ALC Game #23 Pre-Game Show: Playing as Lincoln

[Kazper]

I'll take that under advisement, though I've been playing on Emperor level rather than Monarch level for a while now...

Doh... Goes to show not to post when tired What can I say - I have a strange brain. Just replace with Emperor and I stand by the post

That may be backwards logic; shouldn't he wait to move up until his peaceful play is not sloppy and doesn't lack focus?

Well. In my experience, much of my improvement comes after moving up a level and being forced to improve.

Also I agree with whomever blamed his bad early playing with Saladin on Protective-induced depression

 

[Sisiutil]

That may be backwards logic; shouldn't he wait to move up until his peaceful play is not sloppy and doesn't lack focus?

I don't think any of us are going to live that long, frankly.

 

[Bleys]

Put me in the "Stay at Emp" camp, for the following reasons:

I recommend a watery map, with the suggested Great Merchant economy. That type of map is the one most highly affected by the changes in 3.17, since both Barb naval activity and Siege from Ships has been changed in ways that need adjustments in strategy. Granted, its only a few extra galleys, and you can likely work around the seige, especially with such a powerful UU (if you get that far), but I think one more Emp game before moving to Immortal is warranted, if, that is, you do decide to go the water-map route.

 

[kazapp]

But Sis has already shown us how to trounce the AI on a watery map (Ragnar's Astronomy Gambit).

I have no particular preference regarding map type. I do feel it is a good idea if Sis gets his usual double-gold starts filtered away though... (why do I always get crappy starts even without r_rolo1's services... )

 

[DrJambo]

I've found 3.17 slightly harder, so perhaps staying at Emperor for the first outing might be advisable?

Also Sis, did you consider my suggestion for using low sea level and having 2 extra civs (9 total)? That will naturally increase the difficulty a little and also make the late game more interesting. 7 civs really is awfully small and unchallenging.

BEst,

 

[oynaz]

I vote for a larger map and more civs, perhaps 10 total. Alternatively, use DrJambo's suggestion for low sealevel. My games usually are more fun with more opponents.

Off-topic: The automatic updater fails on my computer. Is there a place I can get the patch as stand-alone?

 

[r_rolo1]

In here, oynaz. Check the Downloads section.

 

[carl corey]

I vote for a larger map and more civs, perhaps 10 total.

Don't forget that larger maps need higher computer performances. I don't know if Sisiutil's computer can handle them. Larger maps also mean the games take more time (even if computer performance is not an issue), and I'm not sure that's in the interest of anyone here.

 

[oynaz]

@rolo1:
Thanks

@Carl Corey:
You have a point, but I think that most people have computers that can handle large maps by now, it was more of an issue when Civ 4 first came out. The patches have helped tremendously with performance as well.

But anyway, by going with lower sea levels instead, you can get the land equivalent of a large map without the performance issues.

 

[Mukuu]

@ oynaz - Sis already said he wants to NOT have a bigger map, for people with slower comps that want to shadow. Even though... bigger map has a potential for more late game warring, and lowering sea levels means less marine action (even though amphibious works across rivers! Yahoo!)

Sis, I really dont think you should move up in difficulty. From what I have seen, Immortal and Deity require more specific play styles, that vary shockingly little. Your also going to be doing much more early warring... and I have a feeling that with 3.17 and the move up... your going to get trounced. Also, a large majority of players play at Emperor/Monarch (at least that are on this forum), the jump to immortal (I think) is going to invalidate their opinions... since it is on a completely different level. Personal opinion I guess... Maybe I just hate Immortal

As for map, I think Archipelagos would be really interesting. Plenty of Seals action, AND it would allow you show us the new amphibious assault changes. (Good luck with those)

 

[NintendoTogepi]

How about Tectonics, with the setting of "Islands"? That would be interesting. (add the "Wet" climate setting for a really weird map)

 

[oynaz]

@Mukuu

As already stated, I think that the "slower computers cannot play larger maps" argument is moot these days. When Civ 4 first came out, it was plagued by bugs and poor programming, but the patches have made a very big impact on performance on lower end computers.

 

[Mukuu]

^^ Meh, Alright. Must have missed that comment. I do agree that the patches have made it much easier. So... ignore my comment about size Sis! Do with as you will. ... Sorry if I sounded rude oynaz!

 

[Daedal]

How about Tectonics, with the setting of "Islands"? That would be interesting. (add the "Wet" climate setting for a really weird map)

Seconded.

 

[JTMacc99]

What would happen if you set it for islands, but with 2 extra civs and a low sea level? Actaully, I know exactly what would happen, the AI would constantly be getting in its own way, and Sis would systematically pick off each island nation with whatever ships are available at the time. We'd probably see a lot of highly promoted frigates, maybe even with blitz which is always fun, but I'm not sure that's all that interesting.

 

[Cronos]

Hello Everyone

FWIW, I agree with Mukuu, my view is that Emporer level games are the most fun to follow.

Personally I have found the latest patch more challenging and further, @ sisiutil, you play such an aggressive style yourself and yet you dont use the 'aggressive ai' setting. Not only does the AI build more units, but its more of a diplomatic challenge as well. I really think that you should have been using this setting since the Ragnar game.

With the addition of a couple more civs (computer permitting), this would not only make the diplomatic game more of a challenge for you, but would also give the AI a fair chance against your unprovoked declarations of war against your allies

As an aside note, in my first game with the new patch, I was recently dogpiled (Emp, in the high middle ages, as tech leader and #1 in land area and score) shortly after I had put the hurt on Carthage and rubbed them out of existence by none other than old mate monty, with the help of no less than peter, bismark, sitting bull and alexander.. all within 5 turns...ouch! That sort of embarrasment hasnt happened for a long time to me and i was certainly very surpised to see everyone gang up on me. It was if they all realised my plan to rub them out one by one

Side note 2. You really should choose tectonic seeing as though its first game with the new patch.

cheers

 

[madscientist]

Regarding Map size: I think a larger map for someone like Lincoln is a good idea and a few comments

1) It will be harder for Sis to steamroll as with previous ALCs, especially if a hemisheres/continents.
2) Wonders are harder to get as more AIs have a crack at them.
3) AIs will trade amongst themselves more since there is more of a chance some like each other (the number of religions have NOT increased).
4) You increase the chances of more problematic leaders, such as war-mongers shaka/Ghengis/Napolean, techers Darius/Liz/Musa, Builders Bismark/Ramses/HC, or zealots Sal/Issy/Charles.

I say an increase in map size is an added difficulty level, so if you increase the map size do not increase difficulty.

 

[armoredcrawler]

I agree with Cronos, stay at emperor and give aggressive AI another go. I doubt that Saladin could have peacefully built up for so long and swept the continent so easily if aggressive AI had been enabled. Besides, here's the deal on immortal: there are three basic changes, (1) a general bump to help the AI research faster/keep costs down, (2) barbs show up earlier and the big one (3) each AI STARTS with a WORKER. This means that the AIs will expand much faster and be stronger in the early game, so I would advise waiting for an Imp, Exp or Cre civ (preferably paired with a strong trait - maybe Cre/Fin Willem?) to help with early expansion before wading into the immortal waters.

I've been lurking amongst the ALC threads for a long time, but this is my first post - thanks Sis for providing these for us!

 

[Mesousa]

I'm against increasing the map size (or going for low sea level) not so much because of possible shadow games, but because the games take long enough as things are. The possible benefits just don't seem worth it to drag them out even longer, and people are waiting long enough between turn reports. I'm far more interested in seeing many games on standard/medium, than fewer on maps with more land. It'll already take long enough to play all leaders.

 

[DrJambo]

I'd argue against increasing actual map size. Standard is big enough and increasing size means the naval side really suffers. However, using low sea level and increasing the number of civs by 2 has proven for me to be a perfect complement. This is a setting the AI programmer Blake professed to using (as it gave the best AI challenge).