ALC Game #4: Egypt/Hatshepsut

[Johnny Paycheck]

Hey guys, long-time lurker, first-time poster. Anyhow I've really been enjoying and learning alot from posts like these. It's nice to be able to see everyone talking about all the possible advantages and disadvantages of even the most minute details. I have one question though: Between Sisutil, VoU, and everyone else, why don't any of you use the "Shuffle" option for map choice? It just doesn't seem right that you know you're on a planet with 2 continents in the year 4000BC. It's what I've played since it's become an available option and it seems to enable so many other options in strategy. I absolutely hate to critisize anything especially in Sisutil's threads since they've been so informative but I'm not sure how many more times I can watch the same "rush to kick everyone off the continent strategy"...

 

[jayseedubya]

Hey Sisiutil. Amazing job once again. However, would it be possible for you to create two separate threads, one with YOUR playthroughs and one more with just the comments/advice of others. It would be quite helpful, as I find it more useful seeing how you adapt to situations, i.e. Nappy's ill-fated galleon of soldiers heading your way, instead of the musings of other players (which are also very helpful, but clog up the thread a touch). Two threads I think would make it easier for everybody, posters and lurkers alike. Once again, though, the most important thing is that you keep on winning. Best of luck.
-jcw

 

[vormuir]

So that's how you change a unit's name! Wow, that is amazingly non-intuitive.

Okay, next question: how do I change the name of a /city/? Because I'd really like to, but I can't figure out how.

thanks in advance,


Waldo

 

[vormuir]

So that's how you change a unit's name! Wow, that is amazingly non-intuitive.

Okay, next question: how do I change the name of a /city/? Because I'd really like to, but I can't figure out how.

thanks in advance,


Waldo

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Wow, that is amazingly non-intuitive.

Okay, next question: how do I change the name of a /city/?

Oh, you're going to /love/ this one.

• Invoke the City Screen
• Hover the mouse over the current name of the city. Observe the color change in the city name (from white to yellow), and the pop up.
• Click the name
• In the message box which appears, replace the current name with the New Improved Shiny! name
• Click the OK button

ObOMG: Oh my god, the popup includes the population value for the city? That's spiffy and intuitive.

 

[Sisiutil]

Hey guys, long-time lurker, first-time poster. Anyhow I've really been enjoying and learning alot from posts like these. It's nice to be able to see everyone talking about all the possible advantages and disadvantages of even the most minute details. I have one question though: Between Sisutil, VoU, and everyone else, why don't any of you use the "Shuffle" option for map choice? It just doesn't seem right that you know you're on a planet with 2 continents in the year 4000BC. It's what I've played since it's become an available option and it seems to enable so many other options in strategy. I absolutely hate to critisize anything especially in Sisutil's threads since they've been so informative but I'm not sure how many more times I can watch the same "rush to kick everyone off the continent strategy"...

Hey Sisiutil. Amazing job once again. However, would it be possible for you to create two separate threads, one with YOUR playthroughs and one more with just the comments/advice of others. It would be quite helpful, as I find it more useful seeing how you adapt to situations, i.e. Nappy's ill-fated galleon of soldiers heading your way, instead of the musings of other players (which are also very helpful, but clog up the thread a touch). Two threads I think would make it easier for everybody, posters and lurkers alike. Once again, though, the most important thing is that you keep on winning. Best of luck.
-jcw

Nice to hear from some of the lurkers!

Interesting suggestion, JP. If the threads do indeed start getting repetitive, I might consider that. So far, I've seen enough variation in the maps (that strange sub-continent Mansa was on in the Qin game, for example) and in the gameplay (such as this one's early conquest attempt) to keep my interest in the game, but I'll do my best to be attentive to folks like yourself reading the threads. The novelty is, perhaps, starting to wear off, and I could see everyone, including myself, eager for some variation as we go through the remaining sixteen (or more!) leaders.

It's already been mentioned that I didn't focus as much on Hatty's traits in this game as on her UU. I did switch civics several times, and should have called more attention to it. The main variation in the games is supposed to be the leader's unique characteristics, so I have to remember to play and post about them accordingly.

JCW, another interesting suggestion. I dunno, I find it easier having everything in one thread for reference; I could see myself having to open both threads in browser tabs and constantly switch between them. But the rest of the readers should weigh in on this. Two threads or one?

Nice to see VoU handing out interface tips. The renaming of units and cities can be a lot of fun, allowing you to truly customize each game. With my large empire in this game, I found it essential to give all those new cities names that would help me remember where they were. Hence, "Ironclam Flats" and "FishnGame North". I find that after most civ's first half dozen city names, I can't tell them apart. England might be different. Terribly ethnocentric of me, I know, but whudaryagunnado?

I'll start the Vicky pre-game show tomorrow sometime...

 

[cabert]

It's already been mentioned that I didn't focus as much on Hatty's traits in this game as on her UU. I did switch civics several times, and should have called more attention to it. The main variation in the games is supposed to be the leader's unique characteristics, so I have to remember to play and post about them accordingly.

true enough!
you even switched to slavery (good move) for a few caravels and forgot about it and remained under slavery while under mercantilism and building tons of microcities that all could have benefitted greatly from a free merchant (bad non move = non use of spiritual).

edit : about level/maps/organisation, I didn't read yet the other threads from the ALC, but if you want any reference value for those, you need to stay at least on the same level.
I would be very disappointed if you ended up losing with one leader on monarch without any chance of using the UU, the traits, because you're not familiar with the level.
I'd keep the same settings, but it could get boring after 14 "rushes for my own continent". shuffle is a special setting, and i wouldn't want to lose the ability to find out the good sides of a leader just because you ended up with a non suiting map. (archipelago with hatchepetsuh isn't so grand, as highlands isn't too good for roosevelt)

 

[cabert]

Hey guys, long-time lurker, first-time poster. Anyhow I've really been enjoying and learning alot from posts like these. It's nice to be able to see everyone talking about all the possible advantages and disadvantages of even the most minute details. I have one question though: Between Sisutil, VoU, and everyone else, why don't any of you use the "Shuffle" option for map choice? It just doesn't seem right that you know you're on a planet with 2 continents in the year 4000BC. It's what I've played since it's become an available option and it seems to enable so many other options in strategy. I absolutely hate to critisize anything especially in Sisutil's threads since they've been so informative but I'm not sure how many more times I can watch the same "rush to kick everyone off the continent strategy"...

welcome to the forums, enjoy

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Maybe you should try a Pangaea or an Archipelago, or maybe even a Terra.

A little trick that I learned recently is that once Drama has been researched, you can use use a Great Artist to hurry Divine Right. One of the better uses of them IMO. That's one of the things I did in my "What if" shadow-game based on your 975BC save (my post about its results got sorta lost since you posted the "game won" report directly afterwords).

 

[vormuir]

Thanks, Voice! That's good to know. Much appreciated.

Sis -- can I just say that I love the name "Ironclam Flats"?

Also, this is your metathread, so do it your way. I completely understand your desire to keep the variables constant. That makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, we'd hate to see you get bored.

One thought: maybe keep the variables constant for the first, say, ten or twelve games? That would give you a pretty good database. Then you could tweak map, speed, or whatever, as you pleased.

Up to you.


Waldo

 

[pigswill]

Another thought on variety;if you're playing civs with 2 diff leaders with overlapping traits try a different map. I'd keep on prince level though for the purpose of comparision. You could also go for raging barbs at some point (may help you prepare for monarch's normal barbs).
While I see the sense of having different threads for game and commentary it does sound a bit fiddly. Is it possible to insert links in your posts so people could jump from one of your game posts to the next avoiding the commentary should they wish? (what,more work).
PS on the subject of names I often change city names by resources/locations etc. One of the things I sometimes do is change unit names by promotion/specialisation e.g. Raider,Guard, Alpine because while its easy to tell an axeman from an archer its not so easy when you get to infantry.

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Maybe have the whole report compiled (or at least linked to) in the first post?

 

[cabert]

i like to see the comments even more than the game (well, let's say just as much).
For those who only want the game, Sisiutil could just insert a title (game part 1, game part 2,...) on the relevent posts. So selective lurkers could just search the thread for "Game part".

 

[mice]

Noble playing lurker here... first ,thanks Sisiutil for the amazing threads.really edifying, and entertaining.
I like the comments as much as the game too. It's great to see how two good players view a situation from different perspectives.
I say the thread's great as is. As long as the collective mind is lookng at all the angles, I dont think it will get repetitive.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

But the rest of the readers should weigh in on this. Two threads or one?

One.

a) I think it would get very hard to read with two. You'd need to be constantly switching back and forth to see what someone is replying to and to see the flow of the discussion. I think it would be like having a conversation where your half of it is over the telephone but when you want to hear what the other guy says, you need to go turn on the TV.

b) I doubt it would work anyway. If you split it off and make one thread be just for your posts about the game, you'll get 5 idiots a day who don't realize what's going on that post to the wrong thread.

c) You can get more or less the same effect using the search interface. Search for posts by Sisiutil and include a few good keywords in the title (ex. "Egypt Hatshepsut" for this thread).

 

[frankcor]

Mark me down in the "One Thread" column.

 

[Gnarfflinger]

I think I may be outvoted here, but I like the two threads idea. We would discuss ideas to try int he first thread, then see what you do and the strength's and weaknesses exposed in the second thread...

I've got ideas floating for England (admitedly for Lizzy, but they may work for Vicky too). I'd like some input on them before I get into the games with her...

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I find it easier having everything in one thread for reference; I could see myself having to open both threads in browser tabs and constantly switch between them. But the rest of the readers should weigh in on this. Two threads or one?

Lessons on Epics is going to be a single thread per leader (unless the kibbitzers choose to launch a parallel thread on their own), so you can probably guess how I would vote on ALC.

 

[Sisiutil]

Lessons on Epics is going to be a single thread per leader (unless the kibbitzers choose to launch a parallel thread on their own), so you can probably guess how I would vote on ALC.

I prefer a single thread myself. BUT I think I will try to edit the game thread's first post to add links to each round to make them easier to find. I end up searching for them myself sometimes, so it's something I will find useful.

An another note, the ALC Game # 5 Victoria/England Pre-Game Show thread has begun!

 

[glokkonn]

I just found this thread after your win. A few comments from a noble player:

1) I vote for one thread please. That is my vote.

2) After a while, as your skill improves, you'll get to the point where you so overpower the AI civs that any benefits from UUs or traits will be superfluous. Sure you are doing a Praetorian rush, but if your advantage is so great that you'd be doing just as well using regular swordsmen or axemen in place of the praetorians, well you're not really showing the advantage of the praets, but instead you are showing how to completely crush the AIs on prince level. At the rate you are learning stuff this should take 2 maybe 3 more games. At that point bumping barbarians to raging as suggested by a previous poster followed by an upgrade to monarch might be in order.

I mention this because my original plan was to win Noble with the 18 Civ World Civ scenario (raging barbarians, quick play, time victory turned off all others on) with each civilization.

After many many false starts, improving my play each game in some way or another, I finally jumped from being barely able to compete to ... well my first win is my current game doing an early chariot rush with Egypt where, now, I have the biggest civ and my 15-2 horsey units are conquering civs defended by 6-1 archer units. OK I have not gotten the complete win yet but now its just grinding out the turns and victory.

The point is: it took me forever and a day to get to the point where I was able to put all of the pieces I've learned from the boards here as well as many many botched attempts. But now that I have the pieces all together, the thought of running through this EIGHTEEN TIMES is somehow NOT appealing.

However, moving up from noble to the next level after I do 3 or 4 more noble victories (assuming they are CRUSHING victories) ... well THAT sounds pretty good

You don't sound quite ready to move up to Monarch yet - or even raging barbarians on your current level - but you'll know it when it is time to move up.

And oh yeah its ok if you move up too soon and lose once or twice You can either replay that leader or just move on depending upon whatever makes your boat float.

3) I found this thread after your victory was already finished. GREAT job. I found it both entertaining and informative, and with luck will find your next thread while the game is still in progress.

4) What does ALC stand for?