King of the Hill

At this point in time, we've all had the opportunity to study Warlords, learn the new exploits, experiment with traits, etc. This thread's purpose is to see if we can arrive at a consensus regarding one (or more reasonably, more than one - preferrably less than four) civs that clearly shine above the rest.
There are numerous intangibles to consider, so I'll set a few parameters:
1.) Civs are gauged at diff levels between prince and emporer. While this does detract significantly from "low-level" traits, most notably industrious, it does allow top 2nd tier traits to shine without necessitating PHI/FIN/ORG on the highest levels.
2.) We shall assume continents maps. IMO, these have a decent balance of large landmasses (which strengthen some traits) while still having large coastal areas and a need to address overseas landmasses (which strengthen others).
3,) Though it's extremely tough to get people to agree on, consider the weight of flexibility as equal to that of raw power. In other words, the flexibility of having a Jag that can be built w/o resources may only be situational, but the ability to adapt to that situation should put it at least on equal ground w/, say, the more powerful Celtic sword - but not on equal ground to, say, the Praet.
4.) Assume ancient starts/all victories enabled.
5.) Civs are to be gauged not on how greatly they can win (i.e. high margin of victory) but by how likely they are to acheive any victory condition - and all victory conditions are to be considered equal. This can encompass any tactical or strategical approach, but note (as in item #3) that absolute dependency on one particular strat without having compensation for circumstances which wholly negate it would not bear much weight (sorry for the run-on there.)
6.) Closely related to item #5 - please do your utmost to prevent personal preferences from interfering with effective gauging of civs. For example, I have a personal preference of wiping the world clean with katanas, but Japan's emphasis on firepower w/o the infrastructure to back it would prevent me from considering it as an option. Secondly, this greatly weakens reliance on the SE.

Please withhold all arguing... errr... debating... at least until 9/10/06 and, in the meantime, note any other necessary parameters I may have forgotten.

Look forward to this,
Bassist2119

I am fascinated with the machinations that propel people to taxonomically determine a pecking order for everything in life.

Must there always be a best?
Is it possible that there is no best?
What is the benefit of determining this info?


I suspect for many (perhaps not you), this drive is propelled by a fear that your own choices may not be correct and the idea manifests itself from a lack of self confidence in self determinism.

Either way, it is a fascinating sociologic phenomena that seems to afflict western hemispheric citizens (and those cultures derived from the west) more than others.

Drkodos,
We've agreed on several occasions that through proper application there is, more or less, a degree of balance, even with aspects that are otherwise unanimously considered inferior. Nonetheless, such a debate would have numerous applications. Personally, I anticipate posts which will 1.) Further understanding of strats that I utilize and, more importantly, those I don't. 2.) If such a consensus can be acheived, it would be very helpful in addressing the transition to a new difficulty level, which is often one of the least enjoyable periods of a player's growth.

as ive said before the things that i think are strong other people think its the worst part of the game

drkodos said:

I am fascinated with the machinations that propel people to taxonomically determine a pecking order for everything in life.

Must there always be a best?
Is it possible that there is no best?
What is the benefit of determining this info?


I suspect for many (perhaps not you), this drive is propelled by a fear that your own choices may not be correct and the idea manifests itself from a lack of self confidence in self determinism.

Either way, it is a fascinating sociologic phenomena that seems to afflict western hemispheric citizens (and those cultures derived from the west) more than others.

Click to expand...

this is the biggest load of **** ever. yah why in a strategy game do u want to figure out what works better than other things? its useless! its all preference right! can't we just do randomn stuff and watch the pretty graphix instead. that'd be awesome.

I mean god forbid we engage our brain in a critical thinking activity. wouldn't it be easier if we all just decided that critical thinking is useless and that we can just go by whatever we FEEL like, because feeling is so much better than thinking anyway.

hey, leave him alone. he's not saying anything like you seem to have understood it to be. He's just a sociology researcher person, he finds things about our society fascinating although, after your tirade against him, he might find better things to be fascinated in, considering how fast your exploded against him over a simple comment about a game.

Thrallia said:

hey, leave him alone. he's not saying anything like you seem to have understood it to be. He's just a sociology researcher person, he finds things about our society fascinating although, after your tirade against him, he might find better things to be fascinated in, considering how fast your exploded against him over a simple comment about a game.

Click to expand...

it was an illogical post. and as to the veracity tons of societies are competitive, and are all very interested in the nature of being competitive. and some stupid observation of "wow why are we obsessed w/ what is best" in a strategy game is at its heart an inane question.

but yes I'm a meanie.

Don't mean to be rude, but could we return to the post subject? If you don't like the post subject, I'd ask as politely as possible that you simply move on to a different one. I'd rather see a seperate post stating, "bassist2119's 'king of the hill' is stupidl" than to have said post go off on a tangent that results in squabbling about something irrelevant to the subject.

bassist2119 said:

Don't mean to be rude, but could we return to the post subject? If you don't like the post subject, I'd ask as politely as possible that you simply move on to a different one. I'd rather see a seperate post stating, "bassist2119's 'king of the hill' is stupidl" than to have said post go off on a tangent that results in squabbling about something irrelevant to the subject.

Click to expand...

=D. if I had to take a civ into battle I'd take inca or carthage.

drkodos said:

I am fascinated with the machinations that propel people to taxonomically determine a pecking order for everything in life.

Must there always be a best?
Is it possible that there is no best?
What is the benefit of determining this info?

Click to expand...

Yes, for any given position, there must always be a best strategy, (or, unlikely, a set of strategies which are exactly equally good as each other)

There is one move or strategy which is the best at achieving the victory conditions, and various other choices of lesser and lesser strength, on down to the worst one.

If there isnt a single best, it would be because several are tied for best, but that is very unlikely. And its definitely not the case that they are all equal.

The benefit of determining this is that:

1) It is FUN and interesting and challenging to figure it out. It is fun for the reason that solving a puzzle is fun. It is enjoyable.
2) It helps us to achieve th egoal of the game, which is to achieve the victory conditions. Achieving goals (aka 'winning') is rewarding and enjoyable, and thus 'fun'. Winning is how we measure wether the strategy is 'good' or successful.




Now, its almost certianly not the case that one civilization is always 'better', because the map type, size, number of opponents, difficulty level, and starting setup are all variable. Different civs will have strengths and weaknesses. However, for a given starting configuration and setup, there is a 'best' civ, and a second best, and so on. And its fun to try and figure that out, in order to try and gain an advantage, in order to 'win' the game.

yavoon said:

=D. if I had to take a civ into battle I'd take inca or carthage.

Click to expand...

Yavoon,
Thank you (sincerely) for the redirection. Again, I was planning on holding off on the actual voting/backing of civs until such a time as we can arrive on a common ground regarding parameters. Also, the post was intended to address all victory conditions; I don't know if you were speaking metaphorically with "take a civ into battle," or not (your two suggested civs would seem to indicate that you've considered this)

Alexfrog said:

Now, its almost certianly not the case that one civilization is always 'better', because the map type, size, number of opponents, difficulty level, and starting setup are all variable. Different civs will have strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Right. This thread is directed at Prince through Emporer level and from the perspective that one has just selected the civ and staring at that introduction. Knowing nothing about what kind of landmasses are out there, what resources will/will not be available to you, what other civs are out there - Knowing only the difficulty parameter and the
Civ you have chosen (his traits, UU, and UB), which civ has the greatest chance of acheiving ANY victory condition.

I would like to avoid the "this guy is my favorite" thread; there are already enough of those out there. (I foresee this happening though)

bassist2119 said:

Yavoon,
Thank you (sincerely) for the redirection. Again, I was planning on holding off on the actual voting/backing of civs until such a time as we can arrive on a common ground regarding parameters. Also, the post was intended to address all victory conditions; I don't know if you were speaking metaphorically with "take a civ into battle," or not (your two suggested civs would seem to indicate that you've considered this)

Click to expand...

I mean normal settings, emperor/immortal difficulty, all victory conditions enabled and the only goal is to win.

My opinion is that to get a clear "best" civ it would be necessary to have a lot of people playing on identical maps as different civs (but their capitals all in the same location) and then see how the games finished. Even then the results would be coloured by the geography and the rival civs' actions.
Also, I like to choose a civ and leader with traits and bonuses appropriate to whatever type of victory I intend to go for. Why be Ragnar when aiming for Cultural, or Saladin when going for Conquest ? And whoever you choose (or are given) you're not likely to get a thumping good win if your start is on one of two tundra tiles surrounded by ice in all directions except for two sea tiles with crab on each, but you don't have Fishing.

Bushface said:

My opinion is that to get a clear "best" civ it would be necessary to have a lot of people playing on identical maps as different civs (but their capitals all in the same location) and then see how the games finished. Even then the results would be coloured by the geography and the rival civs' actions.
Also, I like to choose a civ and leader with traits and bonuses appropriate to whatever type of victory I intend to go for. Why be Ragnar when aiming for Cultural, or Saladin when going for Conquest ? And whoever you choose (or are given) you're not likely to get a thumping good win if your start is on one of two tundra tiles surrounded by ice in all directions except for two sea tiles with crab on each, but you don't have Fishing.

Click to expand...

settlers have 2 movement.

@yavoon - true, but losing three turns at the outset is not good, and even that would only have taken my footsore people into treeless, unwatered tundra - and with the worker still unable to do anything. Like a coward, I gave up. Anyway, this aspect is off topic, I think - it was only mentioned as an example of how powerfully start conditions can influence success.

Bushface said:

@yavoon - true, but losing three turns at the outset is not good, and even that would only have taken my footsore people into treeless, unwatered tundra - and with the worker still unable to do anything. Like a coward, I gave up. Anyway, this aspect is off topic, I think - it was only mentioned as an example of how powerfully start conditions can influence success.

Click to expand...

on normal its pretty painful, but on epic I will wander around 5 turns just to find a better spot regularly.

just saying though, if ur surrounded by tundra that is never gna be a good capital, move.

This was at Normal, my favoured speed. Tundra, maybe, but ice ?? No way.