 |
|
|
Well, trying to achieve fast times IS a kind of contest.
There is this newbie, don't remember his name; he read many posts here and "became really better" or something like this, as he said. Now he wants to know when to swith over from perfectionist to expansioist. THAT's what I'm talking about. When he has more fun being perfectionist, then why does he want to become a conqueror? Well? Because he wants to
1. fit in
2. being GOOD. But it's not important whether you are GOOD at anything or not.
I know that Americans see this very different. They always want to WIN. It's ridiculous...
|
|
| |
|
|
jpk
|
|
Minneapolis
Feb 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Andz83, play in whatever way you wish to play. For what it is worth I rarely complete a game. I play until my civilization seems to be excellent, say "job well done," and then retire.
The idea is to develop a nice civilization in spite of what the barbarians and AI's throw at me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hawkx9
|
|
Moorhead, MN, US
Jun 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Andz83,
Being the one who posted the question, "when to switch from Profectionist to Conqueror?," I'd like to refute your post. 
First of all, I wasn't aware that I needed to become a war mongorer to "fit in." Isn't the big thing now OCC?  I'm interested in others' aggression tactics because I'd like to learn other facets of the game. Yes, perfectionism will alway be my preferred style simply because it fits my personality, but that shouldn't keep me or anyone else from trying something new. We must remain open minded in life.
Secondly, mediocrity is nothing for which to shoot. Becoming "good," or bettering one's self, should be the goal in everything we do. Why settle for less?
With that said... I understand you're German? The war's over. We won. Let it go. 
Peace
[This message has been edited by Hawkx9 (edited June 08, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
When I go for a high score, I do it over 3weeks-1 month. Play half an hour every day, its boring, but you its cool to see if you can beat the top score.
I am currently trying to beat the warlord record.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:12
|
|
There's something wrong with wanting to win?
I like to succeed at things I compete at. I've played chess, backgammon, cards, etc, where the only real purpose is to win.
I also like to master complex situations. I played computer quest games, the Sim games, etc for that reason. But neither group was entirely satisfactory.
So, when I discovered CivII, I was hooked. Both apply. Winning is a measure of your success in dealing with barbs, opponents, geographical restraints, selecting appropriate strategies for a given situation, etc. On the other hand, you also get to build a civ the way you want, as perfect or as large as you desire to attempt, and can enjoy your own little people wandering around doing useful work.
But I don't see any reason to denigrate enjoying the "winning" part, too. Is there anyone who *likes* coming in last in a game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:12
|
|
Andz83, I'm with you - I'm a terrible player! I was so excited recently when, playing at King level, I won for the second time ever! 
My problem is that I get caught up in playing the role of "leader of my people" which can lead to decisions not perhaps overly compatible with winning!
For instance, if one of my cities is captured, I will spare no effort to liberate my citizens, even if the kingdom's coffers are emptied and the military wrecked in the process. Hey, they are my people, I am responsible for their welfare!
Sometimes I hang onto ancient units for sentimental reasons. Also, I will never nuke a city that was formerly part of my kingdom. How can you nuke your own people!
I may not win often, but I always have fun!
Now you know why I don't dare to play MP!  Hey Andz83, maybe we should organize an MP game with kindred lousy players!
- mindseye
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jim W
|
|
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Sep 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mindseye on 06-08-2000 09:18 PM
My problem is that I get caught up in playing the role of "leader of my people" which can lead to decisions not perhaps overly compatible with winning!
For instance, if one of my cities is captured, I will spare no effort to liberate my citizens, even if the kingdom's coffers are emptied and the military wrecked in the process. Hey, they are my people, I am responsible for their welfare!
Sometimes I hang onto ancient units for sentimental reasons. Also, I will never nuke a city that was formerly part of my kingdom. How can you nuke your own people!
I may not win often, but I always have fun!
Now you know why I don't dare to play MP!
- mindseye
|
Now this describes very much my own style! No foreigner is going to hang on to one of _my_ cities if I have anything to say about it!
There has been a time or two when I just had to leave that city be for several centuries, but it was always a sore point with me.
As for nuking, well, maybe I'm too ecologically minded, but I have yet to build a capabiltiy for nuclear warfare in any of my games. I'm not sure how things work, but it does appear that the AI won't build nukes unlesss you've started building them first. I could be wrong on that; I just know that no nukes have appeared in any of my games, and that no nukes is good nukes.
We poison half the world to win some kind of philosophical, economic, or religious point? Sounds a little strange to me.
I can't wait for S.M. Stirling's _Island in A Sea of Time_ series to get that far. Will the people of Nantucket invent nuclear warfare, or try to keep it a secret?
Jim W
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
jpk
|
|
Minneapolis
Feb 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Actually I think the people who post here are more cooperative than competitive.
When I first visited Apolyton Ming was sharing everything he knew about tribute. It was a big help and I appreciated it.
I don't know who first proposed OCC but there were questions about whether it was even possible. Then Paul came along and freely explained the techniques he used.
Many others have shared their discoveries as well.
Someone who was really competitive and interested solely in winning would not do these things. In fact they would try to disguise what they were doing.
As far as I can tell people have status here because the SHARE their expertise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
John-SJ
|
|
Silicon Valley, USA
Aug 1999
time: 21:12
|
|
mindseye:
"Maybe there should be a second tier of "challenges" for those of us who are "victory-impaired". For instance, instead of the One City Challenge, there could also be the Twenty City Challenge."
Well, in a way there is, it's called the Space Odyssey Challenge or SOC. The object is, given a comparison map so everyone gets the same start, to make it to AC by any means possible, OCC, ICS, perfectionist, it's up to you. Check out this thread, http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum3/H...html?date=13:39 and keep your eyes open, there should be a new SOC map out in about a week.
John-SJ
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-06-2000 23:33
Can anyone explain me what our newbie wanted to tell me here?
|