Building the War Academy for Civ4

Zombie69 said:

I hate the Deity Guide and HoF stuff.

Click to expand...

Better not put any of them in there then, some forum members hate them.

I imagine the 90 players who have submitted games so far would like to see them in there, and they might generate additional interest, which Im sure would be welcomed.

They have nothing to do with playing the game,

Click to expand...

Forgive me here, I am not trying to start an argument, but I ask you to qualify what gives you the right to dictate what is and isnt 'playing the game'?

and everything to do with choosing artificial settings so that you can say you beat deity / scored high.

Click to expand...

They are to do with achieving a certain victory condition with either the highest score or fastest finish possible, and settings play a part in getting the number 1 spot. This is where the ego boost comes from - beating other HOF players, not beating diety. Difficulty level is irrelivent in the HOF, you compete with each other, not the AI.

Keep them out of the War Academy because of some peoples hatred? ...electronic ostracization.

fret said:

Keep them out of the War Academy because of some peoples hatred? ...electronic racism.

Click to expand...

Come on. I, too, think it's silly to tweak the game settings, and regenerate thousands of maps, to make it as easy as possible. If you want the game to be easier, just lower the difficulty. You are entitled to disagree, but my opinion is not "racism". I think describing the opinions of those with whom you disagree as "racism" violates the civility guidelines of CFC. I have no idea what race you are, or any other CFC participant.

DaviddesJ said:

Come on. I, too, think it's silly to tweak the game settings, and regenerate thousands of maps, to make it as easy as possible.

Click to expand...

That perfectly fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

But on that, I question the 'I, too, think....'

So because you think it, they should be excluded?

If you want the game to be easier, just lower the difficulty.

Click to expand...

Im not sure this is relevant. I dont want an easy game, I want to challenge myself against other players who are going for the same victory type. If you want an easier game you can lower the level to Settler or Chieftan. Unfortunately, do that in the HOF and you wont get any easier a game.

Another reason it isnt necessarily easy, for example, would you call the 1550AD Diety cultural victory easy? Or the 790AD(ish) Spaceship launch on Civ3 easy?

Should a strategy be written for that kind of game, I d like to see the argument for it being easy.

You are entitled to disagree, but my opinion is not "racism".

Click to expand...

I described excluding something on the basis of hatred as 'electronic racism', and the person I replied to used the word 'hate' in a post voicing his/her approval of excluding something. I have not stated that your opinion was rasicm. I belioeve that racism is the correct English word to use in that case. If all the CFC sub-communities exclude the poor HOF because they hate it, how would you describe it?

I think describing the opinions of those with whom you disagree as "racism" violates the civility guidelines of CFC. I have no idea what race you are, or any other CFC participant.

Click to expand...

I called it 'electronic racism', I refer to the concept of excluding a minority. I have changed the word for one which has a similar meaning, and will be more suited to the PC world gone mad in which we now live. I would never have guessed that using the term 'racism' to describe hateful exclusion was against CFC forum policy, if it was then I am sorry and the word has been replaced.

Excluding a particular type of submission because it doesn't seem sufficiently interesting or relevant doesn't seem objectionable to me. Suppose I post a series of articles on how to win Civ4 while never building any improvements except farms. Sure, this is very challenging, but that doesn't make it interesting. If I convince you that it's really difficult to do that, does that then mean that mine is one of the key articles on how to play Civ4?

To me, the purpose of the "War Academy" is to describe techniques one can use to win games. The "technique" of choosing the game parameters and map, to make the game easier than a random game would be, doesn't qualify.

Should it be excluded because I think it's not interesting? No, I don't want to be the dictator. I just express my opinion about what should be included, in the same way that you express yours, Zombie expresses his, etc. The way to form a consensus is to let everyone express an opinion. There's no reason for you to have such hostility toward the opinions that happen not to match yours.

DaviddesJ said:

Excluding a particular type of submission because it doesn't seem sufficiently interesting or relevant doesn't seem objectionable to me.

Click to expand...

This is perfectly reasonable, but being sufficiently interesting is very subjective, one mans food is another mans poison etc.

Suppose I post a series of articles on how to win Civ4 while never building any improvements except farms. Sure, this is very challenging, but that doesn't make it interesting. If I convince you that it's really difficult to do that, does that then mean that mine is one of the key articles on how to play Civ4?

Click to expand...

I dont think this is a fair analagy. There isnt a 'Hall of Farms' subdomain on CFC, I like the sound of it though and being a Civ 3 starved milker, I might just try it

If there was, then I would say the article has as much right as any other as long as its well written and interesting to those that enjoy that style of game.

Any HOF strat will be one of the key articles on how to achieve whichever HOF condition it is written about, but no, it certainly wont be key to the general mechanics of playing the game.

To me, the purpose of the "War Academy" is to describe techniques one can use to win games. The "technique" of choosing the game parameters and map, to make the game easier than a random game would be, doesn't qualify.

Click to expand...

I might be mis-understanding the point you are trying to make here. I know the best strategy's are the general conceptual ones, but they dont all have to be such an affair, always suitable for use when clicking the random button.

The way to form a consensus is to let everyone express an opinion.
There's no reason for you to have such hostility toward the opinions that happen not to match yours.

Click to expand...

Please! I am not the one with hostility! I am trying to fight the HOFs corner against unfair generalisations. The hostility in this thread is against the poor HOF(and maybe those who defend it, who are accused of being hostile for speaking up against the hostility directed at them!). I even politely stated I wasnt after an argument, Jeez, just because I used a single non-profanatory and relevant 6 letter word you think Im mad, what gives!?!? I was just astounded how one could pass such a sweeping and incorrect generalisation of HOF games along with stating his hatred of them.

the object of this "building a war academy" thread is to sort and categorize the best articles.
You don't need to choose between HOF articles and vanilla game articles.
Just create a category "Hall Of Fame", and it will be perfectly clear to every one that those articles aren't general, conceptual articles.

What I wouldn't want is a mixture of "playing for the score" articles between some game mechanics article.

I would like to see those categories :
- game mechanics
- Strategy for the beginner (settler to warlord?)
- Intermediate strategy (noble to monarch?)
- High level strategy (emperor to deity?)
- Scoring / HOF
- Multiplayer backpack

I think some general "learning method" should be proposed. In some way, it would say how to use the war academy, and what for.
For instance, it could link to GotM spoilers or sissiutil's ALC to "see a game" before you read too far into game mechanics. Or it could propose some story threads where some strat are used.
I think example is the best learning tool.

fret said:

Please! I am not the one with hostility! I am trying to fight the HOFs corner against unfair generalisations. The hostility in this thread is against the poor HOF(and maybe those who defend it, who are accused of being hostile for speaking up against the hostility directed at them!). I even politely stated I wasnt after an argument, Jeez, just because I used a single non-profanatory and relevant 6 letter word you think Im mad, what gives!?!? I was just astounded how one could pass such a sweeping and incorrect generalisation of HOF games along with stating his hatred of them.

Click to expand...

Agree with fret. Who said the HOF doesn't have ggod games? DaviddesJ, what are your Deity scores and finish dates? Are they better than those in HOF? If not of course you don't understand the strategy these games utilize because you're still playing levels below Deity and don't understand the mechanics at Deity level. If you don't know, don't act like you now.

Kalleyao said:

If not of course you don't understand the strategy these games utilize because you're still playing levels below Deity and don't understand the mechanics at Deity level.

Click to expand...

I understand how to construct favorable settings and maps that are easier to beat quickly. I just don't choose to do that.

DaviddesJ said:

I understand how to construct favorable settings and maps that are easier to beat quickly. I just don't choose to do that.

Click to expand...

Ok, but that shouldn't be a reason to exclude anything.

As one who runs the HOF mod on all my games now, I still think that it's a valid point regarding the HOF articles. In some ways, I use the mod more to keep myself from reloading/cheating than anything else...I have a hard time finishing games and thus have submitted only one...but I still love the HOF idea. I think some HOF articles are definite musts. Choosing details at the beginning is extremely key strategy if you have pre-determined goals. Regenerating maps involves skill in evaluating a city's future quality from its location, especially with limited information afforded from the initial view.

However, there are plenty of ways in which the distortion brought on by striving for the fastest victory or highest score in a HOF game will bring you down in a "real" single player game in which you determine little to nothing aside from the difficulty level and map type or in a multiplayer game. Some examples:
Aside from this month's GotM, I haven't played a game with barbarians in a while. Playing with barbarians makes for a completely different game, especially at higher levels.
I try to regenerate my map as little as possible, but I still do it a fair amount. If I just took my initial starting position (especially if it was one of the fertile spots in the midst of tundra locations), I'd have completely different games than I do with my method of checking for Plains/Hill, river and Flood Plains or food resource.
I will quit a game if I am dissatisfied with the map by 1000 BC. Striving to win despite a poor start can actually be far more skill intensive than winning off of a good start.

My suggestion is that HOF articles be carefully selected. I enjoy the Quechua Rush Deity game, but it doesn't have much broad spectrum strategic impact. However, I'd love to see a writeup from Boszo on his Immortal Domination victory because I can't imagine that it doesn't have a lot of strategic importance. All HOF games have the potential to involve high quality play and skill building insights, but a good writeup, accessibility and broad applications are also necessary.

I loved the Civ3 war academy, and couldn't wait until someone would create one for Civ4. Thanx

Hi guys,

Sorry for the delay in opening the Civ4 War ademy. Haven't had much time to work on it yet and recently I have been busy with new file database and other forum feature additions.

I still want to create a War Academy section, but you probably will not see it until in a few weeks.

There are sometimes articles in this section of the forum that I don't think should be posted here. But then I see many people posting in them and so I think that they are apparently interesting to many.

The same will be true for the War Academy. It will be a selection from the articles in this forum and probably no one will find every article interesting. But as long as they are interesting to many, they should be placed in the War Academy.

Thunderfall, you say that you need our help in selecting the articles. I could tell you the articles that I like in this strategy articles forum, but that would only be one opinion among many. So, exactly what do you want? Do you only take the opinions into account of the ones who post in this thread? Should I just give my opinion of which articles I find interesting and in what catagory I would place them?

I took a look at the Civ3 War Academy and I would pick similar categories (Empire Management, Military Strategy and Tactics, Game Mechanics, Multiplayer Tactics and Miscellaneous). The game hasn't changed so radical that a similar approach to the War Academy has become an illogical one.
I left out the Introductionary Courses, because there don't seem to be many articles in that section but that could be caused by selective reading on my part. Any introductionary course is probably an introduction in one of the other sections of the game like empire management or military strategy and tactics. I would suggest to order the articles in each section from easy to hard and from general to specific so that people will first find the easier articles that apply to more situations and later the harder articles that are more situational. I also left out the civ-specific articles since nobody seems to be writing them with the same zeal like the ones that were written for civ3. But that might still happen later.

I know I haven't read the whole entire topic from pages 1 to 3, but I think the articles that should go up should be the ones that provide strategy by being informative or the understanding of game concepts to deeper depth. I often find it those strategies that give out the entire answer to winning take away from the depth and fun. Not only that, it removes a place for one to use creativity to win the game. I'm not saying remove these types of "step by step" strategies... just lower in priority to the ones that give us the ammunition to understand the game and teach us how to adapt.

Can't wait for this!!!

I loved the Civ3 War Academy, I particularly liked (I cant remember the names!) the one or two guys who wrote the guides to each particular civilisation and the best way to play as that particular civilisation. I remember being so impressed with the one guys guide to playing as the English that I immediately printed it out and played a huge map game as the English to try it out and loved it!

Being selfish I would like to see articles relating to all lengths of game etc - I only ever play huge, marathon games as the other types just dont interest me!

What happened to this project?

I am in the process of selecting articles... Hopefully I will have it up within the next few days.

I'd love to nominate dh's new article.

The Civ4 War Academy is finally open! Any suggestions and feedback are welcome.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/

Thunderfall said:

The Civ4 War Academy is finally open! Any suggestions and feedback are welcome.

Click to expand...

Only a question: how are updates handled? If an article in the War Academy needs modification (a new patch, or a new expansion pack, etc), how does the change management work? Does the War Academy automatically refresh, or does a note get sent to the Academy advising of a revision, or...?