a very set group of restrictions that does not change.

The same holds true for 2x movement... DUH

And as far as raging horses and barbs popping up here and there, I got to laugh if you think this is a good thing...

Yes, it is a good thing... It forces you to build a proper defense. Your strategy is based on being left alone, so I can understand why you think it's silly.

One thing that can not be argued about civ , is that the computer generated random elements such as huts and starting positions and AI movings are , in a word -non-sensical...

While even somebody that is brain dead can agree that huts and barbs are random... random starting positions is the norm for any settings so there already is going to be luck no matter what. It's all a part of the game... so calling it non-sensical is really silly

A civ in the lead, gets 2 free citys from huts the other civ get an empty and warior code...game probably over....
One civ starts in a valley with many rivers and whales, other player starts in woods with no rivers no specials and have to climb over 3 rungs of rough terrign..again..game over before you start the game. due to the computer having control over the game and not making it playable.

This is true at any settings... your point?

Sorry, that is a rookie way to play. Islands force so many more decisions to be made, so many more strategies.

Not really... control the seas, and build trade routes... only one real strategy... Doesn't sound like you even need to think or consider other strategies

On an all one cont board all you need do is kick out the horses and gather huts

Actually... there are a lot more different strategies available... for starters, you have the choice of going after the other players vs just an isolation game. Your settings makes that next to impossible early in the game... so in reality, the settings you like are the limiting one.

ZZZzzzzzzzzzz...rookies... jeezzze thats the way I played all the time 3 years ago. I got to believe that some have evolved since then... but seeing the collective intelect here, maybe you people are nothing more then one cell organsims......

Hmmm... your way or no way... people that disagree are dumber than you are... Real logic there... HA HA HA HA HA HA

You do have many valid points, but by making statements like that, it just destroys much of your credibility...