 |
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Although AU601 is still running for most teams, I was wondering if anyone is interested in a new SP AU course. It's been a long time since we've had one (before the summer, I believe). Despite there being only two human players per game, AU601 will still take a while longer to finish. Most teams are not even updating their threads anymore (before I forget: congrats to Krill for thrashing me!). I want to avoid having a "dead" AU forum, and I think a brand-new AU course is just what we need.
Assuming the poll results in a resounding YES!, here's my idea for the next AU course:
Fastest 100k Cultural Victory
Now bear with me. Previously, AU courses have not specified which victory type to go for (except the succession game). Nor have they required that the player try to win as quickly as possible. So I think it's high time we practice/learn these skills.
100k Cultural victory, while seemingly a "cheesy" win, is actually one of the hardest, assuming you're playing on a difficulty level appropriate to your skill. It's not just about building lots of cultural improvements, because you have to balance that with early expansion, military conquest, and worrying about the AIs' cultural ratings. It's about more than getting a tech lead and beating up your opponents with massive armies (although that's certainly an option!).
Adding the requirement that players try for the fastest possible cultural win is essential. Without it, 100k Cultural wins degenerate into a waiting game against an AI that has no idea what's going on (which is why players often view 100k wins as "cheesy"). By comparing how each player goes about reaching the 100k mark the fastest, we would get some valuable insight into how this oft-forgotten victory condition is best played.
That's my pitch. 
As for civ selection, Babylon is the obvious choice. But perhaps we could be a little more daring and select a civ that's Religious or Scientific but not both. Or, to mix things up a bit, we could select a Religious civ and a Scientific civ, and let the player choose which he/she thinks is fastest to the 100k mark.
Sound interesting? Here's a bouncy smiley to get your energies up: 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
You would be taking a lot of the challenge out of the game by doing that. Like I said in my original post, the only way 100k Culture victory is fun is if there are factors working against you: namely, "the clock", in the sense that you want to win as quickly as possible, |
Slowing down the tech pace to buy extra time and trashing opponents so they can't build a space ship have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reaching 100K culture with double the culture of rivals as quickly as possible. The way I look at it, the greatest challenge is found in trying to win a 100K cultural victory without resorting to special tricks along those lines. But in my view, a game where cultural victory would have been achieved in 1650 if it were not pre-empted by the space race is a greater cultural achievement than a cultural victory achieved in 1700 in a game where the space race went a bit more slowly. The true glory in my view stems from when a cultural victory would have been achieved if the game lasted long enough, not in slowing things down to prevent a space race victory from being able to occur before a cultural victory can be won.
quote:
and in the sense that the AI actually has a chance of foiling your plans with a SS or Diplomatic win. Otherwise you're just playing a waiting game. |
If players enjoy the challenge of slowing down a space race victory to buy extra time for a cultural victory, more power to them. But why define the game parameters so that such behavior is expected even if players don't enjoy it?
If we would leave the space race victory condition on, players could play either of two ways.
1) They could do what you suggest and make it a goal to ensure that they win before any AIs get a chance to win the space race.
2) They could play the way I prefer and focus on achieving as much as they can culturally without worrying about special tricks to slow down an space launch (unless it happens to seem like the thing to do at the time). In that case, if they have to win a space race victory first, proof of cultural success could come either from a projected date of cultural victory based on F8 data from the last two turns of the game or from playing the game out after the official victory until a cultural victory would have occurred. (By these criteria, winning a space race victory would not make a game successful if a player was not on a path to a cultural victory.)
So we still get our focus on trying to win a cultural victory as quickly as possible, but we give players a little more choice regarding how they would rather play.
By the way, note that I never suggested turning the Diplomatic victory condition off. Players should be able to prevent AI diplomatic victories without having to do anything that feels "wrong" from a role-playing perspective, so I don't see any problem with leaving it on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
Regarding the question of what civ or civs to use, I like the idea of offering a choice between Religious and Scientific, the problem being finding civs that are matched well in other ways. If we would look for the same second trait, the possibilities (unless I missed one) would be:
Egypt/Persia (Industrious)
Egypt/Ottomans (Industrious)
Arabia/Russia (Expansionist)
Spanish/Byzantines (Seafaring)
Celts/Sumerians (Agricultural)
Japan/Germany (Militaristic)
India/Greece (Commercial)
India/Korea (Commercial)
Of these, Egypt/Persia and Celts/Sumerians are most closely matched in when their UUs would be likely to trigger a GA (unless a Sumerian player would opt for an earlier GA from pillaging), but I'm not sure how matched they are in other ways. Prior to C3C, I would have considered Egypt and Persia pretty well matched in the power of their UUs, but with bombardment units' greater power in C3C, I have to view the Immortal as pretty clearly the better UU now. The Celts and Sumerians are geared for very different playing styles, with the Celts more oriiented toward offense and the Sumerians more toward pillaging, so I don't really know how they'd match up. India/Greece might also be pretty good; Greece could launch its GA earlier if it wants to (and might have some interesting pillaging potential), but India can still trigger its GA with its UU fairly early in the medieval era if it wants to. In the other match-ups, one civ would be able to get a late ancient or early medieval GA with its UU if it wants to while the other would have to wait significantly longer for its GA.
Looking at civs with a different second trait, I'm not noticing any UU match-ups that look enough better to offset the difference in second traits. So Egypt/Persia, Celts/Sumerians, and India/Greece would be my three finalists for what pair of civs to suggest. Of those, I like Egypt/Persia best.
Any other thoughts on what civs to use?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tall Stranger
|
 |
Northern Virginia
Nov 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how leaving the Space Race victory on makes any sense if we're trying to win via 100K culture. It's going to make the game absurdly easy and eliminate virtually any risk of losing.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Slowing down the tech pace to buy extra time and trashing opponents so they can't build a space ship have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reaching 100K culture with double the culture of rivals as quickly as possible.
|
Actually, I completely disagree with this statement. Those tactics (particularly slowing the tech pace) are legitimate ways of reaching this goal. In fact, I would argue that NOT slowing down the tech pace when playing for a 100K cultural victory is a strategic blunder. The SS related techs offer nothing of value for cultural builders. I think a key part of this victory condition is recognizing that a 4-turn research cycle is counterproductive in this case. It robs you of gold that would be valuable in rushing cultural builds AND it makes it easier for the AI to beat you in an SS race.
quote:
But in my view, a game where cultural victory would have been achieved in 1650 if it were not pre-empted by the space race is a greater cultural achievement than a cultural victory achieved in 1700 in a game where the space race went a bit more slowly.
|
Not to sound like a broken record, but I disagree. The point here is that you need to develop a strategy for winning via 100K, not just coast on autopilot at the tail end of the game. In your two examples, the "would have won in 1650" game is actually LESS impressive than the "actual victory in 1700" game. The first represents poor strategy, the second good strategy.
quote:
By the way, note that I never suggested turning the Diplomatic victory condition off. Players should be able to prevent AI diplomatic victories without having to do anything that feels "wrong" from a role-playing perspective, so I don't see any problem with leaving it on. |
Why? Using your own logic, isn't a game where I would have won in 1650 were it not for a Diplomatic defeat more impressive than an actual victory in 1700? By extension, shouldn't we include domination and conquest victory as well? That way, I could say, "I would have won in 1500 via 100K, were it not for my victory in 1000 via domination." These arguments are no less valid than your SS argument.
Just for the record, I think all victory conditions should be on, but only 100K cultural victories should be considered "real wins" for the purposes of this course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tall Stranger
quote:
Slowing down the tech pace to buy extra time and trashing opponents so they can't build a space ship have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with reaching 100K culture with double the culture of rivals as quickly as possible. |
Actually, I completely disagree with this statement. Those tactics (particularly slowing the tech pace) are legitimate ways of reaching this goal. In fact, I would argue that NOT slowing down the tech pace when playing for a 100K cultural victory is a strategic blunder. The SS related techs offer nothing of value for cultural builders. I think a key part of this victory condition is recognizing that a 4-turn research cycle is counterproductive in this case. It robs you of gold that would be valuable in rushing cultural builds AND it makes it easier for the AI to beat you in an SS race. |
Getting into the modern era far enough to build research labs and the modern wonders as quickly as possible very clearly has value for cultural builders. (And if I wanted to get really picky, I could point out that the Strategic Missile Defense small wonder at the far end of the tech tree provides one culture point per turn. ) Further, while slowing down one's own research in order to do more rush building can have value for cultural builders, refusing to make deals that would be advantageous for one's own civ in order to keep AI research slower does not. Also note that under Communism, which can be a very useful government for building cultural improvements in distant locations, using gold for rush building is impossible.
quote:
quote:
But in my view, a game where cultural victory would have been achieved in 1650 if it were not pre-empted by the space race is a greater cultural achievement than a cultural victory achieved in 1700 in a game where the space race went a bit more slowly. |
Not to sound like a broken record, but I disagree. The point here is that you need to develop a strategy for winning via 100K, not just coast on autopilot at the tail end of the game. In your two examples, the "would have won in 1650" game is actually LESS impressive than the "actual victory in 1700" game. The first represents poor strategy, the second good strategy. |
A lot of this has to do with how a person approaches Civ. If you look at it purely as a strategy game where you do whatever it takes to succeed under a particular set of special rules, your perspective makes perfect sense. But for a person who looks at the game in terms of building a civilization, the idea of going out of one's way to make a civilization less great than it could be seems perverse. I'll go into this a little more farther down.
quote:
quote:
By the way, note that I never suggested turning the Diplomatic victory condition off. Players should be able to prevent AI diplomatic victories without having to do anything that feels "wrong" from a role-playing perspective, so I don't see any problem with leaving it on. |
Why? Using your own logic, isn't a game where I would have won in 1650 were it not for a Diplomatic defeat more impressive than an actual victory in 1700? By extension, shouldn't we include domination and conquest victory as well? That way, I could say, "I would have won in 1500 via 100K, were it not for my victory in 1000 via domination." These arguments are no less valid than your SS argument. |
The big difference is that I can avoid domination and diplomatic victories through essentially passive means. If I don't conquer 2/3 of the world, the only way a domination victory can take place is in the essentially unheard-of event that an AI might, which is something I'd want to stop anyhow. If I build the U.N. and don't hold a vote, there is no possibility of anyone's winning a diplomatic victory. So I don't have to do anything that "feels wrong" to take those victory conditions out of play.
Now consider the ways I've thought of so far to take the space race victory condition out of play for the AIs.
1) Slow down the tech pace. For me, doing things that are against my civilization's best interest just to slow down the tech pace fails miserably in the "feels wrong" test. There are some ways of slowing down AI research, such as getting AIs fighting each other, that have a good chance of making a lot more sense, but how effective they would be and how much sense they would make in terms of my own civilization's best interest would depend on the situation.
2) Capture enough strategic resources that no AI can build a spaceship. Chances are pretty good of being able to do that without doing anything that feels particularly wrong to me, but I'd rather not count on it.
3) Attack any AI that is threatening to win the space race in order to derail its space launch. Again, that is something that might or might not seem reasonable depending on the situation in the game at the time.
I'm all in favor of setting an outright cultural victory as the ideal for this game, and of encouraging players to try to find ways to buy whatever time they need for an outright cultural victory if they can do so without underming the fun they have from the game. That's how I plan to approach the game myself.
But why do we need to define players' games as unsuccessful if players choose not to go through whatever gyrations it takes to delay the space race until they can win by culture? In "Total Eternal Forever War," it would have been two entirely different games if some players were allowed to make peace and others weren't. But I see no similar problem with giving players a choice of how far they are inclined to go to delay the space race. Indeed, giving players a choice could even improve the learning experience in some ways by showing how different priorities affect the way people play.
Edit: The option of not automatically being considered unsuccessful if one can't win a cultural victory before an AI wins the space race might also make the game less daunting to less experienced players, and it might encourage players to try a harder difficulty level than they would otherwise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krill
|
 |
On a cold wet rock, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Dec 2003
time: 05:23
|
|
make that 11...
The only problem with the Arabia/Russia choice, as far as I can see, is the UUs. IMHO the Ansar is one of the best UUs in the game. The extra movement point is alot more powerful than Blitz (all this is relative to the normal unit that the reseptive UU replaces). (Another aspect of this problem is that the Ansar is cheaper, costing 60 shields, which is 30g less per upgrade than the normal Horseman-> Knight upgrade).While you are right, since both are good UUs, I think the Ansar makes it an unfair experiment. All this is IMVHO, though...
Egypt/Persia could be a fair experiment, although the map/resources would have to be altered slightly (although not to the extent of AU501...)
PS. Oh, yeah, when are you going to finish your DAR Dom? I want to look at what I did to your empire...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
*** Potential Spoiler ***
Nathan: Players can beeline for Military Tradition and get a very nicely-timed GA. The Blitz Cossack is really quite good, have you played with it? In any case, the spoiler that I did not want anyone to read by mistake is simply that Scientific is better for 100k Culture victories. I believe this balances the two civs appropriately.
*** End Spoiler ***
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tall Stranger
|
|
Northern Virginia
Nov 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Getting into the modern era far enough to build research labs and the modern wonders as quickly as possible very clearly has value for cultural builders. (And if I wanted to get really picky, I could point out that the Strategic Missile Defense small wonder at the far end of the tech tree provides one culture point per turn. ) Further, while slowing down one's own research in order to do more rush building can have value for cultural builders, refusing to make deals that would be advantageous for one's own civ in order to keep AI research slower does not. Also note that under Communism, which can be a very useful government for building cultural improvements in distant locations, using gold for rush building is impossible.
|
First off, no one is going to be relying on modern era buildings for the bulk of their 100K. The reality is that if you haven't built a firm cultural foundation in the earlier eras, you've made a major mistake. I think we can do this without the massive bonus provided by SDI  !
Second, if you DO decide to "make deals that would be advantageous for one's own civ," you should be forced to balance this decision with the danger it poses to your effort to win. Allowing the player to win via SS reduces the importance of this trade-off.
Third, I find it hard to believe that any player is going to spend large portions of his time in communism (tho I agree it could have uses). If they plan to, they should probably pick the religious civ.
quote:
A lot of this has to do with how a person approaches Civ. If you look at it purely as a strategy game where you do whatever it takes to succeed under a particular set of special rules, your perspective makes perfect sense. But for a person who looks at the game in terms of building a civilization, the idea of going out of one's way to make a civilization less great than it could be seems perverse. I'll go into this a little more farther down.
|
Let me be clear: I'm not trying to stop you from making your civ as grand as possible. I'm only saying that, if you choose to do so, you should be forced to accept the danger this decision poses, namely that you might lose the game b/c the AI builds the SS and you can't.
quote:
But why do we need to define players' games as unsuccessful if players choose not to go through whatever gyrations it takes to delay the space race until they can win by culture?
|
Because the goal of the game is to win as quickly as possible via 100K. It seems fundamentally unfair to allow players to "win" via SS. Having the option of using SS as a "safety net" will cause you to play in a fundamentally different way. This approach, IMHO, will teach us less about the inherent challenges in winning via 100K than would prohibiting players from winning via SS. I guess it comes down to how challenging we want to make this game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Getting into the modern era far enough to build research labs and the modern wonders as quickly as possible very clearly has value for cultural builders. (And if I wanted to get really picky, I could point out that the Strategic Missile Defense small wonder at the far end of the tech tree provides one culture point per turn. ) |
Actually no. The late wonders produce ridiculous amounts of culture and so do single research labs. They don't get anywhere near the culture that sums up from a single early temple, not to mention a full-blown culture city (rushed up to Cathedral and University). Only the Internet could really do you any good, but you probably won't get to it, if you build culture fast enough.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Also note that under Communism, which can be a very useful government for building cultural improvements in distant locations, using gold for rush building is impossible. |
Why would Communism be useful for this kind of game? You said yourself that it would hamper the cultural development of the empire. Remember that for culture, you don't need 5 temples later - you are better off with one temple now. And the only way to do that is to ensure easy rushing. No Communism here, sorry.
P.s. You might be right about the world size. I'm used to playing PTW and didn't consider the difference. Increasing the land percentage might still be a good idea, though.
[EDIT]
I'd really love to choose between Japan and Germany. Just to prove to some here, that religious is better for this game. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Yes, I was referring to the stock version of the Cossack. To tell you the truth I've never liked the Ansar Warrior because it gets comparatively more benefits that any other UU. I think the AU mod should address that.
Nonetheless, I still hold that the civs are equally-matched for this scenario. At the very least it's debatable, which is all we need.
Last edited by Dominae on 12-09-2004 at 07:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tall Stranger
Because the goal of the game is to win as quickly as possible via 100K. It seems fundamentally unfair to allow players to "win" via SS. Having the option of using SS as a "safety net" will cause you to play in a fundamentally different way. This approach, IMHO, will teach us less about the inherent challenges in winning via 100K than would prohibiting players from winning via SS. I guess it comes down to how challenging we want to make this game. |
If Apolyton University were about competition, I would agree that allowing people to play differently would be a unfair. But AU is intended to be mostly about learning and having fun, with players free to do things that won't necessarily be optimal purely from a perspective of winning quickly or winning by a large margin (or perhaps even winning at all - Aeson's games on ultra-high difficulty levels, for example) if they think it would be more fun or interesting to play in a different way.
What really bothers me is the idea of telling people, "If you can't win a cultural victory before an AI wins the space race, you lose." I have no objection to the idea, "If you don't win a cultural victory, you haven't met the preferred victory condition," because that leaves it up to each player to decide how much he cares about satisfying the preferred victory condition if an AI threatens to win the space race first. (And for those interested in competition, a game not won by 100K culture would have to be regarded as having an asterisk by it.) But putting it in terms of losing if you can't get a cultural victory in time seems too strong, and too likely to turn people off or cause them to play on a lower difficulty level than what would present the best challenge for them. (If I'm the only one who cares, it's not worth worrying about, but since I don't know whether I am, the issue concerns me.)
In regard to how gameplay would be affected, if I would commit myself to making sure no space race victory occurs, my game plan would almost certainly be based on snatching resources and, if necessary, smashing capitals late in the game rather than on going significantly out of my way to slow down the tech pace in the medieval and industrial eras. So while some people might play in a fundamentally different way, not all of us would.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:23
|
|
nbarclay,
You will need some early conquests to have a base for your culture. Also, you will probably be slowing down research at some point anyway. This means that you will get lots of spare change for a period of time, with a large empire to spend it on. But when? Explore two extremes:
1. Slow down research after you get the Internet. Cash probably stays low before that (lower than in option 2, that's for sure). You have to build many improvements the hard way, denying you the effect of stacking early culture. Most important handicap: late Cathedrals and/or Universities. The Internet helps a bit, yes it does. Unfortunately it all takes time. Time you don't have.
2. Slow down research considerably right after you get Education - do just enough to keep a small tech lead, preferably by trading. You might want some more medieval technologies fast, but nevermind that. Now since you are probably in Republic or Monarchy, you can buy cultural improvements with the surpulus cash. Many, many turns before the Internet and many turns before you would have built them. Benefit: your culture really rocks, and it does so quite early. The other benefit: great infrastructure to support even greater conquest later on. The difficulty here is, your military might get somewhat weak, while you are building.
Of course, I'm talking Emperor level here, not Sid. I don't know if it is possible at all to keep a weak military on Sid.
A side note: smashing capitals might be required for a cultural win also. A big cultural blow, especially when some Great Wonders sit there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tall Stranger
|
|
Northern Virginia
Nov 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
I think you're missing an important distinction here. The purpose of this game (as currently proposed) is NOT "Generate 100K culture points (and at least twice as many as your nearest competitor) as quickly as you can." The purpose is "Win via the 100K culture condition as quickly as possible."
There is a crucial difference here. The first is, quite honestly, a relatively unchallenging exercise. Since the AI has no understanding of this victory condition, it's ability to prevent such an occurence is severely limited. Build more cultural buildings than the AI, make sure your culture/ turn is more than twice your competition, and wait. On the other hand, the second, actual purpose (as I understand it) is designed to pose a significantly more interesting challenge. Not only must you succeed as a builder, you may also need to wage war effectively, manage the tech race and conduct effective diplomacy (tho this last one is less important). In short, you need to learn to win, not just build.
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
If Apolyton University were about competition, I would agree that allowing people to play differently would be a unfair. But AU is intended to be mostly about learning and having fun, with players free to do things that won't necessarily be optimal purely from a perspective of winning quickly or winning by a large margin (or perhaps even winning at all - Aeson's games on ultra-high difficulty levels, for example) if they think it would be more fun or interesting to play in a different way.
|
Let me make clear that I am fully aware of the purpose of AU and am in no way, shape or form interested in making this a competition. (If I were, I'd go over to Civfanatics.) My point is that the purpose of learning is to make us better players, i.e. players more capable of winning. By allowing players to win via SS, you're NOT making them more capable of winning via 100K. Again, let me say that players will learn more about winning via culture this way than by allowing a player to win via SS.
I honestly don't see what the problem is here. Suppose someone DOES lose via an AI SS launch 8 turns before he would have won via 100K. So what? As you've already pointed out, this is not a competition and there's absolutely no shame in losing. It not as though people will be made fun of in the forum if they post an AAR on a losing game. I got my head handed to me in the Total Eternal War Scenario, and I still loved it. (In fact, I've been thinking about playing by the same rules in a randomly generated game, just to see if I could win.)
quote:
What really bothers me is the idea of telling people, "If you can't win a cultural victory before an AI wins the space race, you lose."
|
We place conditions on how to play a given AU course all the time. No GA, no peace, OCC, etc. This really is not substantially different.
It may be that we're arguing over a point that really doesn't make much difference. As you pointed out, if you're the only one bothered by this, it may not be a big deal. Does anyone else out there vehemently object to prohibiting players from winning in any way other than 100K culture?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
Tall Stranger, the way I look at it, there are two different ways that players can approach a game where their goal is a cultural victory. One is with the attitude, "The only thing I care about is winning a cultural victory as quickly as possible." The other is, "I'm going to orient my strategy in this game toward trying to win a cultural victory as quickly as I can, but I'm not going to give up everything else I want to do with my civ in order to do it." Dominae's original proposal was focused exclusively on the former, while I'd rather accommodate both approaches.
You argue that the AI does not understand the special victory conditions I'm proposing. But my proposal would give the AI full, unrestricted access to every means it can normally use to defeat a player, and would do so under conditions that would limit players' choices at least a little bit. So what I'm proposing is not to handicap the AI, but merely to give the individual human players a choice of how much we want to handicap ourselves. Do we want to view it as defeat if we fail to win a cultural victory before the space race concludes and we therefore have to settle for a space race victory, or merely as a less complete victory than we would have preferred?
quote:
Does anyone else out there vehemently object to prohibiting players from winning in any way other than 100K culture? |
I think that's the wrong question. If there are people who think it would be less fun to push for the fastest possible cultural victory at all costs, and who would rather focus on learning how to play a somewhat normal game with a heavy cultuural orientation than learn how to play a kind of "fast cultural victory at all costs" game that they will never play again, why not accommodate them? If the restriction were directly on playing style, so that games with different operating rules would be impossible to compare in a particularly useful way, I would see a need to have everyone play by the same rules. But it seems to me that if different players pursue cultural victories with different degrees of single-mindedness, that would have advantages as well as disadvantages from an overall learning perspective.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Modo44, how much of your analysis here is based on having used that strategy and how much is theoretical? Just from the hypothesizing I've done so far, it looks like the "slow down right after Education" trick would probably be optimal for trying to get the fastest cultural victory possible if, at that point, you already have essentially all the territory you need and you won't need to do all that much more fighting (for example, to prune down cultural rivals). |
I usually play this way and win by 100K culture. But I play at Emperor difficulty or below. Yes, it requires early conquest, preferably clearing the home continent or a large chunk of it (i love pangeas ).
The thing is, after you have the culture set up, many core cities have nothing to build. Now you can choose Wealth to speed up research and rushing - if you want to pick up the tech pace again. Or they can (re)start on military. And you know better what a human can do, if he's got half his empire constantly building units - no KAI can stop that. The only difficulty is surviving the buildup phase with weak military, because it usually makes some AI's go psycho. Most of the time, this is where I give techs for alliances, so I don't really have to go to war.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2004 07:08
|