Beginner questions..

[iDagon]

Wow.. I was gone for a couple of days and this thread exploded..

Anyway, I will try to clarify my situation a bit.

I stated I play around Noble difficulty, and by that, I mean this is the difficulty where I usually win 60-70 % games that I play. That does not mean I want to know how to get this % to 100 on Noble.. As I said before, I want to eventually win on Immortal or even Deity..
From what I read around it seems that the best thing to do is just start to play directly at Immortal difficulty, and try to learn the game from there.. The problem with this is that I will probably get WTFPWNED hard enough that I won't even know what I did wrong.. Thankfully, there are shadow-games to fix that!

On a second note..
As I said, I come from a competitive RTS scene, mainly BroodWar and some War3. Now, when I try to teach someone "the basics" in one of those games, I definitely DON'T try to teach them some cheesy rush strategy with witch they can stomp on the AI or on weak players. "The basics" means the overarching strategy and thought-process behind the game and the most elementary concepts of solid play. In BroodWar, that was economy, expansion and unit production -macro-. And it seems the same in Civ. I would argue that being able to understand how to fund a war in the long run is more important than some gimmicky rush that wins you the game outright.
Yes, maybe some Deity players skimp on workers for some reason in some games, the way a A+ level BroodWar player would skip workers because the carefully thought-out build order and strategy that he uses requires that. But it does not seem basic at all..

I am sure the fundamentals on Civ are not warrior rushing and OCC-style games..

 

[yatta77]

@iDragon
Yes, you are correct IMO. Civ IV it is not a RTS. You might take Rome and train lots of Pretorians to Conquer the world on a Pangea Map, but as soon as you discover it is not a single land-mass map and there is an Ocean separating you from the rest of the world, your plan will fail, or in the best of the cases will be good enough to eliminate a couples of AIs: after that, you'll need some other knowledge (and strategy) to win the game.

From what I read around it seems that the best thing to do is just start to play directly at Immortal difficulty, and try to learn the game from there.. The problem with this is that I will probably get WTFPWNED hard enough that I won't even know what I did wrong.. Thankfully, there are shadow-games to fix that!

I can't take a video game too seriously, and in my games I often do what is more fun to me to experiment at the moment instead of what it is more strategically correct: no matter that, I can - kind of - play on higher levels (and, btw, I have fun playing the same game on the forum with better players than I am, because I wonder about how they play and if I have a doubt my questions in the spoilers get a friendly answer).
So, don't take me as a good example, but, if the level you play at this moment it is not a challenge for you anymore, IMO you might try to play on an harder level: after all, the only difference is the AI getting more advantages, that's all.
I don't know about a Noble >> Immortal jump, but in any case the worst thing can happen it is lose a couple of games and drop back one or few levels, or spend some more time in reading some basic strategies and study better the game mechanics.
Just my 2.

Greetings,
yatta.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Wow.. I was gone for a couple of days and this thread exploded..

Anyway, I will try to clarify my situation a bit.

I stated I play around Noble difficulty, and by that, I mean this is the difficulty where I usually win 60-70 % games that I play. That does not mean I want to know how to get this % to 100 on Noble.. As I said before, I want to eventually win on Immortal or even Deity..
From what I read around it seems that the best thing to do is just start to play directly at Immortal difficulty, and try to learn the game from there.. The problem with this is that I will probably get WTFPWNED hard enough that I won't even know what I did wrong.. Thankfully, there are shadow-games to fix that!

On a second note..
As I said, I come from a competitive RTS scene, mainly BroodWar and some War3. Now, when I try to teach someone "the basics" in one of those games, I definitely DON'T try to teach them some cheesy rush strategy with witch they can stomp on the AI or on weak players. "The basics" means the overarching strategy and thought-process behind the game and the most elementary concepts of solid play. In BroodWar, that was economy, expansion and unit production -macro-. And it seems the same in Civ. I would argue that being able to understand how to fund a war in the long run is more important than some gimmicky rush that wins you the game outright.
Yes, maybe some Deity players skimp on workers for some reason in some games, the way a A+ level BroodWar player would skip workers because the carefully thought-out build order and strategy that he uses requires that. But it does not seem basic at all..

I am sure the fundamentals on Civ are not warrior rushing and OCC-style games..

Flash (Korean Broodwar Champion) cheeses a lot. Yet he can also win with standard play. The same was true of Boxer.

Cheesing really helps. The trick is to know how to mesh the cheesiness with more standard play.

Managing the economy is not that difficult. I don't understand why people talk so much about it. You can pretty much win economically up to Immortal by cottage-spamming, getting Currency, working the tiles, and building a forge, library and marketplace in most of your cities. Add in some civics combo like:

Representation + Mercantalism and
Free Speech + Emancipation+Universal Suffrage (when the cottages mature)

= WIN.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

That's because Marigoldran plays against idiot AIs exclusively on Epic and Marathon speeds. Those speeds de-emphasise economic management, as units move proportionally faster to the rest of the game. MP games are on Quick or Normal speeds, where units move proportionally slower and economic management becomes more important. Victory goes to those who can squeeze out more food and commerce and hammers in as few turns as possible, find expansions and developments with a high RoI, and defend those expansions from others.

And yes, Civ4 does have a deep and complex economic model where you need to balance economy against aggression. And yes, early military aggression is important to punish economic aggression from others. But early military aggression does not guarantee victory, it depends way too much on coinflips. Therefore, the trick is to deal economic damage for minimum investment and finding a way to transition into the later game, where you have a compounding economic advantage and an insurmountable position. And if your opponent is competent, they will shut down your early pressure, and you'll be forced to play "properly" anyway.

iDagon, you seem to be interested more on the MP side of things. Here's a really cool write-up on a FFA MP pitboss game that took place a year ago, where someone with awesome mechanics roflstomped everyone else, and just showed that the skill ceiling of Civ4 goes above alt-click Swords and Catapults R-click enemy city.
http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ4/RBPB2-1.html

 

[Habitus]

Would of been great reading all the threads as it happened

 

[iDagon]

Ok. Now I am enraged at Marigold! Flash cheeses?!!? He is one of the most standard macro-oriented players of all time! Maybe only iloveoov was even more robot-like! You must be confusing him with Jaedong or smth.. ( 4 pool in OSL finals.. :/ ). And Boxer, yes, he used to cheese in his time, but in 2002 that was standard play..
And as I said, pros sometimes do cheese but be sure they have mastered the fundamentals allready..


Anyway, this is not really a place to discuss BW.. I think, anyway..

Yes, I allways find the MP aspect of a game more appealing(except Legacy of Kain) but i don't really have friends interested in Civ too much.. They can win sometimes in settler and they are fine with it.. :0
So, i kind'a have to play against the AI (not so bad in civ). But that dosen't really mean i don't want to improve at the game..

 

[Habitus]

iDagon, start a Custom Game, something like Standard size Pangaea, Normal Speed with No Huts and No Random Events ticked. Post the 4000BC save, plus maybe a SS of the start, then play afew turns a day reading the thread as people play it/give advice. Since you want to play the harder levels you could even start it at Immortal/Emperor/Monarch rather than Noble and see how it goes with the advice. That or the Monarch/Emperor/Immortal Series been played at moment are still some what active, thou over the next week or so i think is when the next lot will usually be posted so you can start them as others do.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Ok. Now I am enraged at Marigold! Flash cheeses?!!? He is one of the most standard macro-oriented players of all time! Maybe only iloveoov was even more robot-like! You must be confusing him with Jaedong or smth.. ( 4 pool in OSL finals.. :/ ). And Boxer, yes, he used to cheese in his time, but in 2002 that was standard play..
And as I said, pros sometimes do cheese but be sure they have mastered the fundamentals allready..


Anyway, this is not really a place to discuss BW.. I think, anyway..

Yes, I allways find the MP aspect of a game more appealing(except Legacy of Kain) but i don't really have friends interested in Civ too much.. They can win sometimes in settler and they are fine with it.. :0
So, i kind'a have to play against the AI (not so bad in civ). But that dosen't really mean i don't want to improve at the game..

Early in his career, Flash was known as "the cheesy terran." He's resurrected some of that in his games against Jaedong. 8-rax? *Cough Cough*. Apparently I know more about this than you. Jaedong 4-pools only when he's on tilt, like the time against Fantasy.

Back to topic: unlike SC, the game is very different depending on settings. Do you like Epic? Normal? MP? Or Single-player? If you want better advice, give more specifics.

I know almost nothing about multi-player, but here are some obvious thoughts:

1. The Protective trait becomes better at MP. The very fact that you're protective might be enough to keep someone from declaring war on you.

2. Financial is weaker (though it's still strong) because you have to spend a lot more time protecting your cottages from pillagers.

3. Resource-less UUs like Dog Soldiers or Skirmishers are awesome in MP. It means one less vulnerability to protect (your copper, for example, or your horse).

4. The focus of the game is military. Of course, you have to keep your economy humming, but the reason for everything that you do should be related in some way to getting a stronger army.

5. Certain Wonders are now double-edged. The Pyramids is an awesome Wonder to get... but it also makes you a target.

6. Never let the Romans get Iron.

7. AGG civs are awesome in MP. AGG axes are unpleasant to deal with early-game.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

You have a choice in the early game. You could go warrior first, or go worker first. You could try a warrior rush, but there is no guarantee you will find an easy mark even if others go worker first, as that worker gives enough of a development boost that your rival can easily catch up and surpass your temporary military advantage. Congratuations, now you're behind on food, and hence population, and hence production and commerce. If you're using Marigoldran's patented "build 3 warriors before a worker at 4hpt", you're basically gambling that someone's capital is (a) ~5 tiles away from you, and (b) does not know how to respond to a choke. Sure, you set them behind, but they can cover their worker with their own warrior, improve tiles, and grow. I'm not saying early harass is a bad idea, I do warrior chokes all the time, the trick is to deal economic damage with as little as possible without crippling your own growth.

What else?

Financial is still the best, because MP games are played with no tech trading. Financial is still the best way to gather commerce in the early game, which is when the game is decided (whether economically or militarily). Everyone needs to build cottages anyway, Fin just makes the decision more one-sided. If you have a comparable military and have a thick road network around your frontline cities, any pillage party is walking into a deathtrap. Conversely, Protective is still useless because guarding your cities is worthless when you could be hitting their stacks with 2-move catapults and whatever warm bodies you can find. Resourceless UUs are good not because they don't need metal (kill copperless Native Americans with chariots, kill copperless Mayans with axes), but because you can have strength 4 units out on the field a dozen turns *before* someone else can field a comparable army. Stock standard praets are overrated, as stock axes will kill them cost-for-cost. Aggressive Praets on the other hand are worth worrying about. And the name of the game is still economy, its *really* hard to get enough units to kill a competent player, instead you want to expand and develop and tech faster than others while still having just enough units to discourage others from attacking.

 

[MarigoldRan]

you have a choice in the early game. You could go warrior first, or go worker first. You could try a warrior rush, but there is no guarantee you will find an easy mark even if others go worker first, as that worker gives enough of a development boost that your rival can easily catch up and surpass your temporary military advantage. Congratuations, now you're behind on food, and hence population, and hence production and commerce. If you're using marigoldran's patented "build 3 warriors before a worker at 4hpt", you're basically gambling that someone's capital is (a) ~5 tiles away from you, and (b) does not know how to respond to a choke. Sure, you set them behind, but they can cover their worker with their own warrior, improve tiles, and grow. I'm not saying early harass is a bad idea, i do warrior chokes all the time, the trick is to deal economic damage with as little as possible without crippling your own growth.

What else?

Financial is still the best, because mp games are played with no tech trading. Financial is still the best way to gather commerce in the early game, which is when the game is decided (whether economically or militarily). Everyone needs to build cottages anyway, fin just makes the decision more one-sided. If you have a comparable military and have a thick road network around your frontline cities, any pillage party is walking into a deathtrap. Conversely, protective is still useless because guarding your cities is worthless when you could be hitting their stacks with 2-move catapults and whatever warm bodies you can find. Resourceless uus are good not because they don't need metal (kill copperless native americans with chariots, kill copperless mayans with axes), but because you can have strength 4 units out on the field a dozen turns *before* someone else can field a comparable army. Stock standard praets are overrated, as stock axes will kill them cost-for-cost. Aggressive praets on the other hand are worth worrying about. And the name of the game is still economy, its *really* hard to get enough units to kill a competent player, instead you want to expand and develop and tech faster than others while still having just enough units to discourage others from attacking.

And when did I say that you should build 3 warriors AGAINST A HUMAN OPPONENT? ON NORMAL SPEED? AS I RECALL, EVERYTHING I WROTE ON THAT TOPIC WAS AGAINST THE AI. AS I RECALL, THE RESPONSES TO IT WERE PRIMARILY ABOUT PLAYING AGAINST THE AI. AS I RECALL, MULTIPLAYER WAS BARELY DISCUSSED DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS AT ALL.

Also, your first point is wrong. If you do go 3 warriors and find a target, they can pillage all the tiles that are worked. What comparable productive advantage are you talking about?

The extra-productive advantage only applies in the medium-term. In the immediate short-term, the warriors are stronger. That's the idea behind cheese.

You've pointed out the disadvantages to cheese, but I think that's obvious to anyone who's played Starcraft.

 

[Kaosprophet]

And when did I say that you should build 3 warriors AGAINST A HUMAN OPPONENT? ON NORMAL SPEED? AS I RECALL, EVERYTHING I WROTE ON THAT TOPIC WAS AGAINST THE AI. AS I RECALL, THE RESPONSES TO IT WERE PRIMARILY ABOUT PLAYING AGAINST THE AI. AS I RECALL, MULTIPLAYER WAS BARELY DISCUSSED DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS AT ALL.

Also, your first point is wrong. If you do go 3 warriors and find a target, they can pillage all the tiles that are worked. What comparable productive advantage are you talking about?

The one that happens if your opponent
a) is farther than 5 tiles away (note: MP is usually on faster speeds, not slower ones)
b) knows how to protect the worker + important tiles during a choke.

 

[ABCDPuppies]

And when did I say that you should build 3 warriors AGAINST A HUMAN OPPONENT? ON NORMAL SPEED? AS I RECALL, EVERYTHING I WROTE ON THAT TOPIC WAS AGAINST THE AI. AS I RECALL, THE RESPONSES TO IT WERE PRIMARILY ABOUT PLAYING AGAINST THE AI. AS I RECALL, MULTIPLAYER WAS BARELY DISCUSSED DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS AT ALL.

Sheesh.. normally people ninja edit to take OUT this sort of embarrassing outburst.

Guys, it's pointless. All of Marigold's arguments are based on speculation, not experience. If you conclusively show that he is wrong he'll just claim that wasn't what he was talking about and go off about something else ad infinitum.

Marigold I know I said I was done responding to your shenanigans, but I have to protest that your aggressive tone is really hurting the usually cheery vibe of this forum.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Sayeth the man who has zero MP experience. Once again, don't listen to a word Marigoldran says.

 

[iDagon]

I could be mistaken, but I remember Jaedong 4 pooling TWICE in some OSL/MSL final.. And the way I remember it, it is macro that made Flash what he is now.. If you are telling me about some cheeses in frikkin Courage League years ago... I never remember him being called "cheesy terran". On the contrary, people considered him boring at first. He did some cheese that got him sh1t some time ago against the very much loved Bisu but he also did 14CC builds early in his career.. He is known as the best defensive player in the world.. So I don't know where you come from, honestly...

About Civ, i will post a shadow game somewhere in the forum.. I started playing immortal but I seem to get stomped by barbs early (i am used to play noble, so..) I will post a forum game soon.. Maybe try for immortal university.. I can lear a lot from that..

 

[iDagon]

Oh and btw, 8 proxy rax vs Z is not really cheesy of you Go mech. You can apply pressure early, and because you use factories, you don't mind That your rax is vulnerable a bit..

 

[ben-jammin]

At what difficulty can you choke the AI with three warriors? Pillage all the improvements? Seriously?

 

[Xpl]

If MP is what you're interested in there's a whole load of things to look into.
If you want to play quick multiplayer games look into CTON or Ironman playstyles. This forum is more orientated towards SP so checking out Civplayers or Apolyton may be worth your time if you're looking into MP.

However you don't really play to those settings. You could like me play long proper games, basically a SP game with humans. It takes a long time, over 4 hours at least so Pitboss may be recommended.

Depending on your opponents you may want to build warriors instead (more for protection rather than rushing) in case of an early attack by a civ that starts with a warrior. I find that if you don't turn off tech trading, MP is heavily based on trades and economy is nearly out of the question. I know a player who only built 2 cottages and was the third most advanced. When tech trading is off Financial and Philosophical can be fully unleashed. That's basically my two cents, and by the way MP is 99% played on Quick. Even then though it still takes ages.

Hope that was of any use.

 

[iDagon]

I do like MP but i will definetly not shy away from SP.. Also, i would like to learn the game a bit (win on immortal) before going against other random people.. So for now, I am pleased with SP..

Also, i was never a fan of FFA to be honest. Not even team games, really.. I am a fan of 1v1 action in MP, but that seems gather strange in Civ..

 

[MarigoldRan]

Moderator Action: <snip>trolling/flaming deleted
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MarigoldRan]

I do like MP but i will definetly not shy away from SP.. Also, i would like to learn the game a bit (win on immortal) before going against other random people.. So for now, I am pleased with SP..

Also, i was never a fan of FFA to be honest. Not even team games, really.. I am a fan of 1v1 action in MP, but that seems gather strange in Civ..

Once again, settings matter. For example, 1v1 is very different from FFA. It's like in SC. In FFA, SC or Civ IV, you probably shouldn't rush unless absolutely necessary (like, for example, they have copper and you have nothing) since there's a good chance you'll screw over both the person you rush and yourself. But in 1v1 or team games, rushing is fine, because the intent is to screw over the other person more than it will screw you up.

The issue is whether it's a zero-sum game or not.