ALC Game 21: Zulus/Shaka

[oldsaxon]

Well done. I don't really know why you got Domination... I just finished a similar game myself, and was awarded Conquest.

 

[kazapp]

Now that's curious; according to that, I'm short of the land area needed for domination. It's certainly a conquest victory, but the screen said I won by domination. Strange. Can anyone explain this?

My guess would be that Conquest really means "There can be only one!" and that the programming categorizes any victory falling in-between (like yours) as a Domination (even though the conditions aren't fulfilled) rather than a Conquest (whose conditions you don't fulfil either when other Civs are still alive)?

Very impressive win regardless! (As if the score didn't tell you that )

 

[kazapp]

Well done. I don't really know why you got Domination... I just finished a similar game myself, and was awarded Conquest.

Could you elaborate on the similarities?

(Or perhaps we should wait for Bhruic & Co to simply tell us? )

 

[Stuck in Pi]

great game. Who's next?

 

[mystyfly]

My guess would be that Conquest really means "There can be only one!" and that the programming categorizes any victory falling in-between (like yours) as a Domination (even though the conditions aren't fulfilled) rather than a Conquest (whose conditions you don't fulfil either when other Civs are still alive)?

If everyone is your vassal you win conquest. If you have enought land and pop, you win domination. I think someone once said that the game checks if you win domination before it checks whether you win conquest.

But I have no idea why you didn't have the land. Some miscalculations? Your land +50% of the remaining land is surely enought. The zulu empire would have to be ~30% of the world, that plus 50% of 70% makes 65%.

great game. Who's next?

As mentionned, Lincoln.

 

[Stuck in Pi]

that's a fun game right there. Just finished up a game with him. That was fun, GPs twice as fast along with low xp promotions...

 

[DrJambo]

I think a step to Immortal is the most qualified summary one can give of the recent ALCs. My progress in BtS is nearly mirroring Sisiutil's completely, as I'm also contemplating the very same thing.

By the way Lincoln is a very strong Leader, so this gives the case for stepping up to Immortal ever more weight. I'd also give the NTB and AggAI options another run out. I'm mean, let's face it, using Shaka on a pangaea map isn't the best way to demonstrate the differences these settings might make. You should really try them on a normal style of map for a proper fair comparison!

 

[Sam_Yeager]

Now that's curious; according to that, I'm short of the land area needed for domination. It's certainly a conquest victory, but the screen said I won by domination. Strange. Can anyone explain this?

My guess is that there is a lag of a turn before the figures are updated in the same way that the power graph is a turn late. I suspect that you would see the updated figures if you took the option to play another turn.

 

[Pieman]

"The Zulu hordes poured fourth without number, like a tidal wave enveloping everything before it. Nothing could stop the juggernaut which was the Zulu civilasation, who eventually controlled the entire world, from one end of the Great Sea to the other. The maker of this, Sisiutil, looked on from his great throne in triumph and declared 'My name in Sisiutil, King of Kings. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!'"



I know, it's silly and theatrical, but I felt compelled to put it up.

Anyway, great work, looking forward to the next one. Wonder how that Gettysburg address will go...

 

[madscientist]

Sis, great game!! Although I think you missed Shaka's true calling and Should have gone after a cultural win :LOL:

The conquest/domination is an interesting issue, I had a similar thing with my RPCs. The Mighty Khan game I got a Conquest win after vassaling all leaders. The Monty game I killed everyone except Pacal who finally capitulated which ended in a domination win.

My Guess is that the 3.13 patch changed the Conquest victory condition forcing you to actually kill everyone to get it, rather than have vassals.

Excellent play, like always!

 

[d.a.oconnell]

Another good game Sis - these ALC's are very educational. I'm excited for Lincoln - he definitely has a lot of potential (especially for a SE economy). Good luck & and I will put in another vote to do Immortal.

 

[LlamaCat]

that screenshot showing your victory conditions is from 1810. I see from the log that Hamm capitulated in 1812, but in the interim you reached the land and population threshold first, so it was a domination. But yes otherwise if you make everyone a vassal it's a conquest. here is your screenshot from the last save showing domination

 

[Sisiutil]

Immortal strategies are perfectly valid on noble-monarch. There might be some weak strategies that work on noble, but not on immortal, but it's not like you are forced into a style, like in Vanilla Deity, where you needed to be super-aggressive. AIs don't get big bonuses any more (and immortal is just plain easier than it used to be), so any style will work. It's not like Sis is exactly a builder anyway.

Oh, I'm a builder at heart. I war to build, as a former regular of the ALCs once said. I'd be quite happy to sit back and build wonders all game long if the AI civs didn't get in the way...

As for immortal versus emperor... First off, I have to say that I have not found the jump from Monarch to Emperor to be nearly as challenging as previous jumps (Noble to Prince, Prince to Monarch) were. Maybe that's just because I've been playing the game so long now and have been getting such great advice in these threads. But I almost feel like there's something else at play, like maybe the AI's advantages from Monarch to Emperor aren't that substantial, or perhaps the patches have nerfed them and/or the AI. I don't know. I just know that I've only played 4 ALC games on Emperor and I'm already feeling like moving up a level, whereas it took 11 games for me to really feel ready to make the jump to Emperor.

It's true that all the strategies I use on Emperor (and would use on Immortal) are valid at the lower levels. However, what's different are the strategies I don't use. At each higher level, I find you have to give some things up. I used to always build the Oracle on Prince, for example, but started giving it up in Monarch. Now I almost never go after it unless I (a) start with Mysticism and (b) have marble available. That is the price the ALCs pay by going up difficulty levels: additional in-game goals that are viable at the lower levels are abandoned simply because the higher levels are about focus. This last game is a perfect example: I didn't build a single world wonder. That proves that the wonders are not required to win, but then again, they're kind of fun, aren't they? I wouldn't want every ALC from this point on to be a repeat of this one. So, moving up is not a decision I take lightly, for many reasons.

Leaders don't have to be your vassal for you to direct them in war you know. You can ask anybody to attack whichever city you want as long as their in a war as an ally with you.

True, but what I'm beginning to analyze is how successful (or not) those requests are. Does the request carry any more weight for a vassal versus an ally, for example? And how much of a factor is distance?

that screenshot showing your victory conditions is from 1810. I see from the log that Hamm capitulated in 1812, but in the interim you reached the land and population threshold first, so it was a domination. But yes otherwise if you make everyone a vassal it's a conquest. here is your screenshot from the last save showing domination

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[Mesousa]

But I almost feel like there's something else at play, like maybe the AI's advantages from Monarch to Emperor aren't that substantial, or perhaps the patches have nerfed them and/or the AI.

The advantages were nerfed, cause the AI got Blake's overhaul and wasn't supposed to need them as much anymore ... from what I read here on the forums, this made the game easier for some, and more difficult for others, but it's hard for me to tell where exactly the difference in playstyles are that lead to these different perceptions.

I think you should just try Immortal, it's only natural after doing so well one level below it ... if you fail horribly, no shame in that, just go back a level again. We love you and your games either way, and these threads serve their purpose of education and entertainment either way too.

 

[Gliese 581]

I also think you should move on to immortal if nothing else then for my own reasons as that is something I'm contemplating doing myself.

I have started to play with the no vassals setting enabled since I find that the AI is just terrible when it comes to vassals, colonies and the like and I feel that this setting gives the player an unfair advantage as this game so amply showed. (I wonder how it would have been if you got Mony Toku and JC though).

There are many games where I grew large and powerful by conquests yet my greatest enemies lagged behind becasue they vassalised their islands/continents instead of capturing it bit by bit as their economy allowed, which would have put them in a position to combat my imperialistic goals. Or else they create a colony just because their economy is hurting a bit, when they could have a) struggled on a bit for greater long-term gains or b) just slowed down their off-shore colonizations. Maybe you could experiment with this in future ALC games?

 

[Tyrant Roger]

Great game, as usual, Sis!

I have been playing with vassals off for many weeks, but this game has changed my mind. With vassals off, it is much harder to win by domination or conquest because of the need to spend so many turns completely killing an AI civ. Imagine how long this game would have lasted without vassals and this was a blitzkrieg win.

I still think the vassal mechanics and tactics need improvement. They still seem unnatural and unpredictable to me.

I don't see the virtue of No Tech Brokering. It partly removes one of the fun tactics in the game.

Ah, Lincoln - we need a massive GP farm and some warring to take advantage of the charismatic trait.

I vote for Immortal, but don't expect it to be a walk in the park. I've been blown away when I've tried it, but would love to see you succeed with your supporting cast.

 

[Jet]

Good game, Sisiutil.

I almost feel like there's something else at play

Didn't you change to BTS then? I think I jumped half a level or more with BTS.

I don't mean to discount positive stuff about your skillz and the hive mind, though.

 

[Sisiutil]

Good game, Sisiutil.



Didn't you change to BTS then? I think I jumped half a level or more with BTS.

I don't mean to discount positive stuff about your skillz and the hive mind, though.

Thanks. Well, I'm finding much the same is happening in my off-line Emperor games. I can almost always pull ahead of the AI by mid-game thanks to either early REX or an axe-rush (which more or less amount to the same thing) followed by implementing a specialist economy (I'm a convert!).

In other news, I've decided that it's time to retire my old computer after >3 years and refresh it with a new one, so I'd like to play the bulk of the game on the new system when it arrives. I can't wait to see how Civ performs with a 2.66 GHz proc, 4 GB RAM, and a 256 MB video card.

It shouldn't delay the next ALC too much (I hope), though transferring data and settings and reinstalling software is always so much fun. I know I have a lost weekend coming up soon.

 

[Quotey]

Would you be interested in playing Saladin on Emperor Warlords? Perhaps BtS does change difficulty too much. I don't think you've got to use Paratroopers yet. Aim for the next game: SEALs and Paradrops?

 

[kazapp]

In other news, I've decided that it's time to retire my old computer after >3 years and refresh it with a new one, so I'd like to play the bulk of the game on the new system when it arrives. I can't wait to see how Civ performs with a 2.66 GHz proc, 4 GB RAM, and a 256 MB video card.

Congrats on your new shiny toy!