The All Leaders Challenge Game Bullpen [Archive]

Sisiutil

Apr 12, 2007, 10:43 PM

The idea of this thread came about as a place to provide links to the previous ALC game threads, and that's what you'll find in this first post. My board signature was becoming rather cluttered with them, so it's easier to just move them to a thread of their own. And this way I get to include a little extra reference information for the train-spotters out there. ;)

However, that's not much of a discussion thread, is it? So besides offering links to the old ALC games, I thought this thread could also be a place to discuss the ALC series in general--a place to discuss things that are not directly related to the game currently in progress and would therefore be off-topic. Things like--Should the games move up to the next difficulty level? Which leader should be next? Should the games start using the Better AI mod? How come Sisiutil is so intelligent, witty and erudite, and how can I be more like him?

Ahem. :mischief: :blush:

And so forth. Anything related to the ALCs goes!

But first, without further ado, here are the links to the previous games. If anyone wants the saved game files from these games, just PM me with your e-mail address.

Game 1: Aztec/Montezuma (Prince Level; Domination Victory; Score: 15232) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=168755)
Game 2: China/Mao Zedong (Prince Level; Space Victory; Score: 14668) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170384)
Game 3: China/Qin Shi Huang (Prince Level; Space Victory; Score: 21247) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171863)
Game 4: Egypt/Hatshepsut (Prince Level; Domination Victory; Score: 44777) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173090)
Game 5: England/Victoria (Prince Level; Cultural Victory; Score: 24409) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4167518)Feature: Late-game cultural win
Game 6: France/Louis XIV (Prince Level; Domination Victory; Score: 21695) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4236532)
Game 7: Germany/Frederick the Great (Prince Level; Domination Victory; Score: 35418) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=178995) Features: Pyramids gambit, Specialist Economy
Game 8: Greece/Alexander the Great (Prince Level; Conquest Victory; Score: 21194) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4426595) Feature: Hybrid Economy
Game 9: Inca/Huayna Capac (Monarch Level; Diplomatic Victory; Score: 37721) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4597003) Features: First Monarch Level ALC, Isolated Start
Game 10: India/Asoka (Monarch Level, Warlords; Space Victory; Score: 37790) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4716138) Feature: First Warlords ALC
Game 11: Carthage/Hannibal (Monarch Level, Warlords; Space Victory; Score: 22718) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4948499) Feature: Internet Project
Game 12: Japan/Tokugawa (Monarch Level, Warlords; Domination Victory; Score: 75824) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5023034)
Game 13: Mali/Mansa Musa (Monarch Level, Warlords; Space Victory; Score: 37247) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=207312)
Game 14: Mongolia/Kublai Khan (Monarch Level, Warlords; Domination Victory; Score: 91103) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5187457) Feature: Great Merchant Economy
Game 15: Ottoman/Mehmed II (Monarch Level, Warlords; Loss; Score: 2657) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5315318) Feature: Isolated Start
Game 16: Persia/Cyrus (Monarch Level, Warlords; Domination Victory; Score: 76759) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5408988)
Game 17: Russia/Peter (Monarch Level, Warlords; Loss) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5642091)
Game 17, Take 2: Russia/Peter (Monarch Level, Beyond the Sword; Space Victory; Score: 38754) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5747417) First Beyond the Sword ALC
Game 18: Spain/Isabella (Monarch Level, Beyond the Sword; Diplomatic Victory; Score: 66550) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5897023) Feature: Apostolic Palace early religious diplomatic victory
Game 18, Take 2: Spain/Isabella (Emperor Level, Beyond the Sword; Domination Victory; Score: 48052) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5938531) Feature: First Emperor Level ALC
Game 19: Sumer/Gilgamesh (Emperor Level, Beyond the Sword; Space Victory; Score: 39919) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6038117#post6038117)
Game 20: Vikings/Ragnar (Emperor Level, Beyond the Sword; Domination Victory; Score: 102108) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6201146) Feature: Early Astronomy Gambit
Game 21: Zulus/Shaka (Emperor Level, Beyond the Sword); Domination Victory; Score: 123429) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6458567) Features: Aggressive AI, No Tech Brokering, No Goody Huts
Game 22: Arabs/Saladin (Emperor Level, Beyond the Sword) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6640390); Loss
Game 22, Take 2: Arabs/Saladin (Emperor Level, Beyond the Sword; Domination Victory; Score: 108819) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6720474)
Game 23: America/Lincoln (Immortal Level, Beyond the Sword; Space Race Victory; Score: 50980) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6984473) Feature: First Immortal Level ALC
Game 24: Babylon/Hammurabi (Immortal Level, Beyond the Sword; Domination Victory; Score: 135666) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7074913)
Game 25: Celts/Boudica (Abandoned) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7244586)
Game 25: Celts/Boudica, Take 2 (Also Abandoned) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7717013)

The ALCs: The Next Generation

Game 26: Dutch/Willem van Oranje, Played by Lord Parkin (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322325)
Game 27: England/Churchill, Played by DMOC (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=334365)
Game 28: Ethiopia/Zara Yaqob, Played by Benginal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=400453)
Game 29: France/De Gaulle, Played by Benginal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=405197)
Game 30: Germany/Bismarck, Played by Benginal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=408751)
Game 31: Greek/Pericles, Played by Benginal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=415019)
Game 32: HRE/Charlemagne, Played by Benginal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=423075)
Game 32: Korea/Wang Kon, Played by Benginal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=425549)

UPDATE: MAY 22nd, 2009

Sadly, after many years of doing this, I find I can no longer muster the gumption to play and post the ALCs. :( I've simply run into the law of diminishing returns. I started these threads to improve my own game, which they obviously did, since I started on Prince and worked my way up to Immortal (and, off-line, I'm going to attempt deity soon). But I find I simply wasn't getting much out of the threads anymore (even though I know many of you were, which is why I kept them going). These sorts of threads require their fair share of time, dedication, and effort, and I have a limited supply of those (my altruistic streak also has its limits, sadly). Many of you have noted how the delay between posts was becoming longer and longer in the last few games; now you know why.

I may not have accomplished all I originally set out to do in the ALCs (play a game as every leader and reach Deity level), but I've had a good run. In fact, if I count the "take 2s" as separate games--which they were--I played and posted 26 ALC matches. That's exactly the number that would have been required to play a game with each leader in the original Civ IV release, a.k.a. "vanilla". I know, it's not quite "mission accomplished", but like any opportunistic leader, I'm more than happy to peremptorily hang that on a banner behind me, give a rousing farewell speech to the troops, and head home to hang out on my ranch. If only I had a ranch...

At any rate, I'm quite proud of the games, and the threads live on as my legacy. I hope they will prove as enlightening to future generations as they have to...

:twitch:

(Okay, I'm getting pretty pretentious, aren't I?)

Anyway. I had to pull down some of the old saved game files to make room for new ones. This has prompted several of you to ask me to e-mail you the missing games, which I will continue to do. But to make things a little easier, since I no longer need the file space, I've posted the starts of all the ALCs here in this post. Sadly, I lost the first six starts :eek: and no one else seems to have them either, but all the others are in the ZIP file that's attached, along with the earliest saves from the early games.

If you check the most recent posts in the thread as of today's date, several other players have indicated an interest in carrying on the ALCs. I will include links to those threads above. The torch has been passed, and...

Whoops, there goes my pretention alert again. :rolleyes:

Sisiutil

Apr 12, 2007, 10:55 PM

On a related note, here is a list of anticipated future ALC games, in order. Since I've now retired and others are playing the games, I will allow those brave volunteers to decide whether to follow this schedule or not.

Game 34: Khmer/Suryavarman
Game 35: India/Mahatma Gandhi
Game 36: Mongolia/Genghis Khan
Game 37: Native American/ Sitting Bull
Game 38: Ottomans/ Suleiman
Game 39: Portugal/D. Joao II
Game 40: Rome/Augustus Caesar
Game 41: Russia/Stalin
Game 42: America/Roosevelt
Game 43: Byzantine/ Justinian I
Game 44: Celts/Brennus
Game 45: Egypt/Ramesses
Game 46: England/Elizabeth
Game 47: French/Napoleon
Game 48: Maya/Pacal II
Game 49: Persia/Darius
Game 50: Rome/Julius Caesar
Game 51: Russia/Catherine
Game 52: America/George Washington

gallego

Apr 12, 2007, 11:01 PM

scy12

Apr 12, 2007, 11:06 PM

marowaker

Apr 12, 2007, 11:07 PM

Good luck trying 36 games before CivV comes out. I don't see how you are going to do it though:confused: seeing as you are only up to ALC 15 and the 2nd expansion pack of the game is about to be released. If you want to try and play all of them, speeding up could be an option?

Anyway,
How come Sisiutil is so intelligent, witty and erudite, and how can I be more like him?

I have no idea :confused: Maybe start my own ALC series :lol:

Steppin' Razor

Apr 12, 2007, 11:18 PM

Just a quick word of thanks, this series has been a great help.

Sisiutil

Apr 12, 2007, 11:26 PM

Are we ever going to see a game with aggressive AI and raging barbarians? The gameplay just seems more realistic and hectic with those options, and I feel like overly calculated, super efficient starts are a little bit of an misinterpretation of the game; a tribe of settlers should first be worried about protection, not getting out a warrior, worker, etc. on the exact right turn in order to build the Oracle at the exact right moment a thousand years later, etc. The need for protection first is more true to the concept of the game, I think.
Interesting suggestion! In many ways, I think I like this idea better than moving up to the next difficulty level. Lately people have been dissuading me from moving up to Emperor as it usually entails more restrictive, tried-and-true strategies rather than allowing for some of the wild-a** gambits I've tried in a few of these games. Altering the game settings might be a good alternative to Emperor level.
Enough with the Warmongers. How can you select Catherine as last , how ?
Well, Cathy is one of the most popular of the Civ leaders (as your post helps to show), and I wanted to focus the ALC series on leaders (a) who are less popular and (b) that I myself have not used. This is also why my own personal favourite leaders (Ramesses, Elizabeth, and both Caesars) are down near the bottom of the list.

However, I'll consider your request. I myself don't play as Catherine very often anymore, not since Warlords changed her from Financial :) to Imperialistic :( . What about everybody else?
Good luck trying 36 games before CivV comes out. I don't see how you are going to do it though:confused: seeing as you are only up to ALC 15 and the 2nd expansion pack of the game is about to be released. If you want to try and play all of them, speeding up could be an option?
I'm paddling as fast as I can! :lol:

Believe me, I know I might not ever get there. (Another reason I've left my personal favourite leaders, as whom I play most of my off-line games, to the end of the list; no big if they're not featured in an ALC.) But with a provisional schedule in place, you folks can do your best to persuade me that a certain leader is more deserving of an ALC game and should move up. Someone PM'd me recently, for example, requesting that I play as Brennus in the next game.

I'm not opposed to playing as certain leaders out of order--Hannibal, for example. It's a game, it's about fun, so whoever looks like they might be the most fun to try next--wins! And hopefully I will too. :D

axident

Apr 12, 2007, 11:56 PM

vormuir

Apr 13, 2007, 12:44 AM

I like the idea of changing the settings instead of advancing to Emperor.

One thing we haven't seen: different map types (beyond Continents and Fractal, that is). How about some games on Small or Large maps, or on Highlands, or in an Ice Age? Nobody seems to use those variants much, so it might be interesting to see.

Waldo

Sjaramei

Apr 13, 2007, 12:50 AM

Things like--Should the games move up to the next difficulty level?

Game 19: Viking/Ragnar
Game 20: Zulu/Shaka

Do it when you hit these leaders :D
And if people are worried about gambits like GME and other wierd things, you could try to do the warmongering leaders at emperor level since that will give you more of a challenge in war. (last game went a little bit too fast :)) Keep monarch for peaceful wierd stuff :)

martin031

Apr 13, 2007, 01:38 AM

What are your experiences with Better AI. I have been using it, but the AI seems to docile, even though they mix their stacks better and seem smarter. (And this is with agg option checked)

I wouldn't mind seeing you start with checking Agressive AI first.

Rancid Sushi

Apr 13, 2007, 01:50 AM

TRJS

Apr 13, 2007, 01:50 AM

I would be interested in seeing an ALC on a HUGE map. Just to see more details on war strategy in the late game.

Currently late game tends to be finishing of space race/diplomatic victory and the military plays little or no role.

oyzar

Apr 13, 2007, 01:56 AM

I would like to see a move to emproer sometime soon since you clearly is easily mastering monarch now. It will still be educational as there is still plenty of room to play around if your good enough(as you seem to be).

EEE_BOY

Apr 13, 2007, 03:53 AM

i think the warlord expansion offers an option to prevent single player from editing the map and random seeds on reload. this is done by ticking those two options in the custom window. i usually did frequent reload when playing civ :blush: so these two options help me to play 'honestly'. i didn't mean that those ALC's or EMC's maps are edited, but ticking those two options before start convince people who read the thread that the game is played in a normal way. anyway, those threads are so great that i keep reading again and again.:goodjob:

lukep

Apr 13, 2007, 04:41 AM

no mods please.

that would means mac players cannot read your saves, if the mod is not ported (which afaik is the case of better AI).

for increased challenge, large maps, aggressive AI would be my choice.

You can also pick up the worst opponents, like all financials when you are not, or starting with assured monty, alexander, louis, etc...

Oh, and yes, i use a mac (or rather severals ;) )

aelf

Apr 13, 2007, 06:02 AM

This is a great idea. Mind if I use it too? I hate complicated sigs.

i didn't mean that those ALC's or EMC's maps are edited, but ticking those two options before start convince people who read the thread that the game is played in a normal way. anyway, those threads are so great that i keep reading again and again.:goodjob:

I believe you could open the saves anytime and check the game settings. I think both the ALCs and the EMCs/Immortal Challenges do not have the random seed option (with which each battle would give a different outcome when reloaded) checked as it is. I haven't heard of any game option that prevents editing of the map. Anyway, I think doing so takes away the fun and the suspense.

r_rolo1

Apr 13, 2007, 09:22 AM

Sisiutil, do you have any idea where to put the (sort off) confirmed civs of BTS x-pack? I'm saying that because my gut feeling says the Portuguese leader will be a difficult one to handle ( based on the civ III ... no trait sinergy, a less than useful UU ... in warlord terms, a Brennus with Expansive/ Creative). Maybe Prince Henry ( I would prefer the King Jonh II ( a guy that putted Isabella of Spain in a diplomatic negotiation (resulting in sharing the world) deserves to be on Civ4 :lol: ) , but outside Portugal most people don't know him) can be a top priority.

Scaphism

Apr 13, 2007, 10:59 AM

I'm really looking forward to seeing you play Shaka, get an early GG and make a Medic 3 + Morale + Mobility Impi. I don't know how useful having all that extra movement is, but it's just fun.

Hero

Apr 13, 2007, 11:59 AM

First, thanks Sisiutil for your efforts. I have learned alot from the ALC games. I play Prince so I vote for no move to Emperor and no mods, but Aggresssive AIs or Raging Barbs could be entertaining. I'd like to mention something that relates to the current ALC game. I would like to see fewer "I checked out the map. See spoiler below" or "I played to xxxx AD. See spoiler below" posts. They don't really add anything to the discussion. Perhaps people could be encouraged to start their own "ALC Game XX Spoiler Thread"s or something.

Sisiutil

Apr 13, 2007, 12:34 PM

I agree, you should prioritize unpopular leaders. I've read every single ALC so far and I've learned a lot, but I still can't win before 1900AD (I need to get 1750 before I move to from Noble to Prince). Don't forget about your noob readers. Even though the experts help you win your games, the noobs benefit the most from them. I've improved a lot because of the ALCs. Catherine is a good choice for a couple reasons: both her traits and her UU have been nerfed. It will be good to see how cope with that. You might also have a hard time with unhealthiness in your capital city. Catherine has a way of getting around.:D
This is one of the main reasons I've thus far resisted moving up to the next level; the noobs are most vocal about keeping the ALCs at a difficulty level so they're still relevant to those on Noble and Prince and below. I get the feeling that the majority of Civ players are mid-level players. The higher levels seem to take a level of dedication that not many people can bring to the game.

Snaaty

Apr 13, 2007, 12:58 PM

I wouldn´t move up in difficulty... ...rather play out all leaders according to their traits and try to use their special units (what makes the game already harder I think).

Ranging barbs and agressive AI´s are also options I would like to see;)

LuckyAC

Apr 13, 2007, 01:14 PM

I agree, you should prioritize unpopular leaders. I've read every single ALC so far and I've learned a lot, but I still can't win before 1900AD (I need to get 1750 before I move to from Noble to Prince).
I don't think you win particularly faster on lower levels. The world tech pace is faster, so yours will be through trading, so you'll win cultural, space and diplomatic perhaps faster. My first Warlords space win on Monarch was in 1948, then my very next game I had a space win on Emperor in 1898. That is to say, speed of victory should not be a deterrent from going to the next level, if you can handle it.

Softnum

Apr 13, 2007, 03:23 PM

You should move up a level and do all the leaders again once you get done with them all at monarch.

PublicEnemy

Apr 13, 2007, 03:27 PM

You should move up a level and do all the leaders again once you get done with them all at monarch.

Yeah, go through all of them (including the new expansion) at Emperor, shouldn't take too long. :lol:

Sisiutil

Apr 13, 2007, 04:03 PM

You should move up a level and do all the leaders again once you get done with them all at monarch.
I think if I tried that I'd get lapped by Civilization VI as well as V!

ratrangerm

Apr 13, 2007, 05:47 PM

Sisiutil

Apr 13, 2007, 06:27 PM

I wouldn't move up a level. Trying options such as Aggressive AI and Raging Barbarians would be the way to go.

Another option might be to limit games going to Emperor for civs in which you intend to flex your military might as soon as you can. From what I can recall from past ALCs, particularly the most recent ones, it's been the military route victories that have been pulled off the quickest. So moving to Emperor for those alone (I believe Napoleon would be the next civ with the Aggressive trait) would be fine, but stick to Monarch for others.

And I do like what somebody suggested about playing against speifics civs. Nothing wrong with picking your opponents, especially if you want to find a way to make things interesting. Imagine, for example, a game in which you have Monty, Izzy, Mehmed and Saladin all as opponents, along with whoever else happens to be a religious nut.
I like the Emperor for military games idea; that could come up a lot sooner than Napoleon. Ragnar and Shaka are both warming up on the sidelines; I will definitely consider moving those games up to Emperor, especially Rangar, who also has the powerful Financial trait, a UB that gives his naval units extra reach, and a UU that's an upgrade to one of the best units in the game. I think Raggy could handle Emperor, don't you?

I'm not so sure about choosing my opponents. I'll consider it, though I'll need more convincing. Part of the enjoyment of Civ for me is the process of discovery. They game is addictive and replayable because it's different everytime, and part of the fun is discovering how it's different this time. The mysteries of what is out there (the map) and who is out there (the opponents) are part of the thrill. Someone beat me to Music's free GA! Someone is going wonder-crazy! Who could it be?

Now... if someone else was to set up the game in this way and hand it off to me, that might achieve what you're after while still leaving myself and everyone else in suspense. ;) It's also a way of making sure we don't get an isolated start. Sounds like fun, frankly, so long as you guys aren't too nasty to poor ol' Uncle Sisiutil. :please: (Like, say, stuffing me on a rock with Monty, Shaka, and Tokugawa.) It would require some coordination that would be out of my hands, however.

Kietharr

Apr 13, 2007, 06:30 PM

I suggest waiting till Ragnar or Shaka to move up to emporor. Both of them are leaders good for both conquest and economy (Rag is financial, shaka has a half courthouse effect on his barracks). Shaka is my personal favorite, and I think watching you play him on monarch would be a bit dull if I can manage 1600AD dominations with him on prince, even with my noobishness and ineptitude running a stable SE.

ordinaryguy

Apr 14, 2007, 03:49 AM

Can you do more diplomatic and cultural victories? There is only one of each so far.

Sisiutil

Apr 14, 2007, 11:25 AM

Can you do more diplomatic and cultural victories? There is only one of each so far.
I'll give it a shot when circumstances allow. The current game may see a cultural victory because it's an isolated start.

Uncle Istvan

Apr 22, 2007, 04:51 PM

Just out of curiosity, why wasn't korea right after Japan? I mean, it comes next alphabetically, Warlords was out, and Hwacha's are cool. What's not to like?

Sisiutil

Apr 22, 2007, 06:19 PM

Just out of curiosity, why wasn't korea right after Japan? I mean, it comes next alphabetically, Warlords was out, and Hwacha's are cool. What's not to like?

At the time, aelf had just finished an EMC game with Korea and as a lot of the same people follow both our game threads, I thought it would be repetitive. So Korea got postponed.

Uncle Istvan

Apr 22, 2007, 06:28 PM

At the time, aelf had just finished an EMC game with Korea and as a lot of the same people follow both our game threads, I thought it would be repetitive. So Korea got postponed.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

cabert

Apr 23, 2007, 04:45 AM

IMHO you're not going to play all the leaders before civ VII.
So I'd like to suggest putting some more leaders down the list, giving a higher priority to some you really want to play.

here is a short list of those we never (or very rarely) see in SGs, GotMs or articles.

Game 31: Russia/Stalin. Who played him already?
Game 23: Celts/Brennus : can't win playing with him, and not having him as opponent would be a nice change for me.
Game 22: Arab/Saladin : the vanilla version was rather popular. Now he is not so hot anymore...

the second tier list
Game 20: Zulu/Shaka. He was a recent WotM leader, but other than this, I didn't read a lot about him. + impies are powerful, but tricky to use well.
Game 18: Spain/Isabella. There is the famous "spain on a lake" SG. Other than this, she's just my favourite leader for cultural. Who else plays her out there? + it's the only spanish leader for now
Game 21: America/Roosevelt. america has 2 leaders. You should at least play one ;).

the rest can be left out IMHO = low on the list. I'd like you to show a good praetorian push, but at least half the people on this board know how to do it.

One more thing : don't move up. Emperor is for roman leaders ;)
One more more thing : fractal is too random, continents gave more standard games, true, but at least you didn't have the isolated starts too often.
One final more thing : don't burn yourself out.

UncleJJ

Apr 23, 2007, 06:06 AM

Game 21: America/Roosevelt. america has 2 leaders. You should at least play one ;).

I'm not sure if Canadians enjoy playing with the American leaders :p Too much history and cross border rivalry.

It would be a bit like me playing with a French leader :lol:

Which so far I have managed to avoid :eek: ... although that is more to do with their traits than anything as biased as I am alluding to ;)

cabert

Apr 23, 2007, 06:16 AM

I'm not sure if Canadians enjoy playing with the American leaders :p Too much history and cross border rivalry.

It would be a bit like me playing with a French leader :lol:

Which so far I have managed to avoid :eek: ... although that is more to do with their traits than anything as biased as I am alluding to ;)

I played elizabeth once (GotM 2!), and that's it for english leaders ;).
But I'm not biased :p.
To be honest, I never played the french either except in a SG (louis in P666 03 : fix the euro trash)...
I'm sure Sisiutil's mature enough to not completely trash the game when playing an american leader :rolleyes: .

Sisiutil

Apr 23, 2007, 11:48 AM

IMHO you're not going to play all the leaders before civ VII.
That's three iterations of the game--about 10 years if past history is any indication! Am I really going that slow?!?
So I'd like to suggest putting some more leaders down the list, giving a higher priority to some you really want to play.

here is a short list of those we never (or very rarely) see in SGs, GotMs or articles.

Game 31: Russia/Stalin. Who played him already?
Game 23: Celts/Brennus : can't win playing with him, and not having him as opponent would be a nice change for me.
Game 22: Arab/Saladin : the vanilla version was rather popular. Now he is not so hot anymore...

the second tier list
Game 20: Zulu/Shaka. He was a recent WotM leader, but other than this, I didn't read a lot about him. + impies are powerful, but tricky to use well.
Game 18: Spain/Isabella. There is the famous "spain on a lake" SG. Other than this, she's just my favourite leader for cultural. Who else plays her out there? + it's the only spanish leader for now
Game 21: America/Roosevelt. america has 2 leaders. You should at least play one ;).

Intriguing ideas. I'll consider them. I have to confess that I'm very interested to try out Cyrus/Persia and Isabella/Spain. Stalin is interesting too since his traits seem like an inherent contradiction (war or build, war or build?).

As for America, I have the greatest respect and affection for our cousins south of the border. (I love calling them that, since it makes them do a mental double-take. :D) However, I preferred Washington's trait combination before Warlords and played several vanilla games with him. Like Catherine, Genghis Khan, and Caesar, I think he got nerfed and that's unfortunate, especially since his UU and UB come so late.

I understand toning down certain game features that are borderline exploits (like the CS Slingshot, chopping, and so on). I can even live with nerfing some of the best UUs like Redcoats and Cossacks. However, I don't understand why they felt compelled to make some of the fans' favourite leaders less formidable. If a player wants a challenge, he/she can always try moving up a level or playing as a different leader; heck, I've practically made an on-line career out of the latter. The AI, on the other hand, usually needs all the help it can get. I've been tempted to change some of the traits back to their old settings for my off-line games.

(Though you can go overboard there; just for fun I made a mod that changed Julius Caesar to Aggressive and Organized, as well as replacing Fishing with The Wheel as a starting tech. Cheap barracks, easy hook-up of early resources, and especially automatic Combat I Praetorians made him ridiculously overpowered.)

lukep

Apr 23, 2007, 01:46 PM

Intriguing ideas. I'll consider them. I have to confess that I'm very interested to try out Cyrus/Persia and Isabella/Spain.

Stalin is interesting too since his traits seem like an inherent contradiction (war or build, war or build?).

the answer to this one is easy, war AND build. tried him, the combo may seems odd, but works nicely. Not my best game, but the map was awfull, and i somehow doubt i would have won this one with most leaders.

Build in the early game, a big romp, build again.

Dr Elmer Jiggle

Apr 23, 2007, 01:59 PM

Stalin is interesting too since his traits seem like an inherent contradiction (war or build, war or build?).

My current theory on leaders like that is that their strength lies in their versatility. With a leader like Caesar (either one), if you don't find iron nearby, you're kind of screwed. With a leader like Ragnar, if you find yourself mostly landlocked, you're kind of screwed, at least insofar as taking advantage of his leader- and civilization-specific traits.

Somebody like Stalin can very easily react to what the map presents. If he has early access to stone and/or marble, then he can take a very wonder heavy path. If he has access to lots of horses and metal and weak and/or annoying neighbors, he can take a military route. As the game progresses, he doesn't need to plan as far ahead in order to beat others to wonders or for war. He can switch gears more agilely than most other leaders.

The same is true for most other leaders that have "bad synergies." Synergistic traits tend to narrow down your strategic options. You're stronger in one or two particular areas, but that usually makes you proportionally weaker in others.

So the trick to playing a leader like Stalin is making sure you're reacting as much as possible to what the game presents, rather than trying to force the game to go in the direction of your predetermined strategy like you might with other leaders.

Heffling

Apr 23, 2007, 04:33 PM

Personally, I would love to see you try the upgraded AI. I started using it a month and a half ago and it makes the cpu opponents much more realistic.

martin031

Apr 23, 2007, 06:03 PM

cabert

Apr 24, 2007, 02:07 AM

That's three iterations of the game--about 10 years if past history is any indication! Am I really going that slow?!?

I tried to be smart, not a big success obviously :mischief: .
My point was more like "you'll get tired and quit long before the end" to be honest.

Intriguing ideas. I'll consider them. I have to confess that I'm very interested to try out Cyrus/Persia and Isabella/Spain. Stalin is interesting too since his traits seem like an inherent contradiction (war or build, war or build?).

you're your own boss, so you choose.
Cyrus was leader of WotM 7. This means that a good deal of people just played him. He's a big warmonger, though with good synergetic options.
+ some of the best having just played him there is quite some reference in the gotm subforum...

As for America, I have the greatest respect and affection for our cousins south of the border. (I love calling them that, since it makes them do a mental double-take. :D) However, I preferred Washington's trait combination before Warlords and played several vanilla games with him. Like Catherine, Genghis Khan, and Caesar, I think he got nerfed and that's unfortunate, especially since his UU and UB come so late.

I understand toning down certain game features that are borderline exploits (like the CS Slingshot, chopping, and so on). I can even live with nerfing some of the best UUs like Redcoats and Cossacks. However, I don't understand why they felt compelled to make some of the fans' favourite leaders less formidable. If a player wants a challenge, he/she can always try moving up a level or playing as a different leader; heck, I've practically made an on-line career out of the latter. The AI, on the other hand, usually needs all the help it can get. I've been tempted to change some of the traits back to their old settings for my off-line games.

(Though you can go overboard there; just for fun I made a mod that changed Julius Caesar to Aggressive and Organized, as well as replacing Fishing with The Wheel as a starting tech. Cheap barracks, easy hook-up of early resources, and especially automatic Combat I Praetorians made him ridiculously overpowered.)
now now now
do you say you want to play a game with rome just to get your personnal best score a bit higher?

KMadCandy

Apr 24, 2007, 03:50 AM

you're your own boss, so you choose.
Cyrus was leader of WotM 7. This means that a good deal of people just played him. He's a big warmonger, though with good synergetic options.
+ some of the best having just played him there is quite some reference in the gotm subforum...

i don't follow gotm, but i can tell you cyrus is a big warmonger. i am not a big warmonger, not by any stretch, in the early game. but as cyrus i've cleared out my continent of up to 3 rival civs before they met the other continent in three different games! he's the only one i've ever done that with, and he's really fun. i had to make a "don't play Cyrus" rule for now, he makes it too easy for me. and his UB is spiffy for builders, lets you have nice big cities.

anyway, i see the Better AI discussion coming up again and you know my opinion on that. which is "please no".

Sisiutil

Apr 24, 2007, 12:30 PM

Personally, I would love to see you try the upgraded AI. I started using it a month and a half ago and it makes the cpu opponents much more realistic.

Are you talking about better AI? I messed around with this, and at times they were better, and other times not so much. A few times they would not expand at all. They were playing OCC, I guess.

As far as fractal goes, I would like to see you move away from this as well. Too many times it is either isolated or on a long snaky pangea type landmass. This makes it too easy for the human player to manipulate relations and tech trade, at least I think so. And takes the fun out of finding out who the neighbors are.

If you are looking for more of a challenge, would adding a civ and playing random # if continents help? There is a new speed mod out now that helps reduce the turn time in unmodded games. I have played with it a bit and it seems to be pretty effective.
I prefer not to introduce any mods into the ALCs. I want anyone to be able to load the saved games rather than having to find, dl, and install a mod. And I want the games to be comparable to the regular game; a lot of players don't play with mods, or if they do, everybody has a favourite. Far better to use the standard game as a point of reference.

(That being said, I have played a couple of games with the Better AI, and like martin031 I found it to be a little inconsistent.)

Moving to fractal was an attempt to get away from the very standard game that the continents-based ALCs were becoming. The latest game, as Mehmed, features a truly isolated start, so that's a challenge and a big learning opportunity for everyone right there. I find the fractal maps have a wonderful way of presenting their own sets of challenges. (Strangely, I've noticed that copper seems surprisingly scarce on fractal maps while horses and iron are quite common.)

To me, frankly, the discussion around the game is the highlight of the series, more so than the game updates themselves, though I do strive to make those educational and entertaining. I may not (and often don't) execute everyone's advice optimally, but at least everyone following the games gets an opportunity to see that advice and contribute to the debates. To my mind, the game is just a springboard for the discussion.

pigswill

Apr 24, 2007, 12:40 PM

pholkhero

Apr 24, 2007, 01:28 PM

Strangely, I've noticed that copper seems surprisingly scarce on fractal maps while horses and iron are quite common.i actually thought it was perhaps Blake's AI (which I use), but i find that more and more, my military tech order is BW (yup, no Copper) > Archery > IW

btw, sisiutil, i'm immensely enjoying your series and look forward to more :goodjob:

Sisiutil

Apr 24, 2007, 02:04 PM

OTAKUjbski

Apr 24, 2007, 08:49 PM

I suspect that while the discussion may be the highlight for you the game updates are the highlight for 90%+ of your subscribers (including me). Its one thing to talk about such and such a strategy but its seeing what you do with it (or not!) that keeps the interest (and the ideas) going.
Isolated start is certainly a different challenge, fortunate that you got it playing Mehmed.

Okay, but there's definite synergy between the updates and the discussion.

:agree: Have you read the spoiler thread? It's one page with 95% fewer posts and hits.

Even my 2 stupid "Is this an exploit ..." posts have seen more activity than that!

The between-post activity may feel a little lengthy sometimes, but there is definitely a synergy in those discussions. They are quite possibly what make ALC's so popular!

It's one thing to postulate strategies in theory in the strategy threads and articles. The idea of these games is to see how those strategies and tactics play out, especially when variables such as the geography and neighbours come into play.

This could just get too involving and confusing, but would it be possible to make [some] future ALCs SALCs?

There have been so many different ideas and strategies posted that I can't help but wonder just how different things would be right now had we chosen any of those different strategies.

I'm not certain exactly how to implement succession gaming into the ALC without confusing the issue or putting 'too many spoons in the pot' but certainly believe if the element was there, it could shed a lot of light on different strategies and why they work best in certain situations over others.

-- my 2c

vormuir

Apr 25, 2007, 04:35 AM

Sisiutil

Apr 25, 2007, 11:43 AM

On the topic of different maps: Sisiutil, have you tried the Shuffle option?

I've been playing with it lately and I like it a lot.

IIUC, it gives you one of four map types -- Continents, Fractal, Pangaea and Archipelago -- randomly with an equal chance. You'll realize pretty quickly which type you are on, but it definitely adds an interesting extra level of suspense in the first few turns.

If you want to try different map types, maybe this might be a way to go?

cheers,

Waldo
I've seen that option, of course, but I've always wondered what the difference is between it and Fractal, aside from the fact that Shuffle will occasionally give you an Archipelago map.

And I'm not sure I'm too enthused about the Archipelago map type; I've tried a couple of off-line games with them and they seem like an isolated start, only worse. I found them very frustrating--resources hither and yon and only accessible via ship, far-flung cities to claim those resources that are exorbitantly expensive and difficult to defend, war made tedious by the necessity of transferring units aboard ships that only carry 2 units and move 2 tiles at a time... you get the picture.

Give me land, lots of land, and the starry skies above...

vormuir

Apr 25, 2007, 12:33 PM

Archipelago games are tough, but interesting. After all, the AI civs are under the same constraints!

You have to think ahead. Early wars are much harder (it's not easy to do an axe rush when you have to deliver the Axemen in triremes, movement 2, two units at a time). Civs with early UUs are penalized somewhat; civs that start with Fishing get an edge.

But it's interesting. And it's not really like an isolated start on Fractal. Four times out of five, you have one or more civs within trireme reach. So you have someone to talk to, trade with, and attack.

Also, barbs are rarely an issue. Archipelago landmasses are usually small enough that fogbusting is easy, and they also tend to provide convenient chokepoints.

Give the archipelago map another try. You might find it growing on you.

Waldo

Sisiutil

Apr 25, 2007, 01:01 PM

I see your point. I seem to recall that I tried those maps as Rome. Though Rome starts with Fishing, it was frustrating not being able to use Praetorians effectively.

Sounds like I should try the map while playing as someone like Elizabeth--also starts with Fishing, but has a later UU.

Maybe I'll give it a try off-line and see what I think. Even so, I'd rather not get an archipelago may when I have an early UU, and more than I'd want an isolated start. I may choose map types accordingly. Persia, for example, should probably start on a continents map.

cabert

Apr 25, 2007, 01:07 PM

archipelago is a map for ragnar ;)

pigswill

Apr 25, 2007, 01:41 PM

archipelago is the map for Ragnar

manu-fan

Apr 25, 2007, 01:45 PM

Sisiutil

Apr 25, 2007, 01:58 PM

If you don't like Archipelago, just do your own Shuffle before starting an ALC

Roll a die

1, 2 Pangea
3,4 Continents
5, 6 Fractal

And don't cheat!! Oh look, I rolled Fractal again :)

Cheers.
I could always combine the pre-game thread with a map poll. I kind of like that idea.

Admiral Kutzov

Apr 25, 2007, 08:34 PM

This could just get too involving and confusing, but would it be possible to make [some] future ALCs SALCs?

or have a shadow thread where volunteers try the strategies you reject for a set...

KMadCandy

Apr 25, 2007, 10:37 PM

This could just get too involving and confusing, but would it be possible to make [some] future ALCs SALCs?

There have been so many different ideas and strategies posted that I can't help but wonder just how different things would be right now had we chosen any of those different strategies.

I'm not certain exactly how to implement succession gaming into the ALC without confusing the issue or putting 'too many spoons in the pot' but certainly believe if the element was there, it could shed a lot of light on different strategies and why they work best in certain situations over others.

well, the saves are already there for each round that he plays. and sometimes people have grabbed them and played it out their own way, and posted about their results. this has happened even before the spoiler thread for the current game; people have been good about using spoiler boxes and/or not posting until his game is over. i like hearing about those shadows, but i don't think this series is a good choice for an SG. keep reading, after i explain why i don't like your idea, i do give a suggestion to encourage the concept behind it ;)

S mentioned a long time ago that he's a former teacher. i'd argue that he's a current teacher, here. in the ALC threads, he teaches us, with help from others in the threads, often by making mistakes, and not by standing up at the front of the classroom, definitely in a discussion format, but it's a teaching kind of thing in its way. i've learned a lot from reading SGs as well but that's totally different. i vote don't mix the two. there are plenty of SGs already, i like having ALC also, since there aren't plenty of those. there's S and there's aelf, there's another whose name i'm blanking out on atm (i blame cough medicine) and i can't think of any other than those 3. i'd love to hear about more if there are more!

S, i don't know how often you save the game and how long you keep the saves around. i also don't know how you don't go crazy naming all the games Sisutil--i tend to have 3 or more games in various stages so i have to have different names in all of them *giggle*. but, maybe if you want to encourage the shadowing option more, you can keep saves on your hard drive at key points other than just at the end of the round (when making a crucial decision about what to research next, what to pick from liberalism or the oracle if that's been debated a lot in the thread, before starting a war if we've bickered over that, etc). and then just have those available if anyone wants them, to shadow from that specific point with their alternate scenario. i don't know if there are limits to the number of attachments you can put in a thread, or how confusing it might be, it's just a thought.

flamingzaroc121

Apr 25, 2007, 11:27 PM

i think you should only do a pangea if you are going to be warring heavily

pigswill

Apr 25, 2007, 11:56 PM

When discussing a leader in pre-game thread it may certainly be worth discussing whether a particular map script will play to their strengths.

On the other hand a theme of ALC series has been standardised games for purpose of comparision which might be lost if you start swapping maps around.

A succession game is a different format to a one person public game and while I think Sisiutil should give it a go I also think the two game types would not be directly comparable.

feldmarshall

Apr 26, 2007, 06:58 AM

Sisiutil would you play OCC in your ALC?

KMadCandy

Apr 26, 2007, 09:59 AM

Sisiutil would you play OCC in your ALC?

hmmm. i bet an OCC would be real enlightening to see, for those who haven't tried it. but i really can't picture one in the ALC format, even if S is used to them.

OCC plays really really fast. i mean i can easily spend 20+ hours on one normal game at times (i alt-tab a lot tho), but i think none of my OCC games has ever lasted more than 3 hours. even the most nerve-wracking "OMG let's have a debate with myself over every little tiny thing" games at deity. yes i've played several deity OCC games to the bitter end. not surprisingly, little miss permanewb hasn't won one yet *giggle*.

so i can't really imagine splitting it up into rounds to discuss. i checked the Kublai save from the turn after the win, it has a played time of just over 11 hours, and was his earliest win as far as game years (i don't know whether it was quickest as far as hours of his life he spent on it). some of that is likely time spent taking screenshots and making notes for his faithful readers, but i bet it took longer than 3 hours to play. uhoh, maybe if i stress that too much S will think "oh yay, a short game, i should jump at this chance!"

so much of what we have such fun debating wouldn't be an issue at all and the micro-managing is a breeze. there'd be no dot maps, no reason to post the domestic advisor, not even worker actions to nag him about (i'd miss that part). the absolute key factor is regenerating the map until you get a start that looks like it'll work. that would get quite boring if we voted on them in a thread.

a demonstration OCC game really would be educational for those that haven't tried it. at least for me, i could read the guides all day long but they didn't sink in til i tried one myself. turned out i really like them. but it might be boring as sin for some/most compared to the usual ALC games, in that there just won't be nearly as much to discuss and debate.

so, lalala, as usual i type too much but what i'm trying to say is that i really don't know if that's a good plan or not. i think ALC isn't the best format for that, it's not that idea itself is bad.

Sisiutil

Apr 26, 2007, 08:10 PM

S, i don't know how often you save the game and how long you keep the saves around. i also don't know how you don't go crazy naming all the games Sisutil--i tend to have 3 or more games in various stages so i have to have different names in all of them *giggle*. but, maybe if you want to encourage the shadowing option more, you can keep saves on your hard drive at key points other than just at the end of the round (when making a crucial decision about what to research next, what to pick from liberalism or the oracle if that's been debated a lot in the thread, before starting a war if we've bickered over that, etc). and then just have those available if anyone wants them, to shadow from that specific point with their alternate scenario. i don't know if there are limits to the number of attachments you can put in a thread, or how confusing it might be, it's just a thought.
There is a limit on how much disk space your uploaded files can occupy on this board (20 MB). I have already had to remove game files for most of the older games and I'm still well over the half-way mark. That pretty much precludes uploading a bunch of additional saves, sorry.
Sisiutil would you play OCC in your ALC?
I've never actually tried one. As pigswill said regarding the maps, I try to play similar maps for comparison purposes, and OCC would be totally different, no source for comparison to other leaders at all. I'm not saying no, but it's unlikely.

ratrangerm

Apr 26, 2007, 11:28 PM

KMadCandy

Apr 27, 2007, 12:00 AM

That pretty much precludes uploading a bunch of additional saves, sorry.

don't apologize to me! i was only suggesting it as a compromise for someone else's idea that i didn't really like *giggle*.

i have been thinking, off and on, ever since reading feldmarshall's post, about how to best show an OCC game on the forums and i just can't picture any way to do it. there are SGs that play OCC, i can think of a few always war ones off the top of my head. but they don't go into detail and explain how OCC is different than a normal game.

my usual pointless ramblings, in this case about trying OCC for the first time, are spoilered below, in an effort to preserve the sanity of most readers, who don't care about OCC and should not open the box.

seriously folks, anybody who's read my posts knows that i am and always will be permanewb and that i know basically nothing. but i tried OCC and liked it and got pretty good at it fairly quickly. now this is using the kmad permanewb standard of "pretty good", which is of course not to be confused with what normal people consider good. like for me, i have one city on deity and i'm still alive and have friends when the AI launches a space ship? yeehaw that counts as good! i heard a rumor some people like to build their own space ship before the AI does. isn't that an awful lot of work tho :crazyeye: ???

i really do think the only way to learn OCC is to just jump in and try it for yourself. they don't take long, and you'll know fairly quickly if it's really not your thing and you just hate it, in which case you have my permission to quit that game and never try OCC again (as though you need my permission).

globe theatre works for every citizen in your entire empire. you never have an unhappy citizen ever again once you build it. that is powerful! on the higher levels you'll be in the bottom half of the score board pretty much from turn 10 and forever afterwards. that comes in handy where WFYABTA is concerned.

the most critical part is having a good start, and picking a leader that will work for you. everyone has their own preference for favorite leader, you can read the guides to get a feel for those. my own is victoria in vanilla, expansive since health is loverly, oh so loverly, and financial is yay. many folks can't live without philosophical, some can't be without spiritual depending on game speed. i pretty much regen the map until i get a bunch of rivers, there have to be some forests, a few hills, i must see at least 2 health resources, and grassland gems are to die for. i'll settle for dye, i build cottages on it and hope there's another outside the BFC i can put a plantation on after calendar to trade. but i love gems the mostest (she starts with mining). gems more than gold since gems come with food. i don't like flood plain starts for OCC, even tho i do like them in normal games ... did i mention health is like the most important thing ever ever ever?

be brave, try it :) worst case, you end up addicted to them like i was for a couple of weeks there. oh wait, that kind of is a bad thing isn't it? hmmz. anyway, don't make S do all the work for us, he'd burn out and we can't have that! :lol:

Sisiutil

Apr 27, 2007, 11:20 AM

Is Terra still a map option in Warlords? That might be an interesting map to try... I played a few games with it when I was still learning and it was interesting. You learn fast about the importance of coastal cities, and it can be a challenge claiming the second continent for yourself, what with both barbs and the opportunistic AI.

Such maps, of course, tend to require a beeline to Astronomy so you can be the first to claim the new continent. But they can make for a CIV game that's enjoyable.

I played my first terra map just recently. It did make for a fun game. I noticed that the AI tended to be very cowardly about settling the other continent, preferring to claim offshore islands where it would be safe from barbs. I, on the other hand, founded a city on the mainland that came under whithering attack. But I survived and took over the continent from the barbarians. By the time I was done I had a horde of Level 4 units that I ferried back to the old world and earned a domination win. :goodjob:

Hackapell

Apr 28, 2007, 07:49 PM

I used to play Terra Maps and found them to be just too dull. There was never enough room to expand, you knew all your rivals before 1 AD, and the cities on the new continent were wasteful until state property. However, I do agree that fractal maps, which is what I am playing now, usually has a snaking large island with a smaller island across the ocean. This makes it really easy to split the AI against each other. I honestly wish they would bring back Islands where you had 3-6 Islands that were big enough to expand, but personally, I would give Terra a spin in the ALC's. Could Be informative on how to work your way out from a small base.

Sisiutil

Apr 28, 2007, 09:38 PM

The one Terra game I played I was Rome, so of course I wiped out one nearby rival and managed to severely weaken one other before it was time to high-tail it to the other land mass. That's one way to deal with limited room for expansion!

Hackapell

Apr 29, 2007, 06:38 AM

Well, If you have a beast of a UU like the praetorian...

:ar15: :ar15: :ar15: :ar15: :ar15: :ar15: :ar15: :ar15: :ar15: :ar15:

Hackapell

Apr 29, 2007, 06:41 AM

Just as an edit to that last post, I'm also more of a Renaissance/Industrial warmongerer, and I haven't mastered the art of early war. I'm too afaid to use the whip:whipped:

Bhruic

Apr 29, 2007, 07:07 AM

I used to play Terra Maps and found them to be just too dull. There was never enough room to expand, you knew all your rivals before 1 AD, and the cities on the new continent were wasteful until state property.

Odd, I've had a different experience. I even add an extra AI on the "Standard" map size and have decent expansion potential. I personally don't mind knowing all my rivals, so that doesn't bother me. And if you chop-rush the Forbidden Palace on the other continent, costs aren't that high.

The only downside I have with Terra is that the AI doesn't know how to deal with the Barbs properly, so unless you are horribly behind, you're virtually guarunteed to control the new world - doesn't really make for a balanced game.

Bh

Sisiutil

Apr 29, 2007, 11:47 AM

Just as an edit to that last post, I'm also more of a Renaissance/Industrial warmongerer, and I haven't mastered the art of early war. I'm too afaid to use the whip:whipped:
The whip is helpful but not necessary. You can also chop barracks and units, remember. Or just improve and work your most hammer-rich tiles while you build units.

A "beginner's" way to use the whip is to wait until the unit is one turn from completion with as many hammers in the build as possible, then whip. An overflow of hammers will then go towards the next build. It's not optimal, but it's simpler than other methods. (Usually it's best to whip 2 pop away at a point which helps keep you under the happiness cap, but that requires some calculating to know exactly when to do it, especially since the hammers you get from whipping vary with civics (OR), buildings (forge) and game speed! :crazyeye:)
Odd, I've had a different experience. I even add an extra AI on the "Standard" map size and have decent expansion potential. I personally don't mind knowing all my rivals, so that doesn't bother me. And if you chop-rush the Forbidden Palace on the other continent, costs aren't that high.

The only downside I have with Terra is that the AI doesn't know how to deal with the Barbs properly, so unless you are horribly behind, you're virtually guarunteed to control the new world - doesn't really make for a balanced game.

Bh
That was my experience as well, as I mentioned. I may try my next terra map with the Better AI mod to see if the other civs manage the barbs any better with those improved smarts Blake gave them.

scooter

May 01, 2007, 07:55 PM

@sisiutil

Are you stickin with the plan to play with Cyrus next game or is that yet to be decided?

scy12

May 01, 2007, 08:13 PM

I hope your last hot experiences with Cathy didn't change your opinion of trying her to the worst ...

gallego

May 01, 2007, 08:32 PM

By the time I was done I had a horde of Level 4 units that I ferried back to the old world and earned a domination win. :goodjob:

How does that work with the exp cap on barbarian battles?

Hackapell

May 01, 2007, 08:40 PM

With barbs you can only get max 10 exp. non-charismatic units upgrade to level 4 with 10 experience

Welnic

May 03, 2007, 03:44 PM

I think that you should start running the HOF mod with your games. You wouldn't run it as a mod though, you load it by replacing your CustomAssets folder. That way your saves are normal saves but you still get all of the enhanced interface goodies. It doesn't change the game play at all. Any information that you get from it is normally available, it is just way easier to see it.

When you are actually playing the game you will get the benefit of the things that will happen next turn or happened this turn warnings. There are notifications when a city is about to grow, when it grows, when it will be unhappy or unhealthy next turn, and when it actually does. And there are some other things like when you have a stack selected the units icons have little symbols that say what they are doing, fortified, healing, etc.

But the big advantage for the ALC is the enhanced Foreign Advisor. The Relations screen is unchanged. And I don't think the active screen is changed much. But the rest are enhanced and there are some completely new ones.

Here are some screenshots from the 1358 AD Mehmed II save. The first is Glance:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/93671/glance.jpg

On it you can see all of the relationship values for everybody at once. When you are actually playing you can hover the mouse over a value and see all of the components of the score.

The Resources screen:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/93671/resources.jpg

You can see the resources everybody has available, current trades, any excess resources you have and how many of those. The how many excess you have shows up at the top if you have any.

The Info screen:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/93671/info.jpg

This is a new screen. You can get this info by talking to every leader, and then looking up their favorite civic somewhere. But this is so much easier and would be so nice to have in your state of the game posts.

The Tech screen:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/93671/tech.jpg

This screen is not from the Mehmed II game. The Tech screen from that game was not all that interesting, for reasons we all know. This is from a game where I was playing Ragnar. This is all of the info that you normally have to display by clicking each leader in turn. And some more info that you would really have to think about to come up with. You have the techs that you have on each civ, that they could research. The techs that they have on you that you could research, split into ones they will and won't trade. Then there are the techs that both of you can research. In this example, since you can't research physics you can't tell if Mansa can or if he already has it. It really brings you up to date on the tech scene with just one screenshot.

To get the mod go poke around on the GOTM forum. Their save game download pages have links since you have to have it. Install it the normal way as a mod. Then go to the Mods folder in the Warlords folder. You will see the folder for the mod. In there is a folder called Assets. Copy that to the settings folder for Warlords:
C:\Documents and Settings\Your Name\My Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4 Warlords\ (I not sure about the name of the last folder, it's something like that)
There is folder in there called CustomAssets, if you have never done anything with this just delete it. If you do have something in there just rename it. Rename the Assets folder CustomAssets. If you don't want to run it, then just rename it something else, like HOFCustomAssets. If there isn't a CustomAssets folder then the game will make one when it starts up.

pigswill

May 03, 2007, 03:53 PM

The feature of HoF that I really like is the buildings screen in domestic advisor; stops you having to scroll through every city to see if you've built enough unis/forges etc for national wonders.

Sisiutil

May 03, 2007, 03:57 PM

I tried using the HOF mod recently but it won't load on my PC. :( I've customized my game in a couple of minor ways (changing the Warlords opening screen, adding a couple of music files to the modern era), but it sounds like that's enough to throw it off. The recommended fix was to uninstall both Civ IV and Warlords and reinstall clean. Kind of a pain.

Welnic

May 03, 2007, 10:25 PM

Hero

May 04, 2007, 11:29 AM

I had never seen those screens before. That's very impressive. Does anyone know if they are going to become part of the regular game in BtS? (So I wouldn't need to download and install the mod now)

ParadigmShifter

May 04, 2007, 05:18 PM

I downloaded the HOF mod when I got Warlords (same time as getting the patch), and I would never go back to the plain old variant. I can just check the game log at the end of the turn to see if pop has increased, so I don't need to check all my cities every turn if I know what they should be doing. It is superb. I never cheat anyway so the anti-cheat options are no worries. I do like the way you can se how all civs feel about all others, that is really helpful. And you get a message about new techs to trade too. Saves a lot of checking the various screens. I still take 25+ hours to play a standard size map though.

Admiral Kutzov

May 04, 2007, 09:15 PM

just adding to the chorus. the f4 screen makes it all worthwhile. the others are gravy. the glance thingy is also very useful. see ^^^

KMadCandy

May 04, 2007, 09:41 PM

I never cheat anyway so the anti-cheat options are no worries.
you can still "cheat" all day long as far as the game is concerned. you can leave "Lock Modified Assets" unchecked (to allow a mapcheck for isolation or horses :mischief:), you can use chipotle, you can start a game with any of the options the game already has, you just can't submit it to the HoF. using it for the features, that's not a worry.

the problem is, HoF wants to make sure that no one has changed their game to give them advantages other players don't have. that "this mod prevents you from cheating as HoF defines it" code requires that all your actual come-with-the-game files match the default files. in each and every way. including vanilla if you're using only warlords mod, since warlords depends on vanilla for some stuff. as someone who uninstalled and reinstalled warlords four times last week :badcomp: (don't ask, you do not want to know), i sympathize with S not wanting to uninstall and reinstall vanilla and warlords. i hadn't even made any changes i wanted to keep around like S might want to keep his for other games.

i didn't know you could save games played with HoF mod as normal games, as Welnic suggested, so that they could then be loaded without the mod. maybe the .dll thing he posted about would work, that'd be spiffy, if S does like the options in the mod.

I do like the way you can see how all civs feel about all others, that is really helpful. And you get a message about new techs to trade too.

and when they have X lump sum or gpt to trade too! you can set X to whatever you want. oh hatty darlin', can you spare some change for a friend? i have such gigglefits on large maps when a wonder being built is followed by a flood of "so-and-so has X gold to trade" messages.

@Hero: i haven't heard any rumors about any of this being added to BtS. as far as i know, the only player-created stuff they're interested in is Blake's AI and the scenario-type mods. no interface-type stuff.

Admiral Kutzov

May 04, 2007, 10:05 PM

you can use chipotle I luv that stuff.

@Hero: i haven't heard any rumors about any of this being added to BtS. as far as i know, the only player-created stuff they're interested in is Blake's AI and the scenario-type mods. no interface-type stuff.
That sucks. Has anyone seen a really good scenario for this game yet? Civ3 had some decent scenarios that people actually wanted to play as SGs. So far, nobody has taken up that challenge with the current ones.

Welnic

May 04, 2007, 10:29 PM

So I tried running HOF as a CustomAsset instead of a mod on an actual PC in vanilla. (I'm actually a mac guy. :blush: ) Moving just the Assets folder and renaming it CustomAssets did not work. I also had to move the other files that were in the HOF mod folder into the Civ IV folder in My Documents. That worked fine. It does not work without the .dll file. So I do not know if you get anymore slack running it that way than as a mod if you have changed files.

Sisiutil

May 04, 2007, 10:32 PM

I can see why you might have that trouble. It basically has two parts, one designed to discourage cheating in HOF and GOTM games. That part might be having trouble with your changes. The other part's function is to improve the GUI so much that you are excited to use it so it doesn't seem like a bad thing that you have to.

I would try it with the CustomAssets folder, and remove the .dll file that is in there. That should remove the complaints and leave the goodness.
Nope, that didn't work, nor several other variations. I even tried loading some of the HOF mods on their own. Civ4Alerts works fine from the CustomAssets folder, but the Exotic Foreign Advisor didn't, which makes me suspect it's the overall culprit. I figured out I was working with a vanilla version, but the Warlords one I eventually tracked down sounds a bit buggy, and my experience certainly confirmed that.

Anyway, this experience just confirms my opinion that the ALC games should be mod-free. If I had this tough a time whilst trying to implement a couple of simple mods, I can imagine many of the more casual players following the thread would as well, and would get frustrated when they see those non-standard screens.

Though I must confess that I get tempted from time to time to play an ALC with the Canada Mod. Just to be different.

KMadCandy

May 04, 2007, 10:36 PM

Anyway, this experience just confirms my opinion that the ALC games should be mod-free.

Though I must confess that I get tempted from time to time to play an ALC with the Canada Mod. Just to be different.

i'll support you on the first point. and heck, for you, i'd probably even go download some canada mod to follow an ALC.

Dr Elmer Jiggle

May 04, 2007, 11:12 PM

Civ4Alerts works fine

Of course! :smug: :D

but the Exotic Foreign Advisor didn't

If I remember correctly, that piece requires a bunch of external configuration files that need to be in a non-obvious place if you're installing the HoF mod in CustomAssets. Looking at my own directories, I'm guessing that you need

HOF-1.61.005.ini
HOFSettings.txt
ModSpcDomAdvColums.txt

all to be in your "My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4" folder (the one that contains CustomAssets).

Welnic

May 05, 2007, 01:42 AM

Well, the things about these mods is they don't change the actual play of the game. Whenever I look at an ALC game I always use the HOF mod suite, because I always run it. If you can get it to work the CustomAssets route then it doesn't change the saved game at all. What the good doctor said about file placement is what I found, even if I didn't say it as well.

The Civ4lerts is great while you are playing the game, but the Exotic Foreign Advisor is the one that would really spice up the state of the world reports.

pigswill

May 07, 2007, 03:17 PM

As I posted in ALC16 thread Sisutil should decide if he's playing All Leaders Challenge (which is how the series started when S was a struggling prince player) or All Leaders Demo.

I suspect that Sisiutil won't be seriously challenged until/unless he moves up to emperor. I also think that part of the challenge is playing blind.

However if Sisiutil wants to continue at monarch level then playing demo games (which may well involve a minimum amount of map fixing to enable UU or whatever) is quite a reasonable thing to do. It certainly seems to be a popular option with a lot of posters.

Sisiutil

May 08, 2007, 05:11 PM

As I posted in ALC16 thread Sisutil should decide if he's playing All Leaders Challenge (which is how the series started when S was a struggling prince player) or All Leaders Demo.
It's a bit of both, isn't it? Many people have indicated that the ALC series has helped improve their game and enabled them to move up several levels of difficulty. Credit for which I insist on sharing with everyone who contributes to the threads.

Right now, as the Mehmed game seems to indicate, the biggest challenge I could face on Monarch level would be another isolated start. I'm not opposed to trying one out again, but it has to be with the right leader. Leaders who lack an early UU and who are not naturally warmongers are suitable for that type of start. Of those coming up soon, I'd say Peter of Russia and Roosevelt of America would be suitable to an isolated start if the RNG gods deem it appropriate.

Isabella seems to fall into that category, but in her case, founding an early religion and then spreading it seems like the best course of action, again making an isolated start a bit of a waste for her. And Shaka should definitely start with some victims nearby to get the most out of those Impis.

Ragnar, on the other hand, could definitely start isolated. Once his UBs are in place, Viking galleys with Navigation 1 could potentially hop to other land masses while his base remains out of reach until Astronomy, and his UU could attack directly from aboard ship provided the target is relatively weak. Fun! Then again, Viking galleys still can't enter ocean. Hmmm...

In fact, given Ragnar's many strengths (chief among them: he's Financial), I was thinking of moving that game up to Emperor. Either that or playing it against the BTS expansion pack's improved AI.

cabert

May 09, 2007, 05:34 AM

It's a bit of both, isn't it? Many people have indicated that the ALC series has helped improve their game and enabled them to move up several levels of difficulty. Credit for which I insist on sharing with everyone who contributes to the threads.

Right now, as the Mehmed game seems to indicate, the biggest challenge I could face on Monarch level would be another isolated start. I'm not opposed to trying one out again, but it has to be with the right leader. Leaders who lack an early UU and who are not naturally warmongers are suitable for that type of start. Of those coming up soon, I'd say Peter of Russia and Roosevelt of America would be suitable to an isolated start if the RNG gods deem it appropriate.

Isabella seems to fall into that category, but in her case, founding an early religion and then spreading it seems like the best course of action, again making an isolated start a bit of a waste for her. And Shaka should definitely start with some victims nearby to get the most out of those Impis.

Ragnar, on the other hand, could definitely start isolated. Once his UBs are in place, Viking galleys with Navigation 1 could potentially hop to other land masses while his base remains out of reach until Astronomy, and his UU could attack directly from aboard ship provided the target is relatively weak. Fun! Then again, Viking galleys still can't enter ocean. Hmmm...

In fact, given Ragnar's many strengths (chief among them: he's Financial), I was thinking of moving that game up to Emperor. Either that or playing it against the BTS expansion pack's improved AI.

If you have Isabella and an isolated start, it's a garanteed cultural win. Who needs trade ?:lol:

KMadCandy

May 09, 2007, 06:07 AM

Isabella seems to fall into that category, but in her case, founding an early religion and then spreading it seems like the best course of action, again making an isolated start a bit of a waste for her. And Shaka should definitely start with some victims nearby to get the most out of those Impis.

Ragnar, on the other hand, could definitely start isolated. Once his UBs are in place, Viking galleys with Navigation 1 could potentially hop to other land masses while his base remains out of reach until Astronomy, and his UU could attack directly from aboard ship provided the target is relatively weak. Fun! Then again, Viking galleys still can't enter ocean. Hmmm...

they can enter ocean if it's in your borders; easy on an archi map, would have worked for that island by you in the mehmed game but not have been of any use, can't count on it being useful on continents really.

one of my best games was actually me (as ragnar) and isabella in isolation together. archi map, isabella was close enough that i found her early on. i found an island to the north of me that had stone but basically nothing else. i sent a settler quick, since i knew she would otherwise, and because it would let me reach her more easily than i could from my bigger island.

and then, you know, she kinda happened to die before either of met anybody else. and i'm the one who's almost always scared to go to war before cats!! but i couldn't resist. once i finally did get my UU, i went on to bash everybody else in the head. eventually, i put wall street in double-holy-city barcelona and oxford in way-too-much-food madrid. she left me awfully nice presents. i'd never have guessed that "isolation with isabella" could be so much fun for a non-early-warmonger like me.

religion spread from isolation even factored into it too. i'd circumnavigated before astronomy, and traded maps and was going along clobbering folks. after astronomy, catherine of all people shows up on my screen, scaring me to death. i'd completely forgotten there was another AI in the game. my state religion had spread to her, and the holy city gave me LoS so that's how i met her :lol:. it was quite a shock.

but yeah, ragnar must pretty strong if even i can wipe out civs that early playing him :lol:.

kniteowl

May 13, 2007, 09:40 AM

How many of you think I'll get through every single leader before Civilization V comes out? Yeah, that's what I thought...

Is this some kind challenge or competition? and who ever gets your rhetorical question right, gets a prize of some kind??? :P lol Kidding

Well I 'll do my best to answer

You started your Aztec ALC on April 26th 2006
You finished your Ottoman ALC on April 29th 2007

So about 15 ALCs per year

To be more accurate

368/15 = 24.53 days per game, so an average ALC should last about 25 days, well the Ottomen game was kind of an anomaly finishing early because you loss, but we'll assume you'll play most of your games till the end.

So.. well when will Civ V (5) be released???... I'll make an assumption and say, July of 2008, If you finish an ALC every 24.53 days until July of 2008 (excludes loses and days off/breaks), you should have played another 17.4 ALC games roughly 18 games before Civ V(5)'s release ... (lol you'd be in the middle of an ALC when Civ V is released) Well that's all theory....

So the very last ALC game you'll play with my assumption, is your Ramese's game (Game 33) assuming you don't change the order of which leader you'll play after BTS Expansion.

LOL what a waste of time I wrote :p... this what happens when you gave a LONG nap in the afternoon and find out you can't sleep at night with nothing to do :S. Well looking forward to your last Civ 4 ALC play Ramese :P LOL

Bhruic

May 13, 2007, 02:28 PM

You started your Aztec ALC on April 26th 2006
You finished your Ottoman ALC on April 29th 2006

Wow, he did 15 ALCs in 3 days? That's pretty impressive. ;)

Bh

kniteowl

May 13, 2007, 04:43 PM

Wow, he did 15 ALCs in 3 days? That's pretty impressive. ;)

Bh

LMAO oops.... that 2006 should be a 2007...

Hackapell

Jun 04, 2007, 09:30 AM

Hey Sisiutil, I was just checking the old games and I saw that a succession game was mentioned as a possibility. Any chance that could happen?

Sisiutil

Jun 04, 2007, 11:22 AM

Hey Sisiutil, I was just checking the old games and I saw that a succession game was mentioned as a possibility. Any chance that could happen?
Anything's possible, though I think someone else would have to manage and organize it and I'd just be one of the participants.

Any volunteers?

(Insert sound of crickets chirping here...)

cabert

Jun 05, 2007, 06:11 AM

Anything's possible, though I think someone else would have to manage and organize it and I'd just be one of the participants.

Any volunteers?

(Insert sound of crickets chirping here...)

you're welcome in the trash team, for the next SGotM ;)

Joxer

Jun 05, 2007, 07:20 AM

Either that or playing it against the BTS expansion pack's improved AI.

How will all those new leaders fit into the bullpen? And if they change the traits of those already played, will we see some repeats?

I really enjoy following the threads and think its quite humorous that the ALC could last well into the next decade. :D

Looking forward to all the ALCs to come.

Maydrock

Jun 07, 2007, 05:53 PM

LOL! There's a bunch of crickets chirping outside my window right now!

Napalm102

Jun 10, 2007, 08:57 AM

Is it possible to sticky this thread....it's an invaluable resource for those of us who wish to learn how to play better.

Hackapell

Jun 20, 2007, 04:40 PM

On a related note, here is the list of anticipated future ALC games, in order. However, this list doesn't include all those new leaders in the Beyond the Sword expansion pack--so when that comes out, it will mess this up. And of course I reserve the right to change the order on a whim. 'Cause I'm just crazy like that. :crazyeye:

How many of you think I'll get through every single leader before Civilization V comes out? Yeah, that's what I thought...

Game 17: Russia/Peter
Game 18: Spain/Isabella
Game 19: Viking/Ragnar
Game 20: Zulu/Shaka
Game 21: America/Roosevelt
Game 22: Arab/Saladin
Game 23: Celts/Brennus
Game 24: England/Churchill
Game 25: France/Napoleon
Game 26: Germany/Bismarck
Game 27: Korea/Wang Kon
Game 28: India/Mahatma Gandhi
Game 29: Mongolia/Genghis Khan
Game 30: Rome/Augustus Caesar
Game 31: Russia/Stalin
Game 32: America/George Washington
Game 33: Egypt/Ramesses
Game 34: England/Elizabeth
Game 35: Rome/Julius Caesar
Game 36: Russia/Catherine
Another vote for the sticky of this thread.
Well, with the official list out of BtS leaders, how will the new leaders fit in?
my guess(new leaders in Bold)

Game 17: Russia/Peter
Game 18: Spain/Isabella
Game 19: Sumer/Gilgamesh
Game 20: Viking/Ragnar
Game 21: Zulu/Shaka
Game 22: America/Roosevelt
Game 23: Arab/Saladin
Game 24: Babylon/Hammurabi
Game 25: Celts/Brennus
Game 26: England/Churchill
Game 27: Ethiopia/Zara Yaqob
Game 28: France/Napoleon
Game 29: Germany/Bismarck
Game 30: Greek/ Pericles
Game 31: HRE/ Charlemange
Game 32: Korea/Wang Kon
Game 33: Khmer/Suryavarman
Game 34: India/Mahatma Gandhi
Game 35: Mongolia/Genghis Khan
Game 36: Native American/ Sitting Bull
Game 37: Ottomans/ Suleiman
Game 38: Portugal/D. Joao II
Game 39: Rome/Augustus Caesar
Game 40: Russia/Stalin
Game 41: America/George Washington
Game 42: Byzantine/ Justinian I
Game 43: Celts/Boudica
Game 44: Dutch/Wilheim van Oranje
Game 45: Egypt/Ramesses
Game 46: England/Elizabeth
Game 47: French/De Gaulle
Game 48: Maya/Pacal II
Game 49: Persia/Darius
Game 50: Rome/Julius Caesar
Game 51: Russia/Catherine
Game 51: America/Lincoln
( list subject to change at the all leader challenger's discretion)

flamingzaroc121

Jun 20, 2007, 06:40 PM

well i wont matter if Sisiutil doesnt finish his current game winkwinknudgenudge

Sisiutil

Jun 21, 2007, 12:41 PM

well i wont matter if Sisiutil doesnt finish his current game winkwinknudgenudge

Yeah, yeah, yeah... the next round will be posted tonight. Promise.

Hackapell, thanks for providing that list of the BtS leaders. Unlike Warlords, I plan on purchasing the new expansion pack ASAP. At the current snail's pace, that likely means the very next ALC will be played with the BtS expansion pack. That would still be played with Russia/Peter and on Monarch level; I kind of like the idea of keeping other things constant while the game elements shift significantly.

This also likely means I'll try to emphasize BtS leaders to an extent. I'll still go through the civilizations in alphabetical order ('cause I'm anal that way), but I'll give preference to the new leaders, given the choice. Game 22, for example, will be played with Lincoln rather than Roosevelt and Game 28 with De Gaulle rather than Napoleon. Game 25 is a toss-up because Brennus is still relatively new. I may hold a poll on that one. Other than that, your list looks bang-on and I'll likely adopt it to revise the upcoming game post. Thanks!

Of course, as I've said before, Civ V may come out before I complete all these games, especially at the current pace. But isn't that why we all love Civ so much? How many games, computer or otherwise, lend themselves to repeated and frequent game play for years after their initial release?

aelf

Jun 21, 2007, 01:10 PM

Hackapell, thanks for providing that list of the BtS leaders. Unlike Warlords, I plan on purchasing the new expansion pack ASAP. At the current snail's pace, that likely means the very next ALC will be played with the BtS expansion pack. That would still be played with Russia/Peter and on Monarch level; I kind of like the idea of keeping other things constant while the game elements shift significantly.

I advise you to play BTS on your own first before attempting an ALC with it on Monarch. Better AI will be fully implemented and there are new things like events (I believe you wouldn't disable them, would you?) and espionage that will change the strategies and game mechanics quite a bit. And there is a host of new techs and new units to get used to. That old beeline for grenadiers or cavalry just wouldn't be the same anymore.

Hackapell

Jun 21, 2007, 02:25 PM

@ sisutil

I just added in the leaders from BtS within the current structure of the list, but feel free to mix up my list. It's your challenge, after all. ;)
and yes, update soon... :please:

Sisiutil

Jun 21, 2007, 02:32 PM

I advise you to play BTS on your own first before attempting an ALC with it on Monarch. Better AI will be fully implemented and there are new things like events (I believe you wouldn't disable them, would you?) and espionage that will change the strategies and game mechanics quite a bit. And there is a host of new techs and new units to get used to. That old beeline for grenadiers or cavalry just wouldn't be the same anymore.
As with the previous vanilla and Warlords ALCs, I'll leave all the default settings in place, and that includes events--unless there's a big push and agreement from the game followers to turn them off. I could see random events making a shadow game less comparable to the posted one. Nevertheless, I still see the ALCs as focusing primarily on overall tactics and strategy rather than dealing with every detail that comes up in the game. I think there's some randomness already in the game anyway; BTS will just add another random element and associated challenges.

obsolete

Jun 21, 2007, 09:33 PM

To get the mod go poke around on the GOTM forum.

Sounds simple enough, but I must be getting too old. Spent an hour and I just got lost. Backtrack, and get lost again. I'd THINK I was getting somewhere, then find out I was on some Civ III area instead of civ IV... Backtrack, and find some more mods, then I run into too many and don't know what is what anymore, etc.... go back, try to find again....

Anyone know a DIRECT link?

KMadCandy

Jun 22, 2007, 08:25 AM

HOF Mod Page (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/mod.php)

download links are at the bottom of the page

Sisiutil

Jun 29, 2007, 12:19 PM

I've updated the 2nd post's list of upcoming games, with a tip o' the ALC lid to Hackapell for his suggestions.

VoiceOfUnreason

Jun 30, 2007, 08:50 AM

What do you have your auto turn interval set to? In particular, is there a reason not to set it to 1, ensuring that you don't miss the victory save?

LightSpectra

Jun 30, 2007, 04:10 PM

If it's not too late to ask -- could you switch Stalin with Peter? I've been wanting some Agg/Ind strategies. It's cool if you've already started planning, though.

Also, I would recommend moving Portugal or the Netherlands higher on the list, since it would be neat to see how colonies work as soon as you get BtS. What better way to do so than with seafaring civs?

StuntedAzrael

Jul 01, 2007, 07:31 AM

Hey Sisutil, just curious when does new ALC starts? Let's play. Time waits for no man.

Sisiutil

Jul 02, 2007, 12:48 PM

What do you have your auto turn interval set to? In particular, is there a reason not to set it to 1, ensuring that you don't miss the victory save?

I hadn't thought to change it from the defaults. I'll do that next time.

Honkoid

Jul 12, 2007, 06:05 PM

Small Sidenote:
Sisutil, in this thread's first post you might want to add the Great Merchant Economy as a special feature to your ALC 14, since it was a quite remarkable and unique way to play the game :)

Sisiutil

Jul 14, 2007, 12:41 AM

Hackapell

Jul 22, 2007, 06:27 AM

I've updated the 2nd post's list of upcoming games, with a tip o' the ALC lid to Hackapell for his suggestions.

thanks Sisiutil! these ALC's have helped my game tremendously, and I hope you continue!

LightSpectra, I should have seen that, and I apoligize. I agree that we can move up the Dutch to between the Celts and Churchill.

Tarkeel

Jul 24, 2007, 02:33 AM

Also, I would recommend moving Portugal or the Netherlands higher on the list, since it would be neat to see how colonies work as soon as you get BtS. What better way to do so than with seafaring civs?

Well, I'd strike the Dutch of that list; the point of the ALC was to play unpopular leaders and I'm thinking William of Orange might be one of the most popular leaders (Cathy's old traits are delicious, after all).

Also, for colonies to be much use at all you need to play with several continents, and in a game where controlling yours and most of another won't give you the game. Terra might be good for this, or a large continents (one of the new variants like big and small maybe) game.

Sisiutil

Jul 26, 2007, 09:57 PM

WOOT! Guess what I just bought and installed?

:woohoo:
:rockon::rockon::rockon::rockon::rockon:
:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

Uncle Istvan

Jul 26, 2007, 10:16 PM

Ah, excellent. Btw, whats the big nerf to siege everyone's talking about?

xfactor99

Jul 26, 2007, 11:18 PM

Siege units can't kill other units anymore, are vulnerable to a flank attack by mounted units, and (from my experience at least) can gain at most 1 XP from a successful attack/withdrawal.

Uncle Istvan

Jul 26, 2007, 11:44 PM

Ah, thats annoying. Although I did have a lot of Catapult kills archer situations in Warlords.

The Bowman

Jul 27, 2007, 12:48 AM

Siege units can't kill other units anymore,

Historically, didn't siege weapons cause the most deaths and destruction in cities? They'd pummel the forces down leaving nothing left. And then you had the deseased and dead animals they'd launch too, just to ensure living things that didn't get hit still ran into the plague.

martin031

Jul 27, 2007, 01:19 AM

Ah, thats annoying. Although I did have a lot of Catapult kills archer situations in Warlords.

It is actually kind of nice. You have to plan to bring some support units along to help take the city. And it is not really that big a deal. They still do enough damage to swing the battle into the player with the sieges favor.

Killroyan

Jul 27, 2007, 01:31 AM

WOOT! Guess what I just bought and installed?

:woohoo:
:rockon::rockon::rockon::rockon::rockon:
:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

Pacman/space invaders/kong????? Come on please, cut the suspense and tell us!!!! ;) ;) ;)

VoiceOfUnreason

Jul 27, 2007, 11:02 AM

Pacman/space invaders/kong????? Come on please, cut the suspense and tell us!!!! ;) ;) ;)

Leisure Suit Larry 4.

Softnum

Jul 27, 2007, 11:06 AM

Leisure Suit Larry 4.

Battletoads.

Tyrael

Jul 28, 2007, 02:38 AM

Battletoads.

Baulder's Gate, obv. :rolleyes:

r_rolo1

Jul 28, 2007, 04:08 AM

Baulder's Gate, obv. :rolleyes:

Nah..... Obviously he bought the new Harry Potter game :suicide:

Sir Jaref

Jul 28, 2007, 06:03 AM

Nah..... Obviously he bought the new Harry Potter game :suicide:

Starcraft II

pindicator

Jul 28, 2007, 10:50 AM

Penny Arcade Adventures?

Tyrael

Jul 28, 2007, 11:22 PM

If it's starcraft 2, Sisi owes us all a copy for our loyalty to his awesome threads. :p

Sisiutil

Jul 29, 2007, 03:50 PM

It's Beyond the Sword, you numbskulls. Now get back on topic. :p ;) :D

Oh, I did a slight change to the order of the future games in the 2nd post--moved the Dutch up to their proper position.

MangleMeElmo

Jul 29, 2007, 04:40 PM

Tyrael

Jul 29, 2007, 05:20 PM

Beyond th Sword? That's not fair, how are we supposed to guess THAT? :rolleyes: Anyway, hurry up with the next game! It's been too long... Can't wait... much longer! :sad:

Sisiutil

Jul 30, 2007, 02:55 AM

Nice. In a few months we'll finally see a Saladin ALC. I'm looking forward to it because for the life of me I don't know what to do with that guy's weird trait combination or his underpowered UU. However, his UB is sort of a no-brainer.
Have they changed it so the Camel Archer now receives a free Flanking promotion? I ask because Flanking got a boost in BtS--it's now a heckuva anti-siege weapon promotion. Units with Flanking stand a chance of damaging several or all of the siege weapons in a stack.

sneaky

Jul 30, 2007, 05:26 AM

It's Beyond the Sword, you numbskulls. Now get back on topic. :p ;) :D

Oh, I did a slight change to the order of the future games in the 2nd post--moved the Dutch up to their proper position.

Great! I would love to see you abuse the power of the Dikes. :lol:

By the way could you fix Willem van Oranje's name, he is no Wilheim! :goodjob:

Sisiutil

Jul 30, 2007, 12:56 PM

Great! I would love to see you abuse the power of the Dikes. :lol:
That sounds like something to be discussed on a very different message board from this one. ;)

By the way could you fix Willem van Oranje's name, he is no Wilheim! :goodjob:
Fixed!

Validator

Jul 30, 2007, 01:35 PM

Have they changed it so the Camel Archer now receives a free Flanking promotion? I ask because Flanking got a boost in BtS--it's now a heckuva anti-siege weapon promotion. Units with Flanking stand a chance of damaging several or all of the siege weapons in a stack.

I don't think that's quite right. This is another case of a poor wording choice by Firaxis causing confusion about what's going on. From what I've seen the Flanking promotion is not required for a Flanking Attack against siege. Flanking Attack is an innate ability given to some units (most mounted units plus gunship) to cause collateral damage against particular siege units if the attacking unit survives combat. The Civilopedia entry for Improved Siege Combat confuses things even more by suggesting that players may want to give mounted units Flanking promotions to increase their chance of survival (and therefore their chance of causing Flanking Attack damage). But you still get Flanking Attack damage from mounted units that don't have Flanking promotion as long as they survive their combat.

AFAIK Camel Archers are unchanged in BTS.

Sisiutil

Aug 02, 2007, 05:42 PM

Some people in the ALC threads have been suggesting that the ALCs should be played with the Aggressive AI setting turned on. I thought it would be appropriate to discuss that here.

First off, I've never played with that setting turned on. Just from the title and the pop-up description in the menu I know vaguely what it does, but perhaps those of you who play with it turned on could let me and everyone else know what the consequences are.

Secondly, what would the advantages/disadvantages be to the ALC series to adopting that setting? Remember that I play the ALCs not to show off (though I guess sometimes that's inevitable), but primarily to engender strategy discussions. I'm not going to change a setting just to make things more challenging. Having Gandhi face aggressive AIs so all his Fast Workers get stolen and he can't leverage his Industrious trait to build wonders because all his hammers have to go into military units might make for a challenging game, but not one in which I would get to showcase all of the chosen leader's unique characteristics--which is the raison d'etre for the ALCs.

In fact, I've avoided certain game situations in the ALCs in the past because they would defeat this very goal. For example, I had Welnic check the Cyrus game's initial save to ensure that horses were available somewhere and that I wasn't isolated, because a Cyrus game without an Immortal rush is just no fun and would fail to capitalize on his UU.

So would the Aggressive AI setting enhance the opportunity to indulge the leaders' traits or hamper it?

My own feeling is that it's a setting that could be used on a case-by-case basis--enabling it for the warmonger leaders, disabling it for the more peaceful ones. But I look forward to hearing others' take on it.

carl corey

Aug 02, 2007, 06:07 PM

TRJS

Aug 02, 2007, 06:19 PM

I vote against using it as it will simply increase the military factor of your games. I think you put it well when you said the ALCs are about showcasing the unit talents of each leader.

Uncle Istvan

Aug 02, 2007, 07:52 PM

My own feeling is that it's a setting that could be used on a case-by-case basis--enabling it for the warmonger leaders, disabling it for the more peaceful ones.

I think this is spot on. When we use Boudica, by all means we could have the AI raging. But when we use the Dutch or Portugese, we don't want a horde of angry AI messing up our colonization efforts.

martin031

Aug 02, 2007, 08:39 PM

IIRC from one of aelf's tries aggressive AI is more aggressive vs the human player, not vs each other. So you'll have to work much harder on the diplomacy level to maintain peace. I don't think it's a reasonable setting to put for the first few BtS games, unless you're feeling like going for all out war for example. Against a big power rating even the aggressive AI should be a little timid. :D

That was warlords version, not BtS. In warlords, the "AGG AI" just had a hidden negativie diplo modifier against the human. Now they are more likely to build military units, but might not go to war. And the AI WILL fight each other more now.

Ghandi is just as likely as normal setting to not attack, but he will be more inclined to build units to defend himself.
So since this is the discussion, I have played about an equal number with and without and will share a few observations.

-The AI will attack the other AI more than it used to with this setting.(One game Monty was ravaging his continent, I should have known when I saw the flood of GG being born in other lands)

-Builder Civs will still build. Ghandi had a good defense, as well as a nice set of wonders hiding behind those walls.

-More units will be built and cities will be better defended, but not necessarily in the ancient era. It seems there is to big a window early where an axe rush is optimal (in both AGG and Normal setting) that the AI does not prioritize hooking up metal or horses and building stronger units. But once they do, their stacks are very mixed.

-Unit spam can happen, but it seems somewhat dependant on the civs around. One game I could have taken Hannibal down early(with maces and cats), but since we were on pleased terms I felt it was not needed. For the most part his cities were lightly defended, but I felt bad about backstabbing. But I missed it when our relations dropped to cautious, and our close borders were enough to make me a target. And he took the fight to me, and I missed his troop build up.

All in all, I did not see a huge difference between the two settings. Just more units. People complain about the AI teching slower, but I think that has more to do with the espionage system than the units built. I have seen just as many wars started by the AI in normal as I have in Agg.

I would suggest that you try a few games out off line to see what you think. The hardest part is every game I have played has been somewhat different, and that makes it hard to compare any two based on settings.

I think that if you do decide to try it out though for a game in your series, you should turn it on when you are a builder civ. I think it will be cool to see if you can highlight the leader traits and be a good builder in a game that is "designed" to make it more difficult.

Elrohir

Aug 02, 2007, 09:04 PM

aelf

Aug 03, 2007, 12:09 AM

Mesousa

Aug 03, 2007, 12:18 AM

First off, I've never played with that setting turned on. Just from the title and the pop-up description in the menu I know vaguely what it does, but perhaps those of you who play with it turned on could let me and everyone else know what the consequences are.

Basically it just means the AI will build more units. Usually making it more resistant to rushes on one hand, sometimes leading to it getting outteched considerably on the other hand.

Since you often rush an early neighbour, I think it would be interesting to see if and which difference AggAi makes there for you, but I don't think it should be used as a regular setting.

Similarly, I'd like to see one or two games with No Tech Brokering (or even No Tech Trading) to see which difference it makes to your overall approach to the game. Though of course any of those would dilute the comparability between games.

scooter

Aug 03, 2007, 02:41 AM

The main goal of Aggressive AI was for the AI to counter the (majority of) human players tendencies of early aggression, at least that's the way Blake made it sound, in other words making it so that the AI defends early rushes properly, and makes them more unit spammish.

aelf

Aug 03, 2007, 03:12 AM

The main goal of Aggressive AI was for the AI to counter the (majority of) human players tendencies of early aggression, at least that's the way Blake made it sound

Or to counter MP players who play SP or SP players who play like in MP. I remember him saying that too.

MP is :king: now.

Sisiutil

Aug 03, 2007, 12:15 PM

Similarly, I'd like to see one or two games with No Tech Brokering (or even No Tech Trading) to see which difference it makes to your overall approach to the game. Though of course any of those would dilute the comparability between games.

Well, at the risk of starting a separate discussion, what does No Tech Brokering do? Prevent you from trading techs you haven't researched yourself? Researched completely or partially? What's that like?

dankok8

Aug 03, 2007, 12:30 PM

Aggressive AI's in BTS declare war much more on the human player and on each other and from my experience often tend to dogpile on a disadvantaged civ (ie. if a civ with a high power rating declares on you, some civs are likely to join and try to wipe you out). It makes for an interesting game though and defensive units like longbows become more important as even on noble, AI's send huge stacks your way.

Validator

Aug 03, 2007, 06:07 PM

Well, at the risk of starting a separate discussion, what does No Tech Brokering do? Prevent you from trading techs you haven't researched yourself? Researched completely or partially? What's that like?

It means techs can only be traded if you've completely researched it yourself. It also applies to AIs. It has some positive and negative effects on tech trading:

You can trade a monopoly tech away to one AI without worrying that it will end up in everybody's hands. This makes it a bit easier to trade one tech that you've beelined for a sequence of techs.

It prevents you from being a tech broker (duh). So no more trading for a tech and then passing it on to some other AI for another tech.

It makes the AIs less willing to trade techs overall. They won't accept a tech in trade (or even as a gift) if they're close to researching it themselves since they won't be able to trade it.

I played one game with this option on but I can't say if it's an improvement or not. It does make the tech trading decisions a bit easier I think.

Bursk

Aug 03, 2007, 06:49 PM

I love No Tech Brokering since it means that different civs have different techs, rather than the whole "one civ gets it then all the civs get it". I think you'll find it a positive change.

I tried using Aggressive AI and like it for the first part of my game, but one I got to the gunpowder era the sheer number of units made the game really, really tedious. I'd advise against it, regardless of what Blake says.

I've certainly noticed plenty of wars in my non-Aggressive AI games.

martin031

Aug 03, 2007, 07:52 PM

Aggressive AI more often than not means unit spam. If you like to compete with the AI to see who can build the most units to win the game, then it's for you. It does have a militaristic appeal, though. If you want more strategy in general, don't play on it.

I do not believe this is very accurate. I think in general there is too much unit spam on both settings. But from my personal observations from games I have actually played, it appeared that the AI may be more likely to build a troop at anyone time, but it did not seem out of hand.

If you are taking this position based on other peoples experiences as opposed to your own personal observations (not sure if you have the game yet) then you may want to take them with a grain of salt. I think there are more marathon speed players, and this would be a bigger problem on that level.

That being said, I have had a variety of experience of play on both settings, so I think that it is something that needs to be eperimented with before sisiutil decides to try one online.

Mesousa

Aug 04, 2007, 01:05 AM

I love No Tech Brokering since it means that different civs have different techs, rather than the whole "one civ gets it then all the civs get it". I think you'll find it a positive change.

I agree. It makes civs a bit more distinct according to their research paths.

I used to play most games with No Technology Trading, as I was never happy with that aspect of the game, or its implementation. This meant that my games went slower tech-wise (resulting in a for me overall nice pace at Normal, reason I never felt very tempted to try Epic or Marathon). Now I'm using No Tech Brokering as a compromise, and teching goes a bit faster.

When you're used to normal tech trading, activating No Brokering should give you the opposite experience, going through the tree should take a bit longer. And of course a highly skilled tech trader should find it increases the challenge a bit. Now more getting a lead and then simply administering it through clever brokering.

aelf

Aug 04, 2007, 07:04 AM

I do not believe this is very accurate. I think in general there is too much unit spam on both settings. But from my personal observations from games I have actually played, it appeared that the AI may be more likely to build a troop at anyone time, but it did not seem out of hand.

If you are taking this position based on other peoples experiences as opposed to your own personal observations (not sure if you have the game yet) then you may want to take them with a grain of salt. I think there are more marathon speed players, and this would be a bigger problem on that level.

That being said, I have had a variety of experience of play on both settings, so I think that it is something that needs to be eperimented with before sisiutil decides to try one online.

The AI spams units even without Aggressive AI on. Blake himself said that he made the AI spam units because that's what players like to do, particularly MP players.

What settings are you playing on?

Random Oracle

Aug 04, 2007, 08:31 AM

Should Solver's unofficial patch be used in the game before the official patch is released? Here is the current change-list:

* Fixing a possible infinite loop problem with unit movement.
* AI now more likely to promote siege units with Accuracy to better handle the changes to bombardment in BtS
* AI understanding of what is an "early Wonder" now correct for non-Normal game speeds.
* AI civs that are close to reaching a Domination victory recognize that and are more likely to declare war, in particular with Aggressive AI.
* "Dead unitgroup walking" crash fix as per Dale
* No-conscript colony crash fix as per Gyathaar
* Another colony crash fix as per myself
* Fixed the bug allowing Forts in foreign territory, which would result in Forts overrunning useful rival improvements.
* AIs close to domination population will have a high priority for health buildings in cities that are unhealthy.
* AIs close to domination population will put a high priority on researching Genetics and will like other health techs better.
* The AI will be less reluctant to raze cities that have its state religion if it doesn't have the shrine for that religion.
* Corporation maintenance is now exempt from inflation, so the costs don't blow up so much.
* Poison Water and Ferment Unhappiness missions changed for non-Normal speeds. Only the duration scales now, not the effect. So on Marathon, it will be -8 happy for 24 turns, not -24 happy for 24 turns.
* Added possible workaround for a crash bug.
* Fixed an infinite loop problem with city attackers (thanks Gyathaar)
* Blockade code rewritten so that blockading is now much faster, as per Gyathaar

Very notable are the changes to corporations and Poison Water & Ferment Unhappiness missions. Solver's comment regarding corporations:

The system with corporation maintenance and inflation will be changed in the next patch. I can not promise you that the official patch's adjustment to corporation maintenance will be 100% the same as mine, but I can promise you that the system currently is my patch is closer to the system that will be in the official patch than the "unfixed" game.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168750
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=235067

martin031

Aug 04, 2007, 03:42 PM

The AI spams units even without Aggressive AI on. Blake himself said that he made the AI spam units because that's what players like to do, particularly MP players.

What settings are you playing on?

I play Monarch usually, and I do tend to play without Agg AI. I am more nervous about the late game unit spamming. I wish there was an in between setting that made it so the AI would prioritize early game defense without keeping it a game long unit spam, which Agg AI *may* lead to. But in my experience it has not always been that type of game.

But it has been hard to compare between the two settings, because everygame has had so many vairiables. But I think that I will be sticking with normal AI because there already seems to be quite a bit a variance with that setting. Some games the AI starts many wars, others not so much.

aelf

Aug 05, 2007, 08:29 AM

I play Monarch usually, and I do tend to play without Agg AI. I am more nervous about the late game unit spamming. I wish there was an in between setting that made it so the AI would prioritize early game defense without keeping it a game long unit spam, which Agg AI *may* lead to. But in my experience it has not always been that type of game.

I'm not talking about a game-long spam. The AI doesn't spam units early on because its priority is still REX. Later on, though, the unit count gets higher and higher.

But it has been hard to compare between the two settings, because everygame has had so many vairiables. But I think that I will be sticking with normal AI because there already seems to be quite a bit a variance with that setting. Some games the AI starts many wars, others not so much.

The truth is, as its players themselves admit, Aggressive AI doesn't necessarily mean there is more war, only a greater likelihood of war breaking out. The side effects, though, are more unit spam and less reliable diplomacy, both of which I don't regard as positive things in the game.

martin031

Aug 06, 2007, 01:16 PM

I'm not talking about a game-long spam. The AI doesn't spam units early on because its priority is still REX. Later on, though, the unit count gets higher and higher.

The truth is, as its players themselves admit, Aggressive AI doesn't necessarily mean there is more war, only a greater likelihood of war breaking out. The side effects, though, are more unit spam and less reliable diplomacy, both of which I don't regard as positive things in the game.

What I think that I might try to see how well it works is to change game speeds from epic where i normally play to normal. I think this might help make warring a bit more difficult. The reason why I did not earlier was because I did not enjoy speeding through the eras and not having a chance to use the units. But with the AI's reduced tech speed, and other options available like no tech brokering, this might help to make wars more challenging without leading to all out unit spam.

aelf

Aug 07, 2007, 10:04 AM

I'm not talking about a game-long spam. The AI doesn't spam units early on because its priority is still REX. Later on, though, the unit count gets higher and higher.

I might add that this in fact makes rushing more powerful. Since the AI is not able to spam units that much early on, it makes sense to attack it before it could. So rushing is now even more important and more pivotal to the game. Aggressive AI probably helps, but rushing would still be relatively more effective. I've said this to certain people before, so I'm surprised Blake still says that Aggressive AI discourages axe rushing. It doesn't.

Sisiutil

Aug 07, 2007, 12:26 PM

I went and read what Blake had to say about Aggressive AI over on the Apolyton boards. Very interesting.

I think my earlier position holds. That is, I think it's most appropriate to try out this setting in a game where I anticipate a lot of warring, to make things more challenging--not to mention fair. Frankly, if the normal AI in BtS is more peaceful, as Blake says, it seems unfair to play as a warmonger leader and NOT turn Aggressive AI on.

ALC 18 with Isabella of Spain (Spiritual/Expansive) I anticipate being more of a game that focuses on religion (Apostolic Palace, anyone?).

ALC 19 with Gilgamesh of Sumer (Creative/Protective)--hmm, tough to say, but Protective is more of a defensive trait. I suppose I could just sit back and let the AI dog-pile me and see if my Protective units are up to the challenge, but with the Creative trait I anticipate more of a building game. Neither his UB nor his UU sound like they'll set the world on fire. Basically, I'm not sure what to expect from a Gilgamesh game. I suspect it will depend very much on the map and neighbours, so stacking the deck with Aggressive AI seems inappropriate.

The next warmonger leader coming up, then, is Ragnar the Viking (Aggressive/Financial ) in ALC 20, so I'll give it a whirl there. After that game we'll discuss using it in future games.

Bhruic

Aug 07, 2007, 12:41 PM

Sisiutil

Aug 07, 2007, 01:12 PM

Isn't that rather stacking the deck? That's what always struck me as pretty dumb about Blake's take on it - if you are planning on playing a "peaceful" game, then deliberately choosing an AI that isn't as likely to go to war with you would simply give you an advantage. It'd be like turning on Space Race as the only victory condition, and then forcing the AI to de-emphasize production. Sure, they still have a chance of winning, but the odds certainly are in your favour.

Bh
I suppose so, but then again, even choosing the map or the leader is, in many ways, stacking the deck as well. The ALCs are about exploiting the leaders' unique characteristics (or combination thereof), and in the past I've ensured that this could be done--having a 3rd party check the Persia start for horses and neighbours, for example. Because frankly, if I start an off-line game as Cyrus and find I'm isolate and/or don't have horses, I'm just going to restart. I'd rather not waste several pages of ALC thread only to do that.

As we've seen in the latest ALC game, the new, supposedly-more-peaceful AI is no guarantee that you won't have war declared on you. (Though, granted, it seems in that case that Tokugawa didn't have enough units spammed to really threaten me.)

Frankly, if I'm going to pursue a more peaceful type of victory, setting the AI to spam units also seems unfair; while you tech away, they'll be spamming increasingly-obsolete units and falling behind. We've all seen Tokugawa, Genghis, and Montezuma do that pre-BtS. Just because the AI spams more units and is more prone to DoWs and dog-piling doesn't mean that it's any better at war, or at least, not as good at war as a human.

Having the setting on or off strikes me as a way to have the AI play the same style of game that you yourself anticipate playing. Therefore, either way, you should get more of a challenge. Where it would be stacking the deck, I think, is to set the setting one way and then play the opposite style.

pigswill

Aug 07, 2007, 01:22 PM

Sisiutil

Aug 07, 2007, 02:39 PM

Gilgamesh is surely set up as a leader for early rushing. Vulture is superior to axeman, you get courthouses with priesthood, creative gives you easy border pops and you've got protective to help defend your territory.

Overall the way for the game to defeat early rush tactics is for AI to spam units early on instead of going for all out expansion. Also the power calculation probably overestimates population and defensive units and undervalues attacking units which distorts things as well.

Save that thought on Gilgamesh for the pre-game thread. ;)

I think you're right about the power rating. The AI loves Archers, Longbomen, and Crossbowmen and typically has a higher power rating than the human player, and yet it's rare for the AI to be ready for an offensive war.

I've also noticed that the AI over-values mounted units. I used to as well, because they move faster, but they have penalties for attacking cities. This leads me to think that the AI is also programmed to over-value pillaging as a tactic.

In most games I've played the AI isn't a tough nut to crack until it gets Artillery. It seems to value those far more than other seige units (though it does like Trebuchets as well). It will mass them and unleash them on a city or a stack like God's own thunder.

slobberinbear

Aug 09, 2007, 05:45 PM

Frankly, I like the changed AI. I think variety is a good thing. The more the AI acts like a person (or better yet, a variety of people), the better. It's more satisfying to plan for the unexpected and have your plan succeed than it is (in a metagaming sort of way) to know your foe's tactics ahead of time and ignore other considerations.

Sisiutil

Aug 10, 2007, 06:27 PM

Is it time to move up a level?

I hate to base my judgment on one game, but I'm currently pwning in the Peter the Great game and I've seen other posts on the board where people are noticing the AI is teching more slowly with BtS, probably because it's allocating commerce into espionage.

Now, granted, Peter is a stellar leader for the SE if he gets the right land, which he certainly did in this game. Not only is there a lot of seafood and irrigable land, once I eliminated Rome I was able to develop in splendid isolation. I was close enough to have contact with some AI civs for tech and resource trading, but separated by a moat, essentially, to deter invasion, at least early in the game when the cost of that many Galleys would be prohibitive. I also didn't have the greatest competitors: Gandhi, Toku, Mao, Shaka, Bismarck (and later, Qin)... not really a tech fiend in the bunch, and nobody Financial. Nobody like Huayna, Ragnar, or Mansa Musa to worry about.

And then I popped Astronomy from a goody hut... :eek:

So maybe I was just very fortunate this time and at least had the combination of skill and very welcome guidance to exploit that good fortune.

Nevertheless, I'm wondering what others' experiences with BtS are. With Warlords a lot of people dropped back a level; I certainly struggled at first--witness the Asoka game, my first with Warlords, where I very nearly lost early on. It's sounding like BtS is the opposite, with the AI seemingly a little overwhelmed by the new features.

I would like to stick with Monarch for at least the next game, with Spain/Isabella. I'm already thinking of trying a very different type of strategy than I've ever done before in that one, and I'd prefer not to do that on Emperor, especially for the first time, where I might have my strategic options limited. Recently we discussed using Aggressive AI to add another layer of challenge. Perhaps with Sumer/Gilgamesh, it might be time to take the plunge into Emperor level instead/as well? I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's played games at that level with BtS. I may try it myself in an off-line game or two and see what I think.

carl corey

Aug 10, 2007, 06:55 PM

I've played at Monarch level in Warlords and only moved (not very successfully) to Emperor for the last games. Now I'm playing Monarch on BtS and I've seen AIs have good tech leads and good armies from time to time, it just depends on the settings. In one game Justinian I and Asoka were religious buddies on the same continent with the weaker Genghis and Washington. Asoka & Justinian stood really well, probably because of multiple trades and the fact that the other 2 fought between themselves.

So it's still situational. You could move to Emperor and then come back if you feel too overwhelmed by it, that's what I'll probably do.

ds61514

Aug 10, 2007, 07:02 PM

WRT Emperor-Level:

Peaceful wins with few troops are still doable on normal AI. In contrast to 90% of Warlords game, you can grab enough land to win without war; just be (ab)use the diplomacy screen and you'll be fine.

The unit spams can be much more aggressive depending on the AI. I've seen multiple 10-units stacks (sometimes multiple 20-unit stacks) and even a size 2 Kyoto managed to spit out an Archer a turn. Slavery maintenance is also more noticeable; witness the RB game where taking 2 cities dropped their slider to 10%. I must have a defective copy of BtS, because I generally find early war horrendously unproductive and don't have to unit spam to win.

Your time limit to win is generally around 1965, although I've seen AI victories as early as 1940s.

Rancid Sushi

Aug 10, 2007, 09:24 PM

Given the reportedly slow tech pace of the AI, I would say that a move up to Emperor is now within reason. I'll probably be moving up to Emperor soon as well once I'm comfortable with all of the new features in BTS.

cabert

Aug 13, 2007, 07:38 AM

I'm usually (meaning playing warlords) very comfortable at monarch, and somewhat struggling at emperor.
I had the same impression about BtS being easier, so I moved up to emperor, and had a walk in the park up to liberalism.
Then I lost my save and got back to an earlier one (500 AD or so).
For some reason, Ragnar decided to hit me although in the replay while he didn't in the first run. It's not a walk in the park at all anymore :eek:.
I suggest playing the next game at monarch, and playing your offline games at emperor for a while.
Or switching to agressive AI.

gaiko

Aug 13, 2007, 08:38 PM

I'll try to keep this relevant to the purposes of the Bullpen.

I'm with cabert's, rancid's and aelf's take on this. I'm sure many have read the threads spawned by futurehermit on the general AI tech pace, and the ALC Peter 2 game is an instance that confirms that prognosis. Gandhi seemed to mostly defend with LB stacks against Rifles/Cannon/Cav, though I did see some Grens/Cannon in one screenshot of his capital. But Sisutil would have to confirm the general case. In my experience so far this has not always been the case, not by a long shot.

The core issue is the AI tech pace, with the secondary issue of unit upgrade ability since that AI bene has also been nerfed. The issue is not that the AI doesn't build enough units (save the early game, but I don't like to build too many early either), but that it doesn't fully make use of the stacks that it does build. This, plus inefficient use of espionage plus the nerfed AI tech benes are suspected as the root causes of the overall slower AI pace.

So while Aggressive AI would fix the lack of use, it would do so at the price of 1) an even slower AI tech pace due to a) unit spam and b) destructive inter-AI wars, and 2) unit spam tedium - thus aggravating the basic problem, plus leaving the AI with even more units it can't upgrade.

So no to aggressive AI.

Same with No Tech Swapping or whatever it is called. This would nix a key way that the AI could address its tech backwardness independently of the human, further exacerbating the problem. So no here also.

The unofficial patch I haven't used since I think completely uncoupling corps from inflation is too overpowered, promoting an "it's all good" corp spam, for ex. I _like_ how the AP finally makes getting (the AP) religion a _bad_ thing, finally! The tie with inflation should be adjusted, not eliminated, and I'll wait until that is done.

As it sits now, BtS seems to suit a more passive-aggressive "nibbling turtle" style of play. For this I've found the GW+ToZ+AP(with shared religion) to be an excellent defensive combo. Especially with Protective, to which it gives new meaning. Bait an AI into attacking you and let them suffer the happy penalties while you rack up the 2xGG points. Together with an early Theology and early instructors and you can nurture a core of well-promoted units for later upgrade in the...

...Modern Era. I'd like to see some challenging Modern Era warfare. Especially if Boudicca were in the mix, Oooh, Sisutil in pouty Liz drag in a girl fight with Boudi! Er, another inappropriate image, I know :blush: Feels like middle school spirit all over again - that's what these games do to you I guess:lol:

Too bad though if it means dumbing down one's play. I liked a tech beeline challenge as much as anyone else, but I like this more leisurely style as well. I've just sort of adapted to it and tried out other angles. I'm much more willing to share a continent with the AIs rather than feel that I must grab the whole thing for myself if I wanted to have a hope of winning, truly generally the case in Vanilla/Warlords. Not so in BtS, a big (and good) difference. Sisutils' Peter 2 game was unusual in my experience in that he had a truly great opportunity to knock out the only other AI (J Caesar) on his continent early on, one that I wouldn't have resisted, either. But that is exceptional.

The rule is: rubbing close borders with same-continent AIs. Just wait and they will attack, with nice Blake-style combined stacks. Trouble is, they often won't go all out total war with everything, so they are not too hard to contain in "aggressive-defensive" style.

We'll see how it all pans out in the end.

Admiral Kutzov

Aug 13, 2007, 10:48 PM

Sisiutil, I'm more interested in seeing what you can do with the AP and other new features rather than seeing what you can do by moving up a level.

BTS plays more like civ3 than than the earlier versions.

I'd like to see what you can come up with for passive/aggressive strats rather than a straight hammer.

regards, :salute: AK

Ankh

Aug 14, 2007, 03:26 AM

My suggestions:

Play the next game with no tech brokering, imo that's how the game should be played no more trade abusing and a slightly slower tech pace gives you a larger window so you can show each civ uu/ub more and thats what alc all about isnt it?.

About agressive AI, i'm not sure what to think about it, sure more units and more military makes the game more different, and I think agressive AI is fine untill gunpowder/industrial age when you get increasingly bigger stacks moving around the map that gameplay slows down and your game experience suffers imo. Then again it could be fun to have the mongols invade you with a stack of 40+ knights, they sure can with agressive AI enabled.

Go emperor with isabella a more close game is more intressting to follow then a pushover. I'm sure you can show some different intresting stuff with Isabella even on emperor.

Fierabras

Aug 14, 2007, 08:30 AM

ALC 19 with Gilgamesh of Sumer (Creative/Protective)--hmm, tough to say, but Protective is more of a defensive trait. I suppose I could just sit back and let the AI dog-pile me and see if my Protective units are up to the challenge, but with the Creative trait I anticipate more of a building game. Neither his UB nor his UU sound like they'll set the world on fire. Basically, I'm not sure what to expect from a Gilgamesh game.

You might want to consider playing a strategy based on spying with Gilgamesh. In short: Great Wall to generate Great Spy, Vulture rush first opponent, build Ziggurats for spy points, expend Great Spy on second opponent, get Alphabet to create spies and use them for city revolts to take down cultural defenses (and steal some technology). No need for siege weapons this way in the first two wars. It worked for me on Monarch/Epic/Hemispheres.

I'll get back to this in the pre-game thread on Gilgamesh.

DrJambo

Aug 14, 2007, 10:35 AM

No tech brokering is a bit of a double edged sword - good because it's keeps the pace more believable and brings some control over excessive tech trading, and yet bad because it really emphasizes tech disparity between successful and backward AI civs. This means that while the tops civs get better and better, the poor civs get poorer and left further behind. Being financial is even more important for the AI! For the human it's also a bit exploitable too - selling tech for dirt cheap to civs that will never win, knowing full well that they can't even use the tech for any trading benefit themselves.

Regarding the format of the ALC, I understand that the map has to be kind of favourable to allow sufficient demonstration of UUs and UBs, the civ's traits, etc, etc. However, since that is kind of stacking the game in your favour, I'd definitely suggest trying Aggressive AI or moving up a level or two. Part of the problem with the ALC is secretly knowing that the map isn't going to shaft you and that things will be ok for your starting position and your UU. Don't get me wrong, I think this is ok because the ALCs are a learning experience and for public interest/show. Having said that, you do then run the opposite risk of them becoming too easy and therefore rather dull like the current Peter one has become.

I'd suggest Aggressive AI and/or a level up, even if it's just for a learning experience and ultimately doesn't work. You could try that with no tech brokering to make it a little slower paced?

Sisiutil

Aug 14, 2007, 12:29 PM

What I'd like to do is try out some sort of religious strategy in the next game with Isabella. Since that will be very different from what I usually do, I think I'd prefer to keep the other settings the same.

Now if I totally dominate that game even playing with an unfamiliar strategy, then I agree that that's a sign that I should do something to make the games more challenging. The custom settings sound like a mixed bag--I tried Aggressive AI off-line and didn't find the game that much more challenging, honestly. The main thing I noticed was a few more units and a higher price if I wanted to negotiate peace. Well, if I'm killing the AI, I usually kill them dead, so my price for peace is pretty high too.

Tech brokering also sounds like a mixed bag, like it makes some AIs stronger but several of them weaker. Frankly, I'm convinced that Gandhi traded for Military Science in the Peter game after I DoW'd, because according to espionage he wasn't researching it.

So it's sounding more and more like a move up to Emperor level will likely happen after the Isabella game. Frankly, it was always my goal to use these games to help me move up the difficulty levels anyway. I've held back on Monarch perhaps a little longer than I should have out of a concern that higher levels restrict one's strategies and therefore the opportunities to try anything innovative. But a series of cakewalks is not what this series is supposed to be about.

Also please remember that I experienced my only 2 losses in this series very recently. I don't always pwn.

Sisiutil

Aug 14, 2007, 01:14 PM

Another thought: apparently the latest patch doesn't include Solver's as-yet-unofficial tweaks which look like they make the AI more competent and challenging.

Since I'm aiming to stick with Monarch and no custom settings for the Isabella game (which is next), what about using Solver's unofficial patch? That would give us an opportunity to measure his modifications' effectiveness in presenting a challenge without things like a higher difficulty level or custom settings throwing us off.

This is not, to my mind, much different than playing with Blake's Better AI mod for Warlords. It doesn't change the core game (much), it mainly makes the AI behave smarter, and that's something I've always wanted in Civ, since version 1 for DOS.

Hackapell

Aug 14, 2007, 08:28 PM

I agree with cabert on this one. Stick with monarch for the ALC's, and start doing Emperor off-line until you fell comfortable with all the new things to play with in BtS. I would also advocate the unofficial patch; it seems ood enough and a majority of players have already adopted it along with BtS 3.03.
another thing to think about is the game settings, specifically the map. Will you stay with big-and-small? or will you check out hemispheres? taht's something else to think about, especially as the peter ALC is winding down.

kniteowl

Aug 14, 2007, 08:54 PM

flamingzaroc121

Aug 15, 2007, 12:32 AM

yes use Solver's patch, it helps ALOT

Azander

Aug 15, 2007, 03:54 AM

I don't think you should use an unofficial patch, that not everyone is using.

I do think however, you should give hemispheres a chance. I've played on some really nice maps recently with it, using these settings:

Continent size: Varied
Islands Size: Random
Number of continents: 2

And of course, temperate climate, and medium sealevels.
One of my maps actually looked a lot like a real world, very realistic. Reminded me of Planet, from Alpha Centauri.. Those were the days.. :)

DrJambo

Aug 15, 2007, 05:22 AM

Why would you not use the 'unofficial' patch?? It's created by people contracted to work for Firaxis, it fixes numerous bugs such as the military academy one and many many others, and it will up the ante a little ...

I can't think of one reason not to use it.

Regardless, if you're going to play Monarch, then I wouldn't use a 'pre-approved' map, since that will at least force you to think out of the box a little. That last starting position with Peter was almost far too perfect for a player of your ability.

With Isabella I'd pursue a religious victory. That was actually the first victory condition I won playing BtS (Prince), although it wasn't my intention at the start of that game.

Chrispy

Aug 15, 2007, 07:30 AM

Sisiutil

Aug 15, 2007, 12:34 PM

Isabella's next... too bad you're playing with her on BTS, she got nerfed badly...

+5XP to Seige from UB but... Siege can't kill anymore :S

Sure you can get a level 4 Treb with Barracks + Citadel + Civic (Spiritual), but what's the point of a CR3 Treb if It can't kill :S.... well I guess there are other promotions... but still.

UU has been pushed back to Military Tradition and also requires gunpowder, sure they can't be countered by Pikes but by that point in the game more units are being upgraded to gunpowder, that melee bonus is near useless :S

They have a VERY short lifespan even if you beeline... unless you build a stack of mounted units then upgrade.

I'd like to see you win a early religious victory with her, she's pretty much made for it, although only Gandhi and Ramesse have better synergy.
A couple of thoughts--first off, Isabella's UU replaces the Knight, not Cavalry, so I think it could have a long lifespan if I get Guilds early enough.

Second, with the way siege weapons have been nerfed, I would say that Isabella's UB just got more powerful. Siege weapons are still necessary, but it's now devilishly hard for them to earn XPs, which enhance their survival rate. So having them get a +2 XP boost from the UB could be invaluable.
Why would you not use the 'unofficial' patch?? It's created by people contracted to work for Firaxis, it fixes numerous bugs such as the military academy one and many many others, and it will up the ante a little ...

I can't think of one reason not to use it.

Regardless, if you're going to play Monarch, then I wouldn't use a 'pre-approved' map, since that will at least force you to think out of the box a little. That last starting position with Peter was almost far too perfect for a player of your ability.

With Isabella I'd pursue a religious victory. That was actually the first victory condition I won playing BtS (Prince), although it wasn't my intention at the start of that game.
I probably will start playing with Solver's patch in the next game. It just sounds too good to pass up.

I have actually only had a map "pre-approved" once, for Cyrus. Neither Peter map was checked ahead of time, and I think both games are indications of how important the starting position and the surrounding terrain can be, and also how very random that can be.

That being said, I feel entirely justified in getting a map pre-approved by a third party (in this case, the very gracious Welnic). This is the on-line game equivalent of restarting, which, come on, everyone does sometimes.

The point of the ALC games is to get the most out of each leader, and if they have an early UU, it makes for a disappointing game if they lack the necessary resource and/or they're isolated. Having the map pre-checked for those leaders avoids having to restart, which would be unwieldy for these very active threads and, frankly, what I would do in an off-line game. If I'm playing as either of the Caesars, it's so I can conquer my neighbours with a Praet rush. If I have no iron and Rome is isolated, yes, that might be challenging, but to my mind it's no fun, since I miss out on the whole point of playing as that civ. Now, if I'm isolated and playing as Roosevelt, that's a whole other story; turtling and playing builder with the Industrious trait until Navy SEALS are available is perfectly viable there.

Now, I don't see a reason to have a map pre-approved unless, like Cyrus, there's an early UU that requires certain conditions to get the most out of it--specifically, availability of the required strategic resource and victims--er, neighbours. If you recall, Welnic's choice of map for Cyrus didn't make things easy for me. Horses were not in the capital's BFC, and I had an Aggressive neighbour and a Financial one.

As for Isabella, I won't be getting that game's map pre-approved either since she doesn't meet those criteria. Who does? Of the remaining ALC leaders, definitely Gilgamesh, Shaka, Boudica, Brennus, Pericles, Sitting Bull, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Ramesses, Pacal, and Darius; maybe Suryavarman, Wang Kon, and Genghis Khan, though I think I'll take my chances with them.

Chrispy

Aug 15, 2007, 01:52 PM

A couple of thoughts--first off, Isabella's UU replaces the Knight, not Cavalry, so I think it could have a long lifespan if I get Guilds early enough.

The conquistador was moved. It no longer replaces the knight; it now replaces the Cuirassier. See this Civlopedia screenshot. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=156005&d=1184747591)

ShredZ

Aug 15, 2007, 02:42 PM

SickCycle

Aug 15, 2007, 02:50 PM

Sorry, double posted read below :crazyeye:

SickCycle

Aug 15, 2007, 02:54 PM

If you haven't tried the Aggressive AI it's suppose to be highly recommended with BTS, I guess it was totally changed to be more opportunistic and they took away the negative modifiers towards humans so the pacifists will still be friendly but the aggressive AI's will go on a rampage, if they see a weakspot they just go for it.

Heres a link to one of Solvers posts about what Blake (who's responsible for the new AI) says on the new Aggressive AI settings. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=168663

This is what Blakes posted about the changes.

I'm 100% responsible for the AI in BTS.

Making the normal AI wussier was MY decision, granted it was a decision made partially on the basis of impassioned pleas (pfft, whines) for less unit spam, I am by nature every bit as cruel as Sirian when it comes to making life difficult for players, and yet that cruel tendancy ends up getting moderated, probably by compassion.

Basically there was:
Things I had time to do
and
Things I didn't have time to do

I can't think of anything I implemented which was not included.

Have you seen the list of changes in BTS? The number of new systems? To say as little as possible, there was not nearly enough time to perfect things, most time was spent making sure as little as possible was broken.

If I had spent the time to make an impassioned argument for replacing Aggressive AI with Peaceful AI then I'm fairly certain it would have happened - in spite of the obvious backlash about "Pointlessly changing things around" (trust me, however pointful something is, there will always be some who find it pointless...).
But other things got my attention (requiring impassioned arguments ), when there are things which are broken, those things take precedent over things which aren't perfect. Perfection is unattainable anyway, while not broken is attainable.

This is not a criticism of the BTS development, it can be called corporate reality if you want. Was BTS too ambitious? Maybe... probably... but I think it's still better than not being ambitious enough.

To further explain AI military behavior.

A naturally militaristic AI like Alexander or Monty will still make a respectable military effort under normal settings, in AI vs AI wars, it's all relative anyway. Some AI's have to be bad at defense, so others can invade them. In BTS the AI are far less "samey" in their strategy - in short they can pursue goals, but obviously in min-maxing their metagame they sometimes make themselves extra vulnerable to be invaded, it's the price of not being samey/predictable.

Aggressive AI no longer causes the AI to have a relationship penalty with humans. Basically it can be said that the AI expects things to get aggressive. The pacifist AI's aren't actually that much more likely to declare war, they just keep larger armies on hand as to not be easy victims. The naturally militaristic AI's go crazy. In any case if you neglect your army, any AI will notice and with it's larger power will be more likely to declare war and come for you. It is more likely you'll get declared upon, especially if you don't change your playstyle...

The default AI is a bit of a sandbox, you can employ the strategy you want and the AI may interfere with your plans... but on Aggressive AI, the AI can DICTATE your strategy! If Alexander is going to invade you, then you damn well prepare an army or you're going to taken out of the game! Even with the best prepeardedness if you fail to avoid a dogpile you're probably a goner.

On the normal setting, you just play, it's casual.
On aggressive AI, you adapt, it's hardcore.

Note that the vast majority of people who buy the game are not hardcore. Even those that are (proclaim to be) often prefer more of a sandbox style, one of the most common complaints was along the lines of "I don't want the AI forcing me to adopt a play style", in other words the player has to be choose a strategy, and the AI must accommodate them to a degree by not being too aggressive. While Aggressive AI, will be as aggressive as it darn well pleases.

Note that Aggressive AI, due to spending more on units, techs significantly slower than the default AI, if you can somehow stay out of the crosshairs it's actually easier to win peacefully - the default AI can be a speed demon when it comes to research.

What do I mean by difficulty?

Take this as an example: I played a game on emperor level and got a good start, I wiped out my neighbor, then another neighbor. But during that time an AI "tech whore partnership" of Elizabeth and Roosevelt had teched to the end of the tech tree while I was really nowhere near it, the warmongering, despite being successful, had slowed me down. That's part of the new balance of BTS - the AI's can under good circumstances tech very rapidly - in Warlords the AI - even at emperor - was easily capable of not getting to the end of the tech tree before 2050, meaning the player could take all damn game long consolidating a large conquest into an economic powerhouse, in BTS players don't have as much slack, so even if conquering your neighbors isn't harder it can be harder to actually win the game. That's something you get with default AI - you dick around invading people while some AI's refuse to fight and tech off into space. It doesn't happen predictably and I'll put it like this:
If you play at a difficulty which is exactly at your skill level, with 10 players:
10% of the games you should have an easy time, because you got a "top 10%" start point.
10% of the games you should have a very uphill struggle, because you got a "bottom 10%" start point.

Some easy games are to be expected.
(Note: Most players play far below their "equal skill level", in that they expect to win 100% of games, rather than 1/N games where N is the number of players used, this paradoxically is true of multiplayer too - the players just feel like they suck when they only win 1/N games)

I've been playing my games on it (just moved up to monarch thanks in large part to you :goodjob: ) and I have to say it's amazing and so much fun, the AI's play like Humans, they tech a little slower at the start b/c they are building units but it's offset by the fact in BTS automated workers got a major overhaul and will spam cottages after farms build up the cities health.

Hatty in my game didn't declare war the entire length of it, while I kept most of the aggressive AI's off my back with a my military standing anytime I showed a weakspot they capitalized on it and around mid-game they started to pass me in techs so all in all it was by far the most challenging, fun, realistic game I've ever played.

They also had no problem attacking eachother, anytime a weaker AI showed a slump a aggressive one like Shaka would be all over them, it was actually a problem b/c it started creating a super civ Justinian had catipulated three civs on my continent one of um was my next target so when it went down there was a world war between everyone, i had never seen anything like it in my regular games.

Justinian had catipulated (sp?) Holy Rome/Shaka, Saladin had catipulated Wang and Darius vassalized to him for protection then I signed a defensive pact with Saladin and khmer had catipulated to me in addition I used kmers old territory to colonies and create lincon... lol complicated I know

Justinian had declared war on me, and I believe bribed Mao to declare on Darius, so the entire world broke out into a 2-3 way war.

I've never seen anything like it, and b/c of the aggressive settings I had wave after wave after wave of holy roman and justinian smashing into my territory and the cities i took from rome, I eventually fell but it was the most amazing game I ever played.

Sisiutil

Aug 15, 2007, 02:56 PM

Scaphism

Aug 15, 2007, 03:12 PM

The conquistador was moved. It no longer replaces the knight; it now replaces the Cuirassier. See this Civlopedia screenshot. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=156005&d=1184747591)

Right, and it's quite upsetting. I hope they change it back in the future.

Validator

Aug 15, 2007, 11:53 PM

Actually, with spies in the game now, you need a lot less siege units, possibly none at all like in my last game, well, I had some, but they never saw action. Just select yer closest neighbor to receive all of your EP and then push for a city revolt just before you attack, be sure to have more than one spy unless yer a gamblin man ;)

Why wait 2 or 3 rounds of destroying a cities defences, then suicide units into a city when they cant even kill something, when you can just incite revolt, inciiiiiite revoooolt.

I don't think you should be routinely elimimating siege from your war plans. Using spies to incite revolts has some serious flaws relative to siege:

1. Spy incited city revolts eliminate city defenses for one turn, but do not cause any damage to the defending units (unlike a culture induced city revolt). So you'll still need siege to "soften up" the defenders unless you have a large tech advantage.

2. As you've mentioned spies are not guaranteed to be successful causing the revolt. When I've used them for that purpose I've seen about a 75% - 85% chance of success, so it is still possible that one or even multiple spies will fail. Siege bombard damage is one of the few warfare related events that is not affected by the RNG. It always happens, so if you have enough siege you are guaranteed to take down the city defenses. Pre-castles or post-Cannons it doesn't require all that many Accuracy promoted siege units to eliminate city defenses in one turn.

3. Using spies to incite revolts is not cheap. You won't be able to afford to do it many times using just the EPs you gain from buildings. Any spy specialists or use of the espionage slider effectively reduces your research rate. Also by using up EPs to incite city revolts you'll lose some benefits of passive espionage. I routinely see the AIs that I'm at war with spend all its EPs against me carrying out various sabotage missions. This results in my gaining visibility into their cities and sometimes even the ability to investigate their cities. This is a big advantage in war, and it will be lost if a lot of EPs are spent on incite revolt missions.

On the hammer side relying on spies will also be more costly. Spies will die as the revolt of mission failures or even just from being discovered while they're in enemy territory. Siege units using solely for bombard duty (which is all that spy revolts do) will never die as long as you can protect them from flank attacks.

While I don't see spy incited riots as a universal siege replacement, I do think there are times where you want to use it:

1. If your opponent has lots of mounted units your siege units are likely to die to flank attacks. Using spies for revolts early in a war until the enemy's mounted force is eliminated makes sense. Then the siege stack can be brought in to finish up the war.

2. Pre-cannon siege are very ineffective at bombarding defenses of cities with castles. In these cases the cost of the spy induced city revolts is well worth it IMO.