Tweet
You guys keep saying this isn't a viable strategy, it's only not a viable strategy when you are forced to defend your cities due to martial law. Here is how it works...
All games have a feel to them. For example, in age of empires there is a feel to the economy of the game. No one can teach you to balance your economy properly, it's a feel that is learned over many games. It's the knowledge to know when to take 1 villager off of wood and put him on food or to leave that villager there. In civ it is no different. It is the instinct to know when to leave a city undefended or when to defend it. This is where the true skill of it comes in. You have the option to defend your cities at the loss of expansion speed. However you also risk losing your cities to horsemen. On 1x1x King you never have to worry about defending a city, ever. On deity you are forced to defend those cities because the AI doesn't give you a choice. On 2x2x King you have the option of leaving cities undefended at the risk of losing those cities to horsemen. Strategies are created through choices, when you remove choices you remove strategy. That is why civ3 has flopped completely because there is no choice in civ3, the restrictions put on the player by the designers in order to make the AI more challenging have completely destroyed the game. Deity is the closest you will ever come to civ3. I have already gone through and played deity and my challenge was that if I got HG then I would win every time. In all my games I have won every single game I got HG first and the only 1 I lost was to markus because he got HG first.
Back to the point though. Having the instinct to know where to defend and to know where to find someone who isn't defending is part of what makes me so great. I can go games completely without any units in my cities and without losing a single city because I have the instinct and the knowledge to do that. I know the most likely places people will explore, I know the least likely places people will explore, I know where I am weak and I know where I am strong and so that allows me to maximize the utilization of that knowledge. On deity...everyone must defend, I have no choice in the matter. On raging hordes...just like strat said, I could get a barbarian and you could get a city and I guarantee you with an advantage like that the game is ended immediately. You don't see this because you don't play at the level we do. I've already gone through and proven that I can't lose on deity as long as I have HG, and I've also proven that without HG the game is pretty much over if I'm playing against a good player. What have you done? You've done nothing, and every time you reply with one of your lame lines or excuses. One trick pony? No, you're the one trick pony. I have beaten everyone on every setting and I have proven the inadequacy of deity as a multiplayer setting. No hut maps with equal starting positions are the only real way to take all randomization out of the game, but it also makes the game incredibly long. Lets face it, there is noone on this site that has ever truly refuted any of my challenges or any of my claims. It always comes back to something about cheating or calling me a braggart. I enjoy that though because I know I have won.
All games have a feel to them. For example, in age of empires there is a feel to the economy of the game. No one can teach you to balance your economy properly, it's a feel that is learned over many games. It's the knowledge to know when to take 1 villager off of wood and put him on food or to leave that villager there. In civ it is no different. It is the instinct to know when to leave a city undefended or when to defend it. This is where the true skill of it comes in. You have the option to defend your cities at the loss of expansion speed. However you also risk losing your cities to horsemen. On 1x1x King you never have to worry about defending a city, ever. On deity you are forced to defend those cities because the AI doesn't give you a choice. On 2x2x King you have the option of leaving cities undefended at the risk of losing those cities to horsemen. Strategies are created through choices, when you remove choices you remove strategy. That is why civ3 has flopped completely because there is no choice in civ3, the restrictions put on the player by the designers in order to make the AI more challenging have completely destroyed the game. Deity is the closest you will ever come to civ3. I have already gone through and played deity and my challenge was that if I got HG then I would win every time. In all my games I have won every single game I got HG first and the only 1 I lost was to markus because he got HG first.
Back to the point though. Having the instinct to know where to defend and to know where to find someone who isn't defending is part of what makes me so great. I can go games completely without any units in my cities and without losing a single city because I have the instinct and the knowledge to do that. I know the most likely places people will explore, I know the least likely places people will explore, I know where I am weak and I know where I am strong and so that allows me to maximize the utilization of that knowledge. On deity...everyone must defend, I have no choice in the matter. On raging hordes...just like strat said, I could get a barbarian and you could get a city and I guarantee you with an advantage like that the game is ended immediately. You don't see this because you don't play at the level we do. I've already gone through and proven that I can't lose on deity as long as I have HG, and I've also proven that without HG the game is pretty much over if I'm playing against a good player. What have you done? You've done nothing, and every time you reply with one of your lame lines or excuses. One trick pony? No, you're the one trick pony. I have beaten everyone on every setting and I have proven the inadequacy of deity as a multiplayer setting. No hut maps with equal starting positions are the only real way to take all randomization out of the game, but it also makes the game incredibly long. Lets face it, there is noone on this site that has ever truly refuted any of my challenges or any of my claims. It always comes back to something about cheating or calling me a braggart. I enjoy that though because I know I have won.
Comment