Maybe you could tell us what it does factor and actually add to the discussion.
Search the thread "is there any logic to an AI dow" that I mentioned above. It has the answer to every one of these mechanics that you're quoting. I'm serious, every single one, the thread is that good.
I'm sure you had great fun "proving" such an abstract and interpretive comment. I'm sure you can chariot rush a whole map without ever having to build a cottage or assign a specialist, but for the casual players who are still learning the game it generally makes sense not to neglect your economy.
"Casual" players, of which there are very few frequenting this subforum
, should not be given information that is objectively wrong when asking for gameplay advice. On most difficulties above prince, it is diplomacy and not military power that deters wars from starting, if they're avoided (that and luck). However, military can keep you alive if diplo fails. The distinction is very important though, and so is recognizing situations where you can lock out ANY chance of DoW. Even below monarch, it's rarely worthwhile to bother spamming troops if you're not using them for some purpose, and doing so doesn't help someone learn to improve. Every choice in the game is made for a reason.
What that has to do with the conversation I don't know. You're the king of Civ4, I get it, but for those of us without photo-allergies and a family basement to hide in, we just have to struggle on.
Did I say I was some uber player or the "king" of civ IV? I suggest you read it again. I'm a good player and have won most settings by now, but this subforum alone has double digit players who have routinely outperformed me in forum games, and that's not even touching succession games or HoF/XOTM. I said what you quoted based on some combination of not only what I've done myself, but what I've seen. These games aren't rare though; they are VERY common throughout the forums.
Speaking about what it has to do with the conversation, the answer is "a lot more than the entire post I'm quoting", actually. The OP is talking about struggling with a specific civ and is tying himself to 1 VC while playing that civ. Pointing out that any civ can win any victory condition, unlike your complaint about its relevancy, is relevant to the OP.
Maybe, but nothing says elitist techno-snob more than the person who dissects AI code and then wags their finger at casual gamers for not understanding it. I don't own a binary watch either!
Funny. I didn't code dive, but I still know these things because the people who DID were KIND enough to do it and post it on the forum. This information has been around for years, available to anybody willing to do a forum search or ask the question. Ignoring that material, not asking the question, and simply stating wrong things to a rookie player is laudable...how exactly? I'm not wagging my finger at your lack of knowledge, but rather the flaunting of it while ignoring the forum in the process.
I'm sure you had great fun "proving" such an abstract and interpretive comment
"Having military" versus not is "abstract and interpretive"
?! Again, I never said that I specifically proved it; it's actually been done many times over by multiple people (I am one of a LOT)
Playing the same map, same conditions but with a different Civ will change the Civs pitched against you.
Yikes! Repeating the wrong statement again doesn't make it right. The *only* impact a civ choice has on the opponents you face (if they're random) is that you won't play against the same civ as you chose.
therefore the civ/leader you have IS relevant
I like apples, therefore the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong.
Wait, that doesn't work? Neither does what I quoted.
The leader you choose never has an impact on the AI personalities. The AI personalities are the same regardless of your leader/civ. Their personality has *nothing* to do with the leader/civ chosen by the player. Ever. They are coded into an XML document for each AI, with certain behaviors weighted. There is no "personality" for the human civ, except what the human himself chooses to do.
but with your knowledge and experience of the game at least you could add to the conversation rather than trying to belittle people who are trying to learn it
Show me where I belittled the OP, because I'm curious.
Or wait, are you saying that YOU'RE trying to learn the game? If that's so, then rather than offering a rookie advice that is flat-out wrong, maybe you should be asking questions too? It would probably serve better than giving a bunch of bad advice and then name-calling someone who calls you out on the fact that the advice is terrible and detrimental to the play of anyone who adopts it.
What's funny is, I didn't even "belittle" you in that post. I merely pointed out each of the things you posted that were wrong, and suggested you read a very useful thread. I never commented on the quality of your play, or you as a person...apparently not a courtesy granted to me.
"I can beat any VC on any level"
-1 point for reading comprehension. If you're going to attempt to quote me, quote something I actually said/wrote.
Nothing personal, but desperately self aggrandizing forum fascists are something of a bugbear, along with griefers, child molesters, and people who talk in theatres.
Look, guy. I never called you any names. I never said you couldn't post here, or even that you shouldn't. I certainly didn't molest your children. Unlike you, I didn't even name-call you. I pointed out, line by line, each of the times you were wrong in your post. You gave bad advice, repeatedly and without qualification, to another rookie poster. The second someone calls you on it, your response is:
1. To claim that person is doing something different from what's being done (self-aggrandizement would at least suggest I was attempting to say I was a good player; I actually did not do this in the initial post you're complaining about)
2. Compare the post to a military force known for mass slaughter
3. Compare the post to a government in a reference that makes no sense (I have no actual power here, and never claimed that I did)
4. Make all kinds of silly comparisons to people committing illegal and/or simply annoying acts
Unlike you, I actually *did* reference a thread that would be extremely helpful to every WRONG point you posted.
Maybe you should try to comprehend what you read properly before you start calling people out on correcting your wrong statements ((and dishing out way more name-calling and non-logic in the process).