We love the 'X' day - a crutch for the weaker player?

[Crustacian]

sniff sniff... no howies Sten? sniff sniff...

*Crusty walks sadly away to play w/o his 2nd favorite unit*


One thing I had not realized untill earlier today about Venger was that he is a SP Civer, not a MPlayer.

If all he would have said was that it seems in SP games that using WLPD is too easy against the AI I might not have payed much attention.

All his stuff I was applying to MP game stuations apparantly was for not.

One thing I must say in Venger's behalf is that even tho he posted many times, and some commented about this... It must be said that he made an effort to reply to and keep discussions going with the ones who responded to his post. I like that.

Q: How can you keep your stinkin one city ALIVE!! let alone send 40,000 "happy to be outta there" colonists to AC? j/k...as it is an adventure I have yet to venture into.

Whaddaya say Venger? You want a bigger challenge then refraining from WLPD?

Try bloodlust starting from only one original to your civ city. I have done this for gunnery and tactics practise along the way. In CTP you are docked in score for every unit that perishes...see how many units you can keep from loosing in the process.

THE OCC is to me....wait!!!

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by rah on 05-12-2000 08:30 AM You're welcom to your opinion Venger , which is obviously not shared by others. But 4 posts in a row? We know Who really likes seeing his name? RAH This thread got boring.

I try to respond to everyone who raises a point. I'll post anonymously if that'll soothe you...

Venger

[Venger]

quote: "I'd like to find where I've precipitated any such remarks." [i.e., affrontery at light flaming] Umm, in response to my original, sarcastic post.

Then I would suggest it is you who precipitated said remarks, not I.

quote: You have slammed anyone who dared disagree with you, *implying* (are you familiar with the definition of this word?) that their way of playing the game is akin to cheating,

Absolutely not. Those who've brought intelligent rebuttal to my points have been treated in kind. Those who've posted inane remarks with nothing but ad hominem attack received same.

quote: and using vulgar, sexualized language to do so ("spy-pimping", "luxuries-whoring", "engorging your cities").

I would disagree with your final quote, engorge certainly is not remotely sexual in nature. Unless you would like to ban the words "do", "jump", "bag", etc. because they make you giggle with their double entendre meaning. I would consider none of them vulgar or overtly sexualized as used.

quote: "I fail to see how the WLTYYYD prep work is any different than the work needed just to make a successful democracy or republic." Then you do not fully understand WLT_D. However, as you categorically refuse to *try* this strategy, you will never learn the difference between normal Rep/Dem preparation and WLT_D preparation.

I do "fully understand" it. The preparation for growth is the same as the preparation for WLTYYYD, the exception being the presence of an abnormally high luxuries rate designed not to keep order or support the government but to simply cause WLTYYYD.

quote: "Quotes please. Find the denigrating posts." Here they are: "Why are half of your sentences yoda-esque?" (This is at least vaguely insulting.)

A pot shot at some rather poor phrasing...

quote: "I'm not experienced in fellatio either but you can be damn sure I know it ain't for me." (This is just uncalled for -- very vulgar.)

I'll post an 18 or over disclaimer.

quote: "Find the personal attack. Find it. Let's watch the thread develop and see where all the BS starts." Here are some of Venger's personal attacks on me: "What a jack ass. Do you have anything to add to the thread besides your overpowering ignorance?" [this one in response to my sarcastic post]

You make my point - you'll not find where I initiated personal attacks. Am I to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or by opposing end them?

quote: Personal attack #1. "What are you, 12 years old?" Personal attack #2. "Well that was enlightening. I think that's what they tell new prisoners - assrape is part of the sentence. Get used to it." Not a personal attack but extremely insulting. And, more sexualized language. Are you capable, Venger, of using another idiom?

The first, a response to another brilliant bon mot from someone with nothing to add bud blinding ignorance. The second is hardly insulting. I believe the point was to show how the "get used to it" throwaway argument should indeed be thrown away. Perhaps killing a close relative and getting used to it? Paralysis and getting used to it? Would you prefer a death or dismemberment motif?

quote: "But if you aren't very clever, but really think you are, feel free to post your LoL posts down at the local gay bar, or Homeless Shelter, or some other place..." An attack on Sten Sture. And *more* sexual idiom. Also gay bashing. And homeless bashing. Classy, Venger, very classy. (Note: that was sarcasm.)

A response to his "I can't believe this thread exists". As to sodomy or vagrancy, if those pursuits are particularly enobling and worthy of your defense, so be it.

quote: "Curiously, have you actually addressed any of the issues?" Yes I have: I submitted (in my very first post in this thread) that arguments over the realism of WLT_D were unfounded and misplaced.

Indeed, I have found your first post, well written and very stately. I am in error, and apologize. I wish I had responded to that post, but alas, I overlooked or forgot to.

Again, I am in error.

quote: "[...] you seem to post simply for the joy of seeing your name in HTML" This is really, *really* funny coming from you, Venger. You have posted 28 times in this thread, often 4 or 5 times in a row. I have posted 4 messages (including this one). Which of us likes to see his name in HTML?

As I was the one who brought up the whole question, would you not expect my participation rate to be as high? I've tried to make my posts relate to the topic, or at least to the post I reply to, not bemoaning the existence of the topic to begin with.

quote: I also point out that it was you, Venger, who started the thread with the express purpose of stirring up trouble. If that's not an excuse to see your name in HTML, I don't know what is.

I did not wish to stir up trouble. I knew it may be controversial, that a strategy alot of people may depend on is something of a stepladder. But trouble is hardly correct.

quote: In the interests of peace and quiet, I will unilaterally stop posting after this message. Feel free, Venger, to lambast me, secure in the knowledge that I won't respond. You brave, brave man.

That's a rather cowardly way to put it. The first sentence stands on it's own. The latter is kinda childish really. I hope I've responded intelligently and in kind, I do not bemoan your response, so feel free to state it. In fact...be brave enough to respond..

Venger
[This message has been edited by Venger (edited May 12, 2000).]

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe on 05-12-2000 09:19 AM An interesting thread despite the boredom claimed by RAH .

I glad you find it of some worth...

quote: (I generally don't post in the CIV section as I am more a SMAC kind of guy, but these arguements arise in any TBS game that allows pop growth of 1 per turn so it seems germaine to post on the subject (forgive me my dyed in the wool CIV fans I used to play CIV2 all the time but have now moved on))

I liked SMAC, but when the planet started talking and I couldn't build a Death Star wonder as a cure, I kicked it to the curb. Also, the Shock Missle Entropy Former ECM blah blah blah really stinks...

quote: Venger, Firstly I respect your convictions and generally your answers follow a sound point counterpoint format akin to a debate. You make some valid arguements .... pausing... (cause you know there's going to be a BUT)...

Here it comes...

quote: But... When you use the term "crutch" it implies either: 1) a tactic that while legal either stretches the rules of the game or 2) if employed so seriously imbalances the game as to make it unplayable.

I wanted to imply that it was somewhat questionable as a strategy, which I suppose somewhat fits condition 1. It certainly doesn't render it unplayably, although I think it somewhat less challenging...

quote: The first part of this definition re: legality was pretty well addressed by Ming. It is legal and a well documented effect.

Legality isn't a question, more a question of suitability...

quote: Regarding point 2 comes to the whole crux of the arguement The only point I wish to make on behalf of the larger city approach vs. ICS (which I am making the assumption is the strategy you follow)is this:

ACK!! No ICS for me. I expand greatly, but you'll not find 35 size 4 cities in my Civ Bucko...

quote: To my way of thinking what this purports is that only a portion of the game is actually played. If you never see the need to build adavanced facilites you in effect are only playing a small protion of the game and robbing yourself the experience of playing the grand tapestry of the game (ohh I shouldn't have gone that far as now I am waxing poetic... )

I agree so utterly it's nuts. I want a grand capital, and thriving, sprawling Civ with large cities and wonderful skylines. 35 cities with barracks and a temple SUCK...but I don't use, nor see the need to use, WLTYYYD to get it...

quote: Thats my take on it at least. ICS surely is powerful but why play it???

If you've gotten the notion that I prefer ICS as a strategy, that is in clear error. I prefer everything about the grand Civ builders and their infrastructure and improvements to get to WLTYYYD - just not the associated city bloat that accompanies it.

quote: Just my ramblings....

They are welcome as always...

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz on 05-12-2000 10:03 AM Oops. Repeated incidentaly my last post. But, since I'm here cleaning up the mess let me launch a chalenge to you, Venger. Since, for you, WLT*D is a crutch, and to prove us just that, why don't you try and play a game with the following objective: as soon as it is possible, begin "demographic explosion" (hey, didn't something like that really happend in this century? ) through WLT*D and win (you may choose the ending, either by conquer or by sending the ship to AC; preferably the one you are more familiar with). You could then post the log of that game for us to see how it made your winning easier (I would surelly enjoy very much to learn it )

I can send you a ToT game right now that I'm playing with a stable luxuries rate, a huge empire, and little WLTYYYD (it's not like it never happens in my game, but I don't raise luxuries to force it for turn after turn). But 10% more luxuries and it's WLTYYYD for everyone! But not too realistic in my book...

Venger
P.S. Not a good game comparison game really, large world but not alot of land, opponents REALLY behind...despite a 28 tech paradigm...

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Sten Sture on 05-12-2000 01:57 PM Since being banned from this very serious thread by Venger,[quote] Heh... [quote] I went to a couple of local gay bars and a homeless shelter to discuss the humor of Civ and Apolyton ramblings.

Heh heh...

quote: I got to meet some very nice, genuine people with some very interesting stories, but they didn't think my civ LoL's were terribly clever either.

See, now THAT'S funny stuff...

quote: Therefore I conceed that WLT_Ds are only for weak players, and I will continue to play SP in deity, large map, bloodlust, 7 civ, raging, no wonders, no howies, no bribe, and founding not more than 10 cities; but also now with no WLT_D. I am sure the AI will be much more of a challenge.

10 cities huh? And no howitzers? I'll make the game harder for you - you can have howitzers back, but you must add the nil command in rules.txt for Spy and Diplomat units. MUHAHAHA...

quote: BTW - has anyone done OCC with no WLT_D??

Would WLTYYYD be so beneficial in a OCC? I would imagine that without the diversion of resources one could grow pretty fast regardless of WLTYYYD...once railroad and refrigeration hit...

quote: How long til 150 posts??

From me or for the whole thread? I just started this thread to whore posts to get out of the whole Chieftain thing up to Prince...

Venger

[Sten Sture]

I think OCC would still be doable without WLTYYYHD, but it wouldn't be as fast. You said it yourself that the pace of growth is a bit unrealistically quick. Getting to size 20 in 500bc with just a couple of turns of Lux is a big advantage.

I still think you might be randomturn or someone just trying to debate for the hell of it...
[This message has been edited by Sten Sture (edited May 12, 2000).]

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-12-2000 03:02 PM Since this thread is getting way to long for people to read everything in... I thought I would do an executive summary of where it is REALLY at. Venger's points if you look through all the posts. 1) It wasn't the intent of the designers. Wrong... It is well documented in the manual that the designers expected it to be used for dramatic growth.

I'm hoping to describe a nuance here. That it can result in dramatic growth is a step from expecting it to be used Civ wide for 30 cities.

quote: 2) It's not realistic. That's just a matter of opinion... I think some posters have provided some excellent examples that it is indeed realistic.

Across the board? Do you honestly find going from size 12 to size 24 realistic within the game design?

quote: 3) It makes it too easy to win. Again, opinion... many posters have tried to point out that it requires real planning and work to set it up right, but Venger just waves it off and doesn't agree.

Well that's not quite correct. My statement is that planning and setup is required to run any Rep or Dem of size, the final step of boosting luxuries for WLTYYYD notwithstanding.

quote: 4) He doesn't use it. So what... who cares!

I've never offered that as a point, and it should be apparent in observation. As to who cares? Well Ming who the hell cares about any of this? It's all just a $20 CPU hogging computer game with tons of bugs. Let's just bag the whole damn site.

quote: 5) He doesn't like it because it feels like cheating to him. His only legitimate point since it is a matter of personal opinion. So after all of his posts, that's all it comes down to... HE DOESN'T LIKE IT.

If that's what you take away from the thread, you've missed out on it.

quote: So don't use it if you don't like it!

What an insight. It was only made at the top of the page bt another deep thinker.

quote: Fine... is any more discussion really needed!

I'd imagine that as moderator your web interface has the ability to not select this thread to read. Can we have a discussion here even if you don't want to take part?

[This message has been edited by Ming (edited May 12, 2000).][/quote]

That's the best post you could come up with even after editing?

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-12-2000 03:44 PM One thing I had not realized untill earlier today about Venger was that he is a SP Civer, not a MPlayer. If all he would have said was that it seems in SP games that using WLPD is too easy against the AI I might not have payed much attention. All his stuff I was applying to MP game stuations apparantly was for not.

Apply it, my post is the result of reading threads about both MP and SP. My thoughts on WLTYYYD apply to all situations.

quote: One thing I must say in Venger's behalf is that even tho he posted many times, and some commented about this... It must be said that he made an effort to reply to and keep discussions going with the ones who responded to his post. I like that.

I try to actually have a discussion on the discussion board. Responding to all, especially when I'm the one raising the question, is just part of the whole picture...

Venger

[Ming]

Gee, you have just posted 1,000's of words, and you have added nothing new.
No surprise! Can't you do better than that?

[Sten Sture]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-12-2000 07:50 PM Gee, you have just posted 1,000's of words, and you have added nothing new. No surprise! Can't you do better than that?

Only half of the words were his though...

IP check.

[Venger]

quote: Gee, you have just posted 1,000's of words, and you have added nothing new. No surprise! Can't you do better than that?

That reminds me of the type of thing I'd overhear on the 5th grade school bus 20 years ago. Congratulations.

quote: Only half of the words were his though... IP check.

I don't follow the latter statement.

Venger
P.S. In appreciation of economy of posts, which has become a topic of grave concern in this thread, I've taken the liberty of combining these two small snippets into a single post...I hope this alleviates the sleepless condition some of you seemed to be developing regarding this topic...

[Crustacian]

quote:

Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-12-2000 03:44 PM
One thing I had not realized untill earlier today about Venger was that he is a SP Civer, not a MPlayer.

If all he would have said was that it seems in SP games that using WLPD is too easy against the AI I might not have payed much attention.

All his stuff I was applying to MP game stuations apparantly was for not.


Venger:
Apply it, my post is the result of reading threads about both MP and SP. My thoughts on WLTYYYD apply to all situations.


Crusty:
Can't. Get some experience to discus the subject of MP WLPD and maybe some of us will be able have something of substance to chew on. Your comments point as Ming very well put it:
That you simply don't like it. What is there to discuss really?

L8r

[Ming]

"That reminds me of the type of thing I'd overhear on the 5th grade school bus 20 years ago. Congratulations."

Gee, you are the one insulting everybody here. You might be a tad confused

Again, your whole argument is based on YOUR opinion. You raise no facts, logic, or NEW ARGUMENTS. Your typical response to people is just to ignore their issues, and insult them.

Maybe somebody might agree with you if you came up with something besides "it sucks",
because that is all your argument comes down to.

It does indeed seem like all you want is to see your name in lights. But if that's what you want, maybe you should actually say something that will actually add something to the discussion you started.

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-12-2000 08:20 PM "That reminds me of the type of thing I'd overhear on the 5th grade school bus 20 years ago. Congratulations." Gee, you are the one insulting everybody here. You might be a tad confused

It seems your observations of insults are particularly one-sided, especially for a moderator.

quote: Again, your whole argument is based on YOUR opinion.

So what's yours based on Ming? Is there a stone tablet somewhere that says "Using WLTYYYD as a substitute for growth over time is deigned by God an ordained strategy, as defined by Ming?" The book says a settler can found a new city. Does that also mean there's an ICS commandment? Is every poster in here putting up research and statistical data, or are they expressing their opinions?

quote: You raise no facts, logic, or NEW ARGUMENTS.

Facts? What fact have you raised? The program let's you do it, so who cares? Your logic? You don't use it, therefore you must not understand it? Your arguments? If you don't like it, don't use it?

quote: Your typical response to people is just to ignore their issues, and insult them.

I've addressed EVERY issue raised, treated those who've posted with respect respect, and insulted those who've insulted me.

quote: Maybe somebody might agree with you if you came up with something besides "it sucks", because that is all your argument comes down to.

I suppose your argument must just boil down to "it's cool", "itz 3l33t dOOdz", "it rockz". Funny how other people seem to disagree but actually notice that I'm bringing up points, which they manage to respond to without some weak-ass "you just think it sucks, that's all you're saying", which is pure crap.

quote: It does indeed seem like all you want is to see your name in lights.

Yeah, this board is SO COOL!!! Look, my NAME!!! Fu#king please.

quote: But if that's what you want, maybe you should actually say something that will actually add something to the discussion you started.

Do you READ the posts, or just randomly respond in stream-of-consciousness? After all, your last posts have added so very much...

Venger