 |
|
Drachen
|
|
quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick
Yeah. Lt. Col. jimmytrick |
I downloaded your 1285AD save and you're doing great. Looks like the military is in good hands! Could you let me know the settings?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drachen
|
|
quote: Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I feel that intentionally excluding certain traits is cooking. Such as selecting civs other than scientific, so there are no free era techs. Such as selecting a large pangea and excluding expansionist civs (and you being an exp civ). And yes this is map dependent in some cases. I wouldn't feel like I was cheating if I chose non exp on an 80% archipelago. I would if it were a pangea. I personally find seafaring to be great on any map, so if I excluded it intentionally it would lessen the victory for me.
Also I feel choosing civs based on their UU can be cooking, such as I don't want to deal with ancient defensive UUs. etc
In both of these situations, the reverse is also true, you can choose civs that would make the game much harder on you. I imagine a game with all ancient UUs would be more difficult than a game where you would see the americans and russians etc where their units on't come into play until much later in the game. |
Certain maps and traits go well together and taking those traits for yourself while denying them to your rivals will probably help you. I just don’t think the differences are large enough to make games illegitimate and I’m not convinced a set of limits is needed. That’s certainly open to further debate, but as a practical matter how would you define appropriate limits? If you’d care to develop a set of rules or a flowchart we can see what people think and I can live with a set of accepted options if that’s what most players think is appropriate for getting a legitimate Sid win.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drachen
I just don’t think the differences are large enough to make games illegitimate and I’m not convinced a set of limits is needed. That’s certainly open to further debate, but as a practical matter how would you define appropriate limits? If you’d care to develop a set of rules or a flowchart we can see what people think and I can live with a set of accepted options if that’s what most players think is appropriate for getting a legitimate Sid win. |
For me, the hand picking of opponents sets off alarm bells. I can only see three reasons why you would pick an opponent rather than it be random: you want to make it harder on yourself; you want to fight an opponent you don't see often or just enjoy going up against; or you want to make things easier on yourself. I'm all for the first two. Challenge and variety is what makes the game fun. What I'm not in favor of is the selection of opponents in a way that would greatly aid your game. Such as the human being the only seafaring civ on an 80% archipelago or the only expansionist on a pangaea. Another trick is selecting non-commercial civs to try to improve your odds of getting philosophy. Maybe this is all an illusion, that I'm seeing things, but why else slant the opponent selection one way or another. Of course, I'm speaking on larger maps, where you have 10 or more opponents, smaller maps agianst a few enemies can't be as representative.
What I'm trying to get at, is that you can pick civs in a way so as to make things easier on yourself. Otherwise you would fit into the two other categories I mentioned, which I wouldn't have a problem with. hell I don't care who you are up against or what the majority thinks on these matters, its impressive enough, mighty impressive to win on Sid (and even hold your own as vmxa1 has) no matter what the options are (excluding of course elimination mode ) I just want people to be upfront about why they chose certain opponents.
And before you ask, no I haven't won on Sid, but I have quite losing games many times. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drachen
I downloaded your 1285AD save and you're doing great. Looks like the military is in good hands! Could you let me know the settings? |
I mistakenly posted at Civfanatics that this was a 16 civ game, but that was wrong. It was twelve. That would maket a large map. It was a random game, I played a random civ and all the conditions were random. AI agressiveness was normal. All victory conditions were on except the wonder condition. That is about all I can tell you.
In this game at 1285 AD the Hittites have about 71,000 culture and must get to 130,000 to win. I will have to watch this very closely. The most culture in a city is around 6,600 IIRC.
I do not think anyone will come up with a foolproof way to win on Sid level everytime.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drachen
|
|
quote: Originally posted by asleepathewheel
For me, the hand picking of opponents sets off alarm bells. I can only see three reasons why you would pick an opponent rather than it be random: you want to make it harder on yourself; you want to fight an opponent you don't see often or just enjoy going up against; or you want to make things easier on yourself. I'm all for the first two. Challenge and variety is what makes the game fun. What I'm not in favor of is the selection of opponents in a way that would greatly aid your game. Such as the human being the only seafaring civ on an 80% archipelago or the only expansionist on a pangaea. Another trick is selecting non-commercial civs to try to improve your odds of getting philosophy. Maybe this is all an illusion, that I'm seeing things, but why else slant the opponent selection one way or another. Of course, I'm speaking on larger maps, where you have 10 or more opponents, smaller maps agianst a few enemies can't be as representative.
|
Asleepathewheel;
You make a cogent and powerful defense of your point of view and you seem to have covered the bases when it comes to why a player would pick a group of opponents but I think that a similar argument could be made for just about any of the options that can be selected for such as the tribe you’ll play, climate, barbs…you name it. We’re talking about what constitutes a legitimate, “non-cooked”, Sid win and if your argument prevails then it seems to me that default rules and random everything else would be the only set of settings that would be beyond question as to legitimacy. This is at a level of AI advantage so strong that the main Poly thread discussing it hasn’t seen a posted win in months of play. Do we really want to set the bar that high?
Last edited by Drachen on 09-02-2004 at 11:14
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drachen
|
|
quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick
I mistakenly posted at Civfanatics that this was a 16 civ game, but that was wrong. It was twelve. That would maket a large map. It was a random game, I played a random civ and all the conditions were random. AI agressiveness was normal. All victory conditions were on except the wonder condition. That is about all I can tell you.
In this game at 1285 AD the Hittites have about 71,000 culture and must get to 130,000 to win. I will have to watch this very closely. The most culture in a city is around 6,600 IIRC.
I do not think anyone will come up with a foolproof way to win on Sid level everytime. |
If you win this then it seems there won't be much question about the legitamacy. Thanks for letting us know the settings and keep us posted. It's the strongest game I've seen.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
It is a good discussion. I saw a posted Sid win at Civfanatics, space ship in about 1612 AD. Archipelago large with only 8 civs and no cultural flips or cultural victory. This was a fine win, but clearly the conditions were set up a little easier than might be the norm.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drachen
|
|
quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick
It is a good discussion. I saw a posted Sid win at Civfanatics, space ship in about 1612 AD. Archipelago large with only 8 civs and no cultural flips or cultural victory. This was a fine win, but clearly the conditions were set up a little easier than might be the norm. |
A link a link my kingdom for a link.
and...would you care to chime in as to legitimate settings?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Aeson I have to disagree with you here for maybe the first time ever.
In a game that strove mightily to even the playing field between human and computer AI, Civ3 fails spectacularly in one area...providing consistent starting positions. Mastering a level within a game would be better defined as finding the correct strategic methods and perfecting the execution of those methods. The fact that Diety level + in Civ3 will not consistently beaten reflects design factors that mitigates skill rather than celebrates it.
That being said I am no Aeson, Sir Pleb or Qitai. The fact that few of the great players have posted much about Sid level is puzzling and may mean that the luck factor is overwhelmng. Still, in the end, we will develop strategies for Sid. And in doing so we will have once again defeated Firaxis and their inflated ego.
My limited play on the Sid level tends to point towards a simple extension of the Diety theme. The inability to play sucessfully outside of the one dimensional whomp whomp of the military shows once again how truely linear the gameplay is.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Drachen
|
|
Ah ha...the missing link. Many thanks.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Drachen,
That space race victory looks pretty good to me now. My game is clearly a loss, but I will continue to play. A simple calculation shows that I must cripple the Hittites in order to prevent them from getting a cultural win long before I could possibly get to any win condition.
By placing a spy I have learned that Fascist Mursillis has a fully railed continent defended by 34 frigates, 383 infantry, 165 cavalry, 169 guerillas, 42 3man chariots and 250 older units of various types. Of course he has only one artillery piece.
That is over a thousand units. I have about 150. It would seem that I am a tad short of having enough to deal with that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Maybe I need a little help with this cultural win thing. I have never won by overall culture. I seem to remember that it requires a 2-1 ratio. Is that correct and if so, does this ratio only apply to a human play or can one AI block the victory of another in this manner?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drachen
|
|
quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick
Maybe I need a little help with this cultural win thing. I have never won by overall culture. I seem to remember that it requires a 2-1 ratio. Is that correct and if so, does this ratio only apply to a human play or can one AI block the victory of another in this manner? |
It seems likely that even the AIs have to have a 2 to 1 ratio although I've never been in position to observe it since I’ve never experienced a cultural win or loss. One of those things I was going to get to one of these days. I’d continue with your game if I were doing as well as you and hope that were the case. My Dutch game is too far gone to salvage though and so I’m going to start fresh with some new strategies based partly upon what you and Minstrel we’re able to accomplish. It’s going to be based on HOF rules but I want to see if a non whomp strat is feasible. Once a builder always a builder I guess, although I am convinced that whomping is the most consistent way to win on Deity. Good luck in any case.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:33
|
|
Do you feel that it is more likely for the AI to reach 100k on Standard, 130k on large, or 160k on huge? (and be 2x the nearest competitor)
To me it seems less likely to get the 160k than the 100, just because it seems to be largely wonder driven. But I'm not sure.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
If the AI is required the 2:1 ratio then I might never have to worry about an overall culture loss in this game as I have two super civs, Hittites and the Dutch. As for single city culture, yes, I might have to find a way to strike and destroy a city or two. I am wondering about a unit cap coming into play.
I also have to worry about the UN.
I also have to worry about air power. I really have little experience with that. I am confident that I can hold my continent against invasion with artillery and rails.
Then there is the whole nuke thing.
This is going to be a bear.
Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Drachen
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
I just wish this game allowed the Navy to bombard.. I may then have a chance in landing and thus supporting units. |
It’s not uncommon for the AI to let a powerful beachhead be established as long as you don’t take or found a city. This allows you to continue ferrying more troops and guns to the landing zone until you’re ready to strike. I actually had about 150 units in a beachhead and the AI had only 4 units in the adjacent city when I took it but brought in 100’s in its attempts to retake the city. I have reason to believe that troop concentrations this large will prevent a cultural flip back to the AI and this allows you to use the defensive attributes of the captured city to destroy the AIs army and then you can roll. You already know that war weariness is impossible in these situations so make sure your governments attributes will allow the invasion to succeed. Good luck.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|