Attacko's Strategy Guide

[troytheface]

"What do you suggest I do?"

perhaps playing more games would help. One chess master stated you get better after losing about 100 games.

the irony here is that people reload all the time and cheat their way to a win and then state they are a "monarch" level player etc. All lies.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Reloading until you score two grassland gems and two corns on river tiles... is cheating?

D'OH!!!

 

[Stolen Rutters]

"What do you suggest I do?"

perhaps playing more games would help. One chess master stated you get better after losing about 100 games.

the irony here is that people reload all the time and cheat their way to a win and then state they are a "monarch" level player etc. All lies.

All lies? Hey wait just one minute here! I play Monarch level and win without reloading (...except that last game with the Apostolic palace dufus stealing a game I was doing really well at! ...and that other one before, where I botched my "diplomatic win", forgot I couldn't get a win when my pop was over some % limit, Elizabeth won with her legendary cities while I tried to retool for a late domination victory ...the one before that I tried an Emperor game so that loss didn't count.)

Oh never mind I don't win much lately, even when I'm totally ripping the AI apart on every metric... except the victory condition. I'm pretty sure if I played to win I could be considered a Monarch level player, but my victory screen sure doesn't show it.

 

[troytheface]

i suggest Attacko's "The Art of Defense In Civ4" for cottage building reloaders that lie all the time.
It has some tips on how not to cry home to mama when things don't go your way.

 

[Zack]

@troytheface

Here are some tips for writing a video game strategy guide. Might want to show that to your alter - ego, Attacko.

 

[troytheface]

i think the writers of that "tips" article should take an Attacko's Guide to Writing Guides class.

since the prose and clarity, let alone breathtaking poetry of the attacko style has been heralded by many such as Dr Grelthor who stated,
"easily the finest works of their kind in a field littered with so much rubbish" -

 

[Zack]

Would that consist of, "Only write guides that are "humorous", make no sense, and stir up controversy"?

 

[Crusher1]

It's not controversy ^^. Anyone who has played a few games already knows whats up . But look at the bright side, we have our own personal version of SNL in a civ forum!

 

[troytheface]

" Anyone who has played a few games already knows whats up"


exactly. which is why it is strange that this guide is not in the gyide section since it is the superior compared to others.

 

[Zack]

" Anyone who has played a few games already knows whats up"


exactly. which is why it is strange that this guide is not in the gyide section since it is the superior compared to others.

I have lost the will to argue over something ridiculous like this. Maybe Attacko should write a stamp collecting guide. Yeah, that sounds good.

 

[Antilogic]

I have lost the will to argue over something ridiculous like this. Maybe Attacko should write a stamp collecting guide. Yeah, that sounds good.

Logic holds you back and prevents you from seeing the wild and seemingly preposterous maneuvers required to awe the AI and win the game.

Maybe Attacko should write a sub-guide on "Shock and Awe" (how to use axemen with the Shock promotion).

 

[troytheface]

i believe there is "Raze and Ruins- Attacko's Guide to City Destruction and Expansion"

some snippetts include.....

"seldom in war is their cause to keep a captured city. Wonders? not necessary.
Land? take it with a settler. Usually greedy cottage building types like to take instead of razing cities. That should tell you something right there"

 

[CHEESE!]

Can you direct us to this guides? Possibly?

 

[PieceOfMind]

"seldom in war is their cause to keep a captured city.

I'm sorry. Whose cause?

Wonders? not necessary.
Land? take it with a settler. Usually greedy cottage building types like to take instead of razing cities. That should tell you something right there"

What does it tell me right there? You should be using a Venn Diagram here so you can save on words, lowering your greenhouse gas emissions.

Wonders not necessary? Nothing in the game is necessary but wonders sure are nice when you capture them.

Fact - "A wonder in the hand is worth two in the bush."-Defendo. For less than the cost of one wonder you can build enough units to capture two wonders. Moreover, capturing wonder cities is certain; racing for a wonder is a race you cannot guarantee to win.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Wise words indeed PoM. Is that from "Shock and Oar: a guide to melee assaults via galleys for men and heterosexual bricklayers" by Defendo or from some other work?

 

[troytheface]

Fact- Razing cities with wonders gains you confusion points

Fact- Razing cities gives you ruins and science

Fact- Settling near ruins claims land nad has no stupid citizens

Fact- Cottaged hills are the superior

 

[CHEESE!]

Can you explain these 'facts'? Especially the latter 3, considering 1 is simply babble.

 

[troytheface]

Fact- Razing cities with wonders gains you confusion points

The enemy AI , which may or may not belong to your religious affliation and the interconnecting diplomatic, great person generation, and trade agreements will be thrown into a disrupted connection.

once agan- in gaming terms "confusion' means to disrupt unit coordination.
In this case empire coordination at the four levels of play-
espionage/religion, trade, diplomacy, management

Fact- Razing cities gives you ruins and science

whats to explain? you get gold , science, and don't have to worry about slowing down.
a cottage building sniveler might not like it i suppose.

Fact- Settling near ruins claims land and has no stupid citizens

no upset citzens, free tourist reminder with science bonus and no enemy citizens walking around all over the place

Fact- Cottaged hills are the superior

yes, easier to defend, easier to decide where to cottage, easier to look at, towns are higher,
and railroads on hills are through these too.

 

[CHEESE!]

Excuse me, old bean, as I know old Attacko may have quite to many things on his hands already now, sir, but I am under the impression, sir, that I have found, in a sudden flash of realization, your arguments do not hold water! Quite inappropriate as it is for me to be so rash, as I know I should not rate as high as these alleged players you have discussed such things with, I believe I have, with some certainty, released something of a flood of errors!

Your first explanation makes very little sense, if I may say so. For a start, old bean, GPG has nothing to do with the influences of civilizations other than oneselve's. Nor will trade agreements, unless the resource in question is harvested only from the razed city, be thrown into turmoil. Surrounding units will have something of a small mutiny in the wake of the city, of which they were to reinforce, of such's razing. Though this is quite a point, my lad, it does not constitute a full game strategy.

True, that razing cities gets gold, and you need not slow down to defend it. However, in my belief, if the city has infrastructure, or even Wonders, if one is lucky, one should keep it. Razing after capturing does not give you any gold, old boy, and science cannot be affected by it, old bean, outside of random events. But good try, lad, good try.

You do, my boy, have a small point in that the unhappy citizens does not affect you with your own cities, and for this I applaud you. However, it must be said that this is a well known fact, especially amongst veteran fanatics, and needs not be posted.

It may be true that hills are easy to defend, however hills ought be for mining, if you ask me and many old boys in our ranks. It matters not, to me or, I would assume, to many other Fanatics, whether towns are easier to look at. Hills are given a natural power of production, old bean, you ought use it! Mine the hills, and you shall be all the richer for it. Cottage riverside flatlands, mine hills, and farm lakesides, and all should be well, old bean.

My! What an outburst! I should say I need a cup of good Earl Grey. Thank you for your time, old chap.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

Troy I've been reading your posts since I joined here 2 years ago, and I don't think I've every seen you so angy about cottage players. What gives? Cottages allow me to rush buy amphibious war elephants and such.

Should I put a fort in place of the cottage so I can protect everything better? And I need the space for airplanes and boats anyhow...

And regarding city ruins-has attacko ever taken a city, razed it, then put a settler next to the ruins and leave it undefended so it gets razed again...presto now you have TWO ruins in your BFC. Come to think of it, you could make a BFC that consists of nothing but 20 city ruins. There really ought to be a guide about this.