Factors in choosing a civ in SP

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Okay, I've learned here that the civ color I choose can have an impact on my starting terain, since terrain gets assigned in order and is likely to get worse toward the end. I've also learned from Scouse Gits' impressive "A is for Alphabet" thread that the civilized/neutral/militaristic attitude of the civ I choose can affect the starting techs I get. But what about other factors? Does "aggressive/neutral/rational" matter? What about "expansionist/neutral/perfectionist"? And are there other factors of your civ choice that can have an effect on your game?

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Rufus T. Firefly (edited December 19, 2000).]</font>

[rixxe]

It seems to me that your reputation is harder to improve by playing an agressive/expansionist/militaristic civ (mongols) than a rational/perfectionist/civilized one (greek). It also seems to change some parameters about the armies strength (unless "simplified combat" is chosen).

I'll acclaim whoever is able to stay at peace with everybody, and by the same time, to go on Alpha C. with the mongols. (in deity of course....)
[This message has been edited by rixxe (edited December 19, 2000).]

[Bohlen]

I've always thought that is a nice little challenge...stay in peace for the entire game, don't piss the AI off, don't get so upset yourself by all the AI backstabbing, and fly to AC with a perfect reputation. I think this type of game is quite fun, especially when defending your borders under democracy.

Although some civ colors do give you the opportunity to start on great terrain, give me the Sioux and the south pole and I'll gladly accept the challenge. Sometimes it's fun to have a bad starting location in SP. It's dreadful in MP, however.

[Deity Dude]

rixxe:
What did you mean by it impacting army strength? Are you saying that attack/defense/movement values aren't absolute? Please elaborate.

[Scouse Gits]

Rufus we looked at whether there was a difference between perfectionist/expansionist civs. There were some trends - but it would be wrong to publish half-baked information!

One interesting point - the Romans were the only Civilised nation to receive Warrior Code as a starting tech. Perhaps some historical recognition!

-----------

SG (2)
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited December 20, 2000).]

[rixxe]

Yes, if you want aboslute value for the attack/defence points, you have to choose "simplified combat" til there we're ok.

From this point other factors are interacting with the a/d points, the chance (in 1 case out of 1000 u can beat an armor with a phalanx), and the civ/leader nature, this may impact on what could be called, "the spirit/behaviour of the troops "

Other parameters are also impacting on these things, if there's no palace, if there's an anarchy period etc...all that impacts on the strength of the AI

Since all these parameters are not described in the manual, i cannot certify it,(maybe it's just my immagination) but im quite sure there something like that behind the result...

Its useless to say that the AI might act diferently, according to its parameters (declaring war, building armies instead of buildings, irrating instead of funding new cities, etc....)


[This message has been edited by rixxe (edited December 19, 2000).]

[Deity Dude]

not that i mean to doubt rixxe but does anyone else think or can prove that the military values are variable and not absolute. i know that a phalanx has a remote chance of beating armor but i thought that was due to the permutations that the game goes thru, which is explained in the manual. I just never thought that the values themselves that are used in the calculations were variable.

[debeest]

I don't think the military strengths differ from civ to civ. Then again, I didn't think barbarians' attack strength varied according to game level, until somebody knowledgeable told me so and I did some experimentation that seemed to confirm it.

[rixxe]

It can be tested by attacking 50 times a Russian vet Alpine with a Greek vet Alpine, & vice versa, write down the results and analyse it. (Use an alpine because its a/d points are the same). Of course the gov. must be the same, and it must be done on the same terrain...

I'll do it tonight, and i'll post the result.....

[Rufus T. Firefly]

quote: Rufus we looked at whether there was a difference between perfectionist/expansionist civs. There were some trends - but it would be wrong to publish half-baked information!

As a civ player who needs all the help I can get, I'm sighing in frustration...but as a professor, I salute your scruples.

Seriously, though, I wonder if the game is easier when you play as a civ that is pre-programmed to match your own playing style, and harder when you play "against type." Maybe next time I start a game I'll pick an aggressive, militaristic, expansionist civ and try my usual rational, civilized, perfectionist strategy, just to see how it goes!

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

[East Street Trader]

Professor of what Rufus T?

I'm going to be surprised if attack and defence values are not fixed.

Romans get an edge on legions. EXCELLENT!!! I really like the developers of Civ. Bet they knew they were making something good.

[Scouse Gits]

Yeah - 'fess up Dr. Firefly - my sins are in my profile as are ESTs ...

p.s. in edit - Yikes there not any more - sorry - I'm in Information Technology.
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited December 20, 2000).]

[Blaupanzer]

Tendency is for the AI to not like/trust the human as he/she grows stronger, whatever supposed personality we pick. I just can't see that it makes any difference in my experience. As to Rixxe's contention: how many thousands of verification/identification tests would be rendered useless if unit strength variances occurred based on leader personality. Very unlikely.
[This message has been edited by Blaupanzer (edited December 20, 2000).]

[rixxe]

Here are the results....
So, per example, Win Green is incremented if he won with his stamina bar remaining in the green, Lost Yellow, if he lost with his opponent's stamina bar staying in the yellow zone....In every case, the mongol won more combats than the Babylonian....

Babylonian Alpine/Mongol Alpine
-------------------------------
Win Green.......0/0
Win Yellow......2/1
Win Red ........3/5
Lost Green......0/0
Lost Yellow.....3/4
Lost Red........12/10

Babylonian Vet Alpine/Mongol Vet Alpine
---------------------------------------
Win Green.......0/0
Win Yellow......0/1
Win Red.........7/9
Lost Green......0/0
Lost Yellow.....1/1
Lost Red........12/9

Babylonian Archer/Mongol Archer
-------------------------------
Win Green.......3/3
Win Yellow......8/8
Win Red ........6/7
Lost Green......0/0
Lost Yellow.....0/1
Lost Red........3/1

Babylonian Vet Archer/Mongol Vet Archer
---------------------------------------
Win Green.......1/3
Win Yellow......8/5
Win Red ........7/10
Lost Green......0/0
Lost Yellow.....1/0
Lost Red........3/2

There's another strange thing in the rules.txt file, attitudes are set by giving a 1 for expantionist, and giving a -1 for perfectionist, per example, and some civs (like the russian and the sioux) have an 0 instead of 1/-1, nothing is explained about that....really strange...
Nonetheless, both bab. and mongol civs have correct settings in the rules.txt file...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by rixxe (edited December 20, 2000).]</font>
[This message has been edited by rixxe (edited December 20, 2000).]

[Bohlen]

I'm not quite understanding the win/loss/Bab/Mongol results table. Could you please give it a different explanation?