 |
| |
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sieve Too on 05-08-2000 10:30 AM
I think Venger is missing the main point behind WLT_D. In order to do it successfully, you must be willing to give up a lot (expansion, war, good defense) while concentrating on infrastructure.
|
Oh I understand that, but I think the good player can pull that off all too easily.
quote:
I also think you overestimate its effects. By the time I'm ready to do WLT_D for the first time, my cities are probably around size 6 or 7 anyway. And after bankrupting my treasury for Aqueducts, the best I can do is get to size 12, assuming I've roaded and irrigated everything. While I'm doing this, I'm losing out on science.
|
Sure, you lose 12 turns of research. But with 50/50 tax and luxury you can buy your improvements on the go. Heck, even 60/40. You can bite the bullet for 12 turns and emerge with double or triple the production, research, and revenue. Just seems all too easy.
Now mind you, I don't do it. I just read alot of posts where WLTXD is just a de facto part of the game, and is how cities are grown. I just find that a little bogus myself.
quote:
Note that other gov'ts can attain similar explosive growth via food caravans.
|
But nothing like you can do in Republic/Democracy. Unless you use the infinite food caravan cheat.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vik on 05-08-2000 11:15 AM
Bravo, Venger.
While I thoroughly disagree with your hypothesis, I applaud the way you have responded to the answers. It seems many (or at least several) here would hold you in a dim light for proposing WLTxD is a crutch. However, you have responded to the reasoning quite well, considering your statement seems to be a touchy subject with some.
|
I knew people would get bugged by it. I actually tried to take Crustacean's head off, but Ming nuked that post...
I try to be reasonable. It's not that I want to kick WLTXD top the curb, just that it seems to easy to abuse, if that's the word...
quote:
If you would agree that there is a trade-off incurred when using WLTxD, I think we could make some ground. The amount of resources a player chooses to allocate to luxuries directly affects the amount of resources taken away in science and taxes. Depending on the resource squares utilized, it can also affect food and shield production. For most players who plan on using WLTxD, it usually affects the starting city location as well.
|
Well sure, the question is whether the short term pain is worth the long term gain, and I think that's absolutely the case in WLTXD. Take 10 turns to double or triple production and research? Pays off in the next 10 turns...
quote:
If we can't agree there is a trade-off, perhaps we can agree that if WLTxD is available to all players (not just "weak" ones) then it is truly not a crutch.
|
Well good God man, I can't argue with that...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Clark on 05-08-2000 01:09 PM
Getting on this fairly late. WLT_D or Republic, heck, even trades or wonders are not requirements for winning. To win, you either conquer all of the remaining civs or get that spaceships to some stupid far off place. As evident from all of our experiences, there are countless ways of doing that. To say that Republic is a requirement is simply wrong (never done that govt myself).
|
Again, rhetorical statement, either one of the two (Dem/Rep) I believe is required if you expect to win on the hardest maps (Deity, large, 7, etc.). Requirement is rhetorical not literal.
quote:
To say that WL is a crutch - well, I only occassionally do it in my Science City and only by setting luxuries to 20-40% at most. It takes skills to grow your cities that way, thus a very valid strategy. And growing cities by 1 over a 50/20/10 year span is realistic.
|
I also settle at about that rate. As to growing your city over 10 years, sure. But again, my general complaint is with pegging Luxuries at a rate designed SOLELY to WLTXD all cities for a dozen turns to grow them to then revert back to 30% but with double or triple the production.
quote:
And luxuries at 80% is whoring?!
|
Absolutely!!
quote:
Think of a small college town on the day of a big football game. I have witness towns of 10,000 swell to 125,000 (temporarily though). I have lived in cities in So.Cal that grew from 40,000 to 140,000 in only 10 years!
|
Well, first, those people come from somewhere else, so it's not like they come to town and STAY there. Same for cities, I lived in Las Vegas during a huge growth spurt. And I'll be damned if it wasn't also due to a pegged luxuries rate...
quote:
Geez, next thing someone will say is that Pyramids are required.  Sorry, just rambling...
|
They help! But there is no single wonder that one cannot win without. But lose Pyramids, Mike's, Hoover, and Magellan, and expect to get pounded...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Canadian War Beaver
|
|
Vancouver BC Canada, PST
Apr 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Venger and co........ wltkd is no more unrealistic than adding caravans to the wonder production or to be more precise , starting a wonder , losing out on it and transfering the shields to another wonder.
the hoover dam is in no way similar in pieces to the cure for cancer.....
the game tries to be realistic, but alas it can only go so far  we already beat the realism topic of civ to death last millenium, so if its realism your looking for, maybe a computer flight sim is more your spead.
However, i like your stance and there is nothing wrong with your opinion, keep up the good work and watch the debate continue  , after all, thats what these forums are for
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sieve Too
|
|
New Hampshire, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Me: In order to do it successfully, you must be willing to give up a lot (expansion, war, good defense) while concentrating on infrastructure.
Venger: Oh I understand that, but I think the good player can pull that off all too easily
|
But shouldn't a good player be able to win the game using the correct strategies? WLT_D is but one of many strategies. Like any strategy, you give up X now in the hopes of gaining Y later. Given the severe restrictions placed on Rep/Dem gov't, there needs to be some incentive to switching to these gov'ts. Why is growing your civ via WLT_D less valid than plunking down a large number of small cities?
If you want to play a perfectionist style game, WLT_D is the only way to do it. How else can your 10 cities win against the Mongols' 40+ cities unless yours are larger?
Also remember that unchecked population growth brings on pollution. Mass Transit and Hydro Plants are a long way off from Rep and Dem. So while you might get into the low teens with WLT_D, you are basically stuck there throughout the rest of the mid-game.
In the area of realism, the "standard" method of population growth is exactly the opposite of what you expect in a real population, i.e. It takes more and more time for a city to grow each time a new citizen is added.
quote:
You can bite the bullet for 12 turns and emerge with double or triple the production, research, and revenue.
|
You can accomplish the same thing with ICS. Or capturing your neighbors cities. Or using Spies. Or demanding tribute. Or sharing techs in an alliance. Or sending caravans across the seas.
Also you are not correct in claiming that you are merely "taking 12 turns" to come out ahead. In truth, you must have already spent many dozens of turns setting up for WLT_D: a) building infrastructure, b) improving land, c) pursuing "peaceful" science goals. All the while you are making your civ more and more vulnerable because the above also implies: a) not building a good military, b) not settling and claiming new land, c) having obsolete units.
quote:
either one of the two (Dem/Rep) I believe is required if you expect to win on the hardest maps (Deity, large, 7, etc.). Requirement is rhetorical not literal.
|
My experience in exactly the opposite. I find it much easier to win via conqest than via the space ship. In conquest games, I never bother with Rep or Dem. YMMV of course.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cato
|
|
Atlanta, GA, USA
Apr 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
On the realism issue:
Is 76 million population growth in 19 years (turns) realistic?
See USA, 1946-1964 (a.k.a "The Baby Boom"). I challenge any CivII player to match this type of growth.
It is a valid strategy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:12
|
|
quote:
<font size=1>Originally posted by Canadian War Beaver on 05-08-2000 09:54 PM</font>
Venger and co........ wltkd is no more unrealistic than adding caravans to the wonder production or to be more precise , starting a wonder , losing out on it and transfering the shields to another wonder.
|
Redeploying production is not nearly as disconcerting as what can be done with WLTXD.
quote:
the hoover dam is in no way similar in pieces to the cure for cancer.....
the game tries to be realistic, but alas it can only go so far we already beat the realism topic of civ to death last millenium, so if its realism your looking for, maybe a computer flight sim is more your spead.
|
The most realistic part of Civ2 is that when playing last stages it seems to take one year to play one year...
quote:
However, i like your stance and there is nothing wrong with your opinion, keep up the good work and watch the debate continue , after all, thats what these forums are for
|
Thanks, just wanted to bounce the topic around a little. Again, it seems too powerful to me...
Venger
[This message has been edited by Venger (edited May 09, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sten Sture on 05-09-2000 01:08 PM
LoL - How about :
Defensive terrain - Crutch for bad tacticians
Instruction manuals - Crutch for bad improvisors
Tranmissions - Crutch for bad drivers
Money - Crutch for bad thieves
|
You are a singular wit.
quote:
I can't believe this thread exists... 
|
So SKIP IT. God people, if you have nothing to add, then freaking go DO SOMETHING ELSE.
If you think WLTXD is a perfectly reasonable tactic, used to good effect, so be it, please say so. If you think it's too powerful, too easy, then say so. 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...just not on this thread.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:12
|
|
quote:
But shouldn't a good player be able to win the game using the correct strategies?
|
Part of my contention is that a good player should be able to win without what I consider a questionable strategy.
quote:
WLT_D is but one of many strategies. Like any strategy, you give up X now in the hopes of gaining Y later.
|
I'm not sure I'd call it a strategy, I'd more likely refer to it as a tool. Or crutch...
quote:
Given the severe restrictions placed on Rep/Dem gov't, there needs to be some incentive to switching to these gov'ts.
|
Severe? I really find the restrictions are more than offset by the advantages, all without the population growth aspect of WLTYYYD...
quote:
Why is growing your civ via WLT_D less valid than plunking down a large number of small cities?
|
I'm not sure why there is an attempt at a correlation between these two. Frankly, I find ICS more digestible than WLTYYYD, probably since I witness WLTYYYD firsthand and what it can do in my own Civ. I could add 10% more luxuries and explosively grow my Civ. But that's too easy, and cheap.
quote:
If you want to play a perfectionist style game, WLT_D is the only way to do it. How else can your 10 cities win against the Mongols' 40+ cities unless yours are larger?
|
As the geniuses at Hasbro took the Mongols out of the Extended Game in ToT, I'm not sure...but against any aggressive Civ - find a way. Probe their rear (God that's an uncomfortable sentence to type). Attack en masse. Take and consolidate. Whatever. Sometimes you may lose. But saying "I know, I'll whore luxuries for 10 turns so I can double my size", just seems too easy.
quote:
Also remember that unchecked population growth brings on pollution. Mass Transit and Hydro Plants are a long way off from Rep and Dem. So while you might get into the low teens with WLT_D, you are basically stuck there throughout the rest of the mid-game.
|
I imagine most of my problem with WLTYYYD is in the later game, maybe Railroad on, when most players should have good infrastructure of roads. It's not growing your capital from 5 to 9 that's so bad, it's growing it from 15 to 32 that really chaps my hide.
quote:
In the area of realism, the "standard" method of population growth is exactly the opposite of what you expect in a real population, i.e. It takes more and more time for a city to grow each time a new citizen is added.
|
I find it most realistic. Diminishing returns applies here.
quote:
You can accomplish the same thing with ICS.
|
No way. ICS is slower to develop, and is anathema to Rep/Dem. At least I would expect it so considering the higher city overhead required in those governments.
quote:
Or capturing your neighbors cities.
|
Not the same.
quote:
Or using Spies.
|
Another crutch - spy pimping.
quote:
Or demanding tribute.
|
Not under these govs.
quote:
Or sharing techs in an alliance.
|
What's an alliance?
quote:
Or sending caravans across the seas.
|
I never trade with a foreign city. Unless I'm about to sack it...
quote:
Also you are not correct in claiming that you are merely "taking 12 turns" to come out ahead. In truth, you must have already spent many dozens of turns setting up for WLT_D: a) building infrastructure, b) improving land, c) pursuing "peaceful" science goals. All the while you are making your civ more and more vulnerable because the above also implies: a) not building a good military, b) not settling and claiming new land, c) having obsolete units.
|
Isn't that part of good management under of Rep/Dem? I don't see city bloat as a piece of that puzzle.
quote:
My experience in exactly the opposite. I find it much easier to win via conquest than via the space ship. In conquest games, I never bother with Rep or Dem. YMMV of course.
|
The first spaceship I ever built was in ToT. And that was only to go conquest THAT planet...
I played bloodlust only in Civ2. Why? Too easy to build the spaceship. Plus, spaceship, big whoop. Try landing 25 divisions on the Carthaginian homeland for a mass invasion. Now THAT'S a challenge...
Oh, and as to governments...I never play Communist or Fanatic. Blech. Just a moral hangup or something...kinda like never being able to play the bad guy in other games...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JERandall
|
|
New Hampshire, USA
Apr 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger on 05-09-2000 10:30 PM
I played bloodlust only in Civ2. Why? Too easy to build the spaceship.
[...]
Oh, and as to governments...I never play Communist or Fanatic. [...]
Venger
|
God, Venger, we are all *so* impressed at your Civ-playing abilities. All the rest of us whining, WLT_D-using, luxury-whoring, spy-pimping weaklings are completely unable to compete with your pure and viruous method of play.
I bow at your feet and request that you enlighten me with you infinite wisdom about how the game should be played. I will never again move a unit or build anything without first asking you, Venger, if doing so is acceptable in the Pure and Virtuous Method of Civ-Playing.
Have I made my point? No? Did I at least amuse you? *No*?! Well, I sure as heck amused myself. :-)
------------------
JERandall
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-05-2000 03:07
|