Broad brush early game strategy talk
- Thread starter Adreno
- Start date
- Status
N0QUITTERSULTAN
Chieftain
I always go liberty when playing a NQ-game,so i dont have much exp with going tradion.. But started experementing it and find tradion very nice to, but really depends on starting locaition(the reason i started to experiment was that i find it sometimes hard to get inaf growth with surtent start,maps,ect with liberty). my quisteion is wats a good tradion start ? How do others play it?The one thing i hate with tradion is that workers are so slow(LOL).and its a hard balanced getting out at least 4 citis(or you fall behind anyways)... And since its has wonder bonus and have good growth in capital you can in -NQ game get wonders very easily if no one is going hardly for one(And i never push for wonders).
...
When playing tradion i tried this:
#worker,granary(scout,beacuase its important to see the land around espicially with tradion(wonder).)then i go for watermill.and grow bonus on tradion, before turing into writing..alll depends on map and neigbhours..But i find having a capital on very good growth early with tradion and inaf prod better then 3 liberty citis..so spamming archers if getting attacked is easy..I like getting national college upp before start planting citis..
tried some athor type of tactics and it gives me new feeling for the game..
cant wait to GK!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
When playing tradion i tried this:
#worker,granary(scout,beacuase its important to see the land around espicially with tradion(wonder).)then i go for watermill.and grow bonus on tradion, before turing into writing..alll depends on map and neigbhours..But i find having a capital on very good growth early with tradion and inaf prod better then 3 liberty citis..so spamming archers if getting attacked is easy..I like getting national college upp before start planting citis..
tried some athor type of tactics and it gives me new feeling for the game..
cant wait to GK!!!!!!!!!!!!
Adreno
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Messages
- 83
Had a pretty decent game just now, tried a wonder-focused strategy for the first time in MP.
Egypt, 6-man NQ FFA on Pangaea
The settler spawned near the furs but I moved it next to the mountain (onto one of the 4 silver tiles the city had). Because of the +20% wonder bonus I decided to go for the GL+HG combo and take the wonder bonus from tradition first. Since I wasn't going to get the liberty worker any time soon, and I didn't have any bonus resources or horses, my build order was monument -> worker -> great library.
After writing I teched mining in order to chop the forests and utilize the great silver tiles. This also meant that I wouldn't be able to bulb HG tech when the GL finishes. So I used the bulb on philosophy, and did something everyone told me was a bad idea: National College (Don't worry, I do listen to advice. This was the first time I used this tactic since I was told it doesn't work.)
While the NC was underway I took the free settler from liberty and used the warrior as escort. Because I didn't have any good food tiles I was actually micromanaging my city to stay size 2 while it was building the GL+NC. Despite the size 2 cap and late settler, I was #1 in manufacturing when the NC finished. I had to delay my settler 1 turn to let the NC finish, after that I built the second city. I knew I was gambling by playing only one military unit in a game with barbs, and it did cost me a worker. So after NC I started working on a chariot archer. I micromanaged the cap so that the unit was ready on the same turn that the capital hit size 3.
I had to get Hanging Gardens in order to benefit from the silver tiles in early game without stagnating growth. I was worried I wouldn't make it because I had lost the worker, used the bulb on philosophy, and built the chariot. Soon I got the worker from liberty and used it to chop remaining forests. I was microing between a farm tile and a silver tile so that the city was alternating between +1 food and -1 food, staying size 3 until the HG finished.
At this point I was pretty much set for life. I was researching classical techs in 2 turns, my cap was growing every few turns and the HG allowed me to work all the great production tiles. I considered expanding, but had extremely crappy terrain outside my 2 cities. I know you don't win a game with 2 cities, but I figured I could out tech everyone and conquer someone with artillery. I built a lot of wonders, including the Great wall + Angkor Wat combo.
My neighbors were Aztecs and Persia, and I was constantly watching demographics to find out what was going on. I made sure to build units whenever I was #6 in soldiers, as I didn't want that kind of attention on me. Persia was warring with France, and I was doing research agreements with the Aztecs partly to ensure they won't attack me. While I didn't build the Porcelain tower, and I didn't do RAs with anyone else, I was unreachable in tech for the rest of the game.
Persia conquered France in a long war that left an obsolete military, so I planned to attack with artillery. I had planned to build pikemen and cannons and upgrade them to rifles and arties, but I actually flew through techs so fast that I DIDN'T HAVE TIME! I had to buy pikemen, and I got artilleries with the rationalism free techs + oxford. I used one GS to pop infantry, and saved the rest for nukes. So I upgraded the pikemen to infantry, and as soon as I had 1 artillery in position, I declared war and Persia's longswordsmen were no match.
This was the first game where I used roads and forts effectively on offense. After I took the first city from Persia he was able to get Riflemen, and because I had only 2 cities producing units, I had to make sure I don't lose any units to blunders. And I didn't! I did unneccessarily burn a great artist and a great general to make sure I get his capital, but other than that I didn't lose any units, excluding obsolete ones that I used for blocking and scouting.
After taking a few cities from Persia, the AI took over and I made peace for 40gpt+everything else they had. I wanted to move on to the Aztecs before they had time to build artillery. The English fell to Rome a bit before I took the last Aztec town. At this point in the game I was really unsure what to do. The map was kind of screwed up, it was a Pangaea but it was more like 2 continents connected with a narrow path. Because I couldn't find the other continent until very late in the game, I hadn't scouted any of it. And because I didn't have any coastal cities (except 1 puppet), I hadn't built Caravels.
So it was me against Rome (?not sure if that was his civ lol)
I built a few nukes and bought some submarines from recently annexed puppet cities. I figured I would capture a few coastal CS, and attack with nukes through them. I lost my first submarine when I encountered a frigate and a Lancer near my capital. I didn't know a submarine reveals its position upon attacking, so I destroyed the Lancer, and the Frigate killed me. That turned out to be the single blunder that cost me the game.
I had 6000g, 2 nukes, and I was 10% ahead in tech. I had my units positioned to take city states far from my capital. Then all of a sudden Rome lands a bunch of Mechanized Infantry on my capital. I bought tanks in the closest cities, told all my units to move towards the capital, etc. I had so many defensive wonders, walls, castle, and size 28 that I figured I could fight him off. I didn't want to use nukes because I wasn't sure if a nuke - or 2 nukes - would do more than wound his units. After all Rome was only able to attack the city from 4 tiles, no way he could take it. And BOOM, next turn I've lost my capital and the game is over.
If only I had shot the frigate with the submarine, I would have seen his army coming, and I would have nuked them on the sea. Oh well... At least I proved the early NC is a viable strategy.
Question: did anyone read ^ ?
Another question: The +50% science from NC... that's +50% in the city where it is built, not the empire?
Egypt, 6-man NQ FFA on Pangaea
The settler spawned near the furs but I moved it next to the mountain (onto one of the 4 silver tiles the city had). Because of the +20% wonder bonus I decided to go for the GL+HG combo and take the wonder bonus from tradition first. Since I wasn't going to get the liberty worker any time soon, and I didn't have any bonus resources or horses, my build order was monument -> worker -> great library.
After writing I teched mining in order to chop the forests and utilize the great silver tiles. This also meant that I wouldn't be able to bulb HG tech when the GL finishes. So I used the bulb on philosophy, and did something everyone told me was a bad idea: National College (Don't worry, I do listen to advice. This was the first time I used this tactic since I was told it doesn't work.)
While the NC was underway I took the free settler from liberty and used the warrior as escort. Because I didn't have any good food tiles I was actually micromanaging my city to stay size 2 while it was building the GL+NC. Despite the size 2 cap and late settler, I was #1 in manufacturing when the NC finished. I had to delay my settler 1 turn to let the NC finish, after that I built the second city. I knew I was gambling by playing only one military unit in a game with barbs, and it did cost me a worker. So after NC I started working on a chariot archer. I micromanaged the cap so that the unit was ready on the same turn that the capital hit size 3.
I had to get Hanging Gardens in order to benefit from the silver tiles in early game without stagnating growth. I was worried I wouldn't make it because I had lost the worker, used the bulb on philosophy, and built the chariot. Soon I got the worker from liberty and used it to chop remaining forests. I was microing between a farm tile and a silver tile so that the city was alternating between +1 food and -1 food, staying size 3 until the HG finished.
At this point I was pretty much set for life. I was researching classical techs in 2 turns, my cap was growing every few turns and the HG allowed me to work all the great production tiles. I considered expanding, but had extremely crappy terrain outside my 2 cities. I know you don't win a game with 2 cities, but I figured I could out tech everyone and conquer someone with artillery. I built a lot of wonders, including the Great wall + Angkor Wat combo.
My neighbors were Aztecs and Persia, and I was constantly watching demographics to find out what was going on. I made sure to build units whenever I was #6 in soldiers, as I didn't want that kind of attention on me. Persia was warring with France, and I was doing research agreements with the Aztecs partly to ensure they won't attack me. While I didn't build the Porcelain tower, and I didn't do RAs with anyone else, I was unreachable in tech for the rest of the game.
Persia conquered France in a long war that left an obsolete military, so I planned to attack with artillery. I had planned to build pikemen and cannons and upgrade them to rifles and arties, but I actually flew through techs so fast that I DIDN'T HAVE TIME! I had to buy pikemen, and I got artilleries with the rationalism free techs + oxford. I used one GS to pop infantry, and saved the rest for nukes. So I upgraded the pikemen to infantry, and as soon as I had 1 artillery in position, I declared war and Persia's longswordsmen were no match.
This was the first game where I used roads and forts effectively on offense. After I took the first city from Persia he was able to get Riflemen, and because I had only 2 cities producing units, I had to make sure I don't lose any units to blunders. And I didn't! I did unneccessarily burn a great artist and a great general to make sure I get his capital, but other than that I didn't lose any units, excluding obsolete ones that I used for blocking and scouting.
After taking a few cities from Persia, the AI took over and I made peace for 40gpt+everything else they had. I wanted to move on to the Aztecs before they had time to build artillery. The English fell to Rome a bit before I took the last Aztec town. At this point in the game I was really unsure what to do. The map was kind of screwed up, it was a Pangaea but it was more like 2 continents connected with a narrow path. Because I couldn't find the other continent until very late in the game, I hadn't scouted any of it. And because I didn't have any coastal cities (except 1 puppet), I hadn't built Caravels.
So it was me against Rome (?not sure if that was his civ lol)
I built a few nukes and bought some submarines from recently annexed puppet cities. I figured I would capture a few coastal CS, and attack with nukes through them. I lost my first submarine when I encountered a frigate and a Lancer near my capital. I didn't know a submarine reveals its position upon attacking, so I destroyed the Lancer, and the Frigate killed me. That turned out to be the single blunder that cost me the game.
I had 6000g, 2 nukes, and I was 10% ahead in tech. I had my units positioned to take city states far from my capital. Then all of a sudden Rome lands a bunch of Mechanized Infantry on my capital. I bought tanks in the closest cities, told all my units to move towards the capital, etc. I had so many defensive wonders, walls, castle, and size 28 that I figured I could fight him off. I didn't want to use nukes because I wasn't sure if a nuke - or 2 nukes - would do more than wound his units. After all Rome was only able to attack the city from 4 tiles, no way he could take it. And BOOM, next turn I've lost my capital and the game is over.
If only I had shot the frigate with the submarine, I would have seen his army coming, and I would have nuked them on the sea. Oh well... At least I proved the early NC is a viable strategy.
Question: did anyone read ^ ?
Another question: The +50% science from NC... that's +50% in the city where it is built, not the empire?
My observations are that building the GL is strong in MP, since the free tech plus the bonus 
almost guarantee you'll be the tech leader, but there are two problems: (i) you can easily miss it by a turn or two (but since you were Egypt, and had taken aristocracy, and had good production tiles, you were probably fairly safe on that score) and (ii) building it can be a bit like waving a flag saying "rush me".
NC is +50% science in that city (the same as an observatory, but with the extra +3).
A frigate can one-shot a submarine? That's crazy.
almost guarantee you'll be the tech leader, but there are two problems: (i) you can easily miss it by a turn or two (but since you were Egypt, and had taken aristocracy, and had good production tiles, you were probably fairly safe on that score) and (ii) building it can be a bit like waving a flag saying "rush me".NC is +50% science in that city (the same as an observatory, but with the extra +3
).A frigate can one-shot a submarine? That's crazy.
N0QUITTERSULTAN
Chieftain
nukes are defnsiv very good..2 nukes will kill almost all his soldiers in land..i done that many times and enjoy it very much....lol..better than loosing citi or units..and its moraly devestating for the oppoment..and i like starting using them right away to kill moral when i get them..(but lately i like playinga (spesial NQ FFA with no nukes and stealth)
it sounds like a fun game to..
Wehn did GL and HG get finnished..no one else build them? game would have been very hard without HG maybe?
it sounds like a fun game to..
Wehn did GL and HG get finnished..no one else build them? game would have been very hard without HG maybe?
Adreno
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Messages
- 83
GL was up really fast, and someone else was racing me for it based on demographics. If someone had started work on HG as a priority they would have had it up before me because I spent maybe 13 turns between GL and HG (NC+chariot). Without the HG I would have had a puny little civ with no chance of winning.
N0QUITTERSULTAN
Chieftain
because its crazy hard getting both of them in a NQ game..
Have you tried tradion and bumping citis after NC or when you feel for it
??
Adreno
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Messages
- 83
Artillery and nukes seem to be the most crucial techs in the game. If you can build them before your neighbours, they are done. I've been really trying to get those techs before everyone else, and on that note I have a tactic to share: slow culture pre renaissance, fast culture post renaissance. I can't remember if we've talked about this before in this thread, but basicly you want to land the +2 free techs from rationalism on artillery. The cost of social policies goes up the more you take, and you can only take rationalism after renaissance, so you don't want that much culture before you get there. Ideally you complete the liberty tree, take the GS and save it for artillery, and reach renaissance just before you have to take your next policy. Then you start building more culture buildings to reach +2 free techs around artillery time.
I still always build the monument first in the capital; getting the liberty settler fast is so important. But in secondary cities I might delay building the monument. Also, I generally overlook cultural wonders before renaissance. There's one wonder I've overlooked for no good reason: the Pyramids. If I'm going for wonders at the start of the game I always go for the GL like a total noob and never for the Pyramids.
The Pyramids cost 123 hammers. If you deduct the cost of 2 workers - which you would have to build anyway - the cost comes down to 31 hammers. So this is what you get for just 31 hammers:
+25% tile improvement speed
+1 GE points / turn (can someone comment how many "great points" it takes to complete the first great person in an empire? I'm thinking does it come in time for Notre Dame?)
+1 Culture / turn (personally I don't appreciate this, but I know other players do)
While it's a bargain for 31 hammers, the benefits from the GL are still greater than the benefits from the pyramids. However, the drawbacks from building the GL are MUCH greater than the drawbacks from building the pyramids:
#1 - Much more competition on the GL, greater risk you won't get it.
#2 - Building the GL slows down the expansion of your empire significantly, while building the pyramids actually speeds up your expansion. If you want to get the GL before anyone else you pretty much have to take either tradition or the free worker before you take the free settler from liberty (unless you see in demographics that no-one else is literate). You can probably complete the pyramids while taking liberty settler first. Also: you can't produce settlers/workers while you are building the GL.
This is what typicly happens to me in a game where I go for the GL:
- The best city spots are taken by my neighbours
- I end up with fewer cities in general
- I get behind in population and manufacturing
- My citizen work on many unimproved tiles for a long time
- I connect resources more slowly, slowing growth further down
I've never actually built the Pyramids really early in the game, but I would imagine I would have 2 workers ready a bit after I settle my second city, and I would get the liberty worker before settling my third city. This would allow me to improve crucial tiles in all cities very early in the game and therefore grow my empire faster. Since I'm usually ahead in tech but behind in population and manufacturing, it makes sense for me to change my "default wonder path". Next time I get a good starting position I'm definitely gonna rush the Pyramids.
I still always build the monument first in the capital; getting the liberty settler fast is so important. But in secondary cities I might delay building the monument. Also, I generally overlook cultural wonders before renaissance. There's one wonder I've overlooked for no good reason: the Pyramids. If I'm going for wonders at the start of the game I always go for the GL like a total noob and never for the Pyramids.
The Pyramids cost 123 hammers. If you deduct the cost of 2 workers - which you would have to build anyway - the cost comes down to 31 hammers. So this is what you get for just 31 hammers:
+25% tile improvement speed
+1 GE points / turn (can someone comment how many "great points" it takes to complete the first great person in an empire? I'm thinking does it come in time for Notre Dame?)
+1 Culture / turn (personally I don't appreciate this, but I know other players do)
While it's a bargain for 31 hammers, the benefits from the GL are still greater than the benefits from the pyramids. However, the drawbacks from building the GL are MUCH greater than the drawbacks from building the pyramids:
#1 - Much more competition on the GL, greater risk you won't get it.
#2 - Building the GL slows down the expansion of your empire significantly, while building the pyramids actually speeds up your expansion. If you want to get the GL before anyone else you pretty much have to take either tradition or the free worker before you take the free settler from liberty (unless you see in demographics that no-one else is literate). You can probably complete the pyramids while taking liberty settler first. Also: you can't produce settlers/workers while you are building the GL.
This is what typicly happens to me in a game where I go for the GL:
- The best city spots are taken by my neighbours
- I end up with fewer cities in general
- I get behind in population and manufacturing
- My citizen work on many unimproved tiles for a long time
- I connect resources more slowly, slowing growth further down
I've never actually built the Pyramids really early in the game, but I would imagine I would have 2 workers ready a bit after I settle my second city, and I would get the liberty worker before settling my third city. This would allow me to improve crucial tiles in all cities very early in the game and therefore grow my empire faster. Since I'm usually ahead in tech but behind in population and manufacturing, it makes sense for me to change my "default wonder path". Next time I get a good starting position I'm definitely gonna rush the Pyramids.
The Pyramids are very strong yes!
The main and big problem about all these 4 pages and most other posts in this forum:
They arent describing MULITplayer.
Once you guys starting to play other GOOD players u ll notice that some strats just dont work cause there is some1 stoping you from doing so.
As long as "Noob"games are the standard u will never experience true multiplayer experience - playing noobs is pretty much like playing ai.
And there the problem start - way to many people rather play worse ones and therefore never get challenged and have to improve - Silverfuturist comes into my mind - talanted clever guy - but rather playing noobs all over then going for challqnges and improving his play.
The main and big problem about all these 4 pages and most other posts in this forum:
They arent describing MULITplayer.
Once you guys starting to play other GOOD players u ll notice that some strats just dont work cause there is some1 stoping you from doing so.
As long as "Noob"games are the standard u will never experience true multiplayer experience - playing noobs is pretty much like playing ai.
And there the problem start - way to many people rather play worse ones and therefore never get challenged and have to improve - Silverfuturist comes into my mind - talanted clever guy - but rather playing noobs all over then going for challqnges and improving his play.
@Tommy: I'm told that chess at grand-master level is a very different game from chess at club level, but I don't think anyone argues that writing chess books aimed at club players is a waste of time, because those strategies wouldn't work against a grand-master.
So similarly, I'm sure that Civ played by really strong players is a pretty different experience from Civ played by beginners, or even by average players. As somebody who only very recently started playing MP, I've certainly found some of the comments on this thread to be very helpful.
So similarly, I'm sure that Civ played by really strong players is a pretty different experience from Civ played by beginners, or even by average players. As somebody who only very recently started playing MP, I've certainly found some of the comments on this thread to be very helpful.
donhenriko
NQ Officer
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 143
The problem with you is that you see everything through your narrow scope of playing civ MP. There is more to Civ MP than the "Starcraft-ish" way you and your peers at CP play.
If you're only playing duels and teamers I can understand your point, but when you play NQ FFAs, everything you said don't make any sense at all. When you play 6 players FFA it is very hard to only get "pro" players. The composition of players will almost always be of strong and less strong players. Accordingly, I'm sure this thread has helped many of the not so strong players to improve their game.
In NQ games there are also very many strong players: R-Done and Universal come to mind. Are you going to call them noobs as well?
If you're not participating in any positive way to this discussion, I really don't understand why you bother to answer to it.
Adreno
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Messages
- 83
We don't really choose who we play at NQ: someone hosts a game and the first 6 in play. Plus, like donheriko said, we have many great players. In fact literally most of the NQ games I've played have been won by either R-Done, Universal or Coachi.
Also, many peaceful strategies work in FFA that I imagine wouldn't work in duels/teamers. In a FFA it's not enough to win a war, you have to win it fast or you are crippled and lose to the other players. In a duel there are no other players who benefit from 2 players crippling each other, so you have an incentive to fight as long as your opponent loses more resources to war than you do.
Permanent war loses many elements of gameplay that I personally enjoy. If you enjoy CTONs more, good for you, but it's not the only way to play the game.
There is not a single peaceful strategy or victory condition that works in FFA games either. It always comes down to someone eating up the competition, in a 6 player game 2 big civs will emerge and battle it out in the end.
culture, science or money victory conditions wont be researched when the game ends most of the time. This is because the commitment to either of those is simply way to much, be it beakers,gold,production or great persons. You will fall behind in either production or tech along the way and then it doesnt take long until the pressure overwhelms your empire.
If your competition is noobs then yes, you could probably turtle up and win either way. but why bother? If they are not good its easier and faster to just destroy them. This simply has no drawback. there needs only to be 1 other good player and you will lose automatically if you dont conquer and expand.
I have not once seen anyone win with anything else but domination. At the very least, you will get your empire eaten up by nukes that you cannot produce since you didnt expand enough and simple dont have the ressource in your tiny empire.
Its still possible to rush wonders in a FFA with good players, but it has a higher risk and less reward. Basically if you dont go into fast expansion, what will happen is that by the time your wonder is build you are surrounded by forward cites of other civs and in constant danger of getting harrassed by scouts. I would definitely not recommend it unless you still take a fast settler and have a really good starting place for 2 or 3 cities in total that can get really big.
The real problem is that even for a small empire with only 3 cities, liberty is still the better policy choice. Thats just messed up...
culture, science or money victory conditions wont be researched when the game ends most of the time. This is because the commitment to either of those is simply way to much, be it beakers,gold,production or great persons. You will fall behind in either production or tech along the way and then it doesnt take long until the pressure overwhelms your empire.
If your competition is noobs then yes, you could probably turtle up and win either way. but why bother? If they are not good its easier and faster to just destroy them. This simply has no drawback. there needs only to be 1 other good player and you will lose automatically if you dont conquer and expand.
I have not once seen anyone win with anything else but domination. At the very least, you will get your empire eaten up by nukes that you cannot produce since you didnt expand enough and simple dont have the ressource in your tiny empire.
Its still possible to rush wonders in a FFA with good players, but it has a higher risk and less reward. Basically if you dont go into fast expansion, what will happen is that by the time your wonder is build you are surrounded by forward cites of other civs and in constant danger of getting harrassed by scouts. I would definitely not recommend it unless you still take a fast settler and have a really good starting place for 2 or 3 cities in total that can get really big.
The real problem is that even for a small empire with only 3 cities, liberty is still the better policy choice. Thats just messed up...
Adreno
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Messages
- 83
When I spoke of peaceful strategies I didn't mean science/culture victory. I meant trading in general, research agreements, building wonders, etc... The reason you can rush wonders even in a game with good players in it is that defending is much easier than attacking. Even if you spend 15 turns in early game building a wonder, you can still cripple the attacker, causing both of you to lose the FFA. So good players don't waste resources on war in a FFA unless they know they can take someone down quick.
Adreno
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2002
- Messages
- 83
Pride is a funny thing. I just played a long game where I ended up in grudge war with 2 players. Fractal, 6-man FFA.
Coachi was playing Arabia and I figured settling my 2nd city so close to his capital might provoke him to attack. I had to do it regardless: 2 lux and look at that terrain! While I was moving the settler there, he was trying to block me with his warrior. On the turn before settling the city I had his warrior surrounded by 2 of my own. I asked him if he wants to agree on 50 turns of peace. He said he just wants to take his warrior home. I asked again, and waited the timer for his response. When he didn't respond I figured he is planning to attack me early in the game. Why else would he not agree to peace that allows both players to expand without spending resources on military? So I declared war and took his warrior out, and Coachi took it upon him to make sure we both lose the game.
The second grudge war was not so much of a war, more of a trade embargo. A Songhai warrior was scouting my territory and decided to pillage the road between Thebes and Memphis. The 1 tile that wasn't within my borders! So I declared war and killed him, and he acts all surprised in chat about "my" agression. I don't know if he was leveling me, but I'm gonna spell it out anyway: what did he think was gonna happen?
There was Russia between me and Songhai, so we couldn't fight each other, and I offered peace multiple times to trade surplus lux we both had. He demanded gold as retributions, a lot at first and later 10g
Offer rejected!
I also offered peace to Coachi on several occasions, but he demanded a "public apology"
If you look at that terrain (bottom ocean is also a closed sea and he had no naval cities) it made no sense for us to fight each other because neither could win. Yet he kept attacking me and I had to spend resources upkeeping a large military. I also couldn't conquer anyone else because if I moved my military away he would run me over. I tried attacking him sometimes when I had the tech advantage, but he would double/triple/quadruple move to instakill my units. One time he doublemoved a scout to kill my GG despite that I was spamming numpad to move it both at the end of turn and the beginning of turn. He still moved 3 tiles with the scout before I could move 1.
Schumi was playing Rome and after building his empire undisturbed he eventually conquered England and Russia and won the game. What's more interesting is the side story: me and Arabia both had uranium and were racing for nukes. He completed the Manhattan Project 5 turns before me, but I had spared 1300g to buy a nuke as soon as I could. Sure enough I nuked Mecca from Memphis and thought I would be able to finish him.
What I didn't know was he had built 4-5 nukes - kept them out of capital - and after a while he dumped them all on Memphis. I was prepared for 1 nuke and had mechanized infantry at a safe distance ready to swoop in. But 5 nukes, man, he obliterated my 72 defense city with Kremlin and Castle in it. Then he took it with tanks and I couldn't retake the city with mechs on the same turn because there were hills on the way. To my surprise he was able to raze it in 1 turn! I guess the nukes took it down to 1 pop.
I couldn't recover from that blow because I had no carriers, no submarines, no more coastal cities - and therefore - no range to nuke his cap. I was building mechs and nukes like crazy from my 3 cities but it was hopeless from that point on. Well, at least he lost too.
By the way, first game where I built the Pyramids early. Wasn't as effective as I thought, I even got 3 social policies before it was finished. What I'm happy about is that I was the tech leader or 2% behind the leader the entire game without the GL. My science plans kind of fizzled out tho. I spent 2 bulbs on arty when I didn't have the terrain to attack, and I spent my 2 free techs from rationalism really badly. I could have had nukes 18 turns(!) earlier if I had planned my science progress ahead.
Coachi was playing Arabia and I figured settling my 2nd city so close to his capital might provoke him to attack. I had to do it regardless: 2 lux and look at that terrain! While I was moving the settler there, he was trying to block me with his warrior. On the turn before settling the city I had his warrior surrounded by 2 of my own. I asked him if he wants to agree on 50 turns of peace. He said he just wants to take his warrior home. I asked again, and waited the timer for his response. When he didn't respond I figured he is planning to attack me early in the game. Why else would he not agree to peace that allows both players to expand without spending resources on military? So I declared war and took his warrior out, and Coachi took it upon him to make sure we both lose the game.
The second grudge war was not so much of a war, more of a trade embargo. A Songhai warrior was scouting my territory and decided to pillage the road between Thebes and Memphis. The 1 tile that wasn't within my borders! So I declared war and killed him, and he acts all surprised in chat about "my" agression. I don't know if he was leveling me, but I'm gonna spell it out anyway: what did he think was gonna happen?
There was Russia between me and Songhai, so we couldn't fight each other, and I offered peace multiple times to trade surplus lux we both had. He demanded gold as retributions, a lot at first and later 10g
Offer rejected!I also offered peace to Coachi on several occasions, but he demanded a "public apology"
If you look at that terrain (bottom ocean is also a closed sea and he had no naval cities) it made no sense for us to fight each other because neither could win. Yet he kept attacking me and I had to spend resources upkeeping a large military. I also couldn't conquer anyone else because if I moved my military away he would run me over. I tried attacking him sometimes when I had the tech advantage, but he would double/triple/quadruple move to instakill my units. One time he doublemoved a scout to kill my GG despite that I was spamming numpad to move it both at the end of turn and the beginning of turn. He still moved 3 tiles with the scout before I could move 1.Schumi was playing Rome and after building his empire undisturbed he eventually conquered England and Russia and won the game. What's more interesting is the side story: me and Arabia both had uranium and were racing for nukes. He completed the Manhattan Project 5 turns before me, but I had spared 1300g to buy a nuke as soon as I could. Sure enough I nuked Mecca from Memphis and thought I would be able to finish him.
What I didn't know was he had built 4-5 nukes - kept them out of capital - and after a while he dumped them all on Memphis. I was prepared for 1 nuke and had mechanized infantry at a safe distance ready to swoop in. But 5 nukes, man, he obliterated my 72 defense city with Kremlin and Castle in it. Then he took it with tanks and I couldn't retake the city with mechs on the same turn because there were hills on the way. To my surprise he was able to raze it in 1 turn! I guess the nukes took it down to 1 pop.
I couldn't recover from that blow because I had no carriers, no submarines, no more coastal cities - and therefore - no range to nuke his cap. I was building mechs and nukes like crazy from my 3 cities but it was hopeless from that point on. Well, at least he lost too.
By the way, first game where I built the Pyramids early. Wasn't as effective as I thought, I even got 3 social policies before it was finished. What I'm happy about is that I was the tech leader or 2% behind the leader the entire game without the GL. My science plans kind of fizzled out tho. I spent 2 bulbs on arty when I didn't have the terrain to attack, and I spent my 2 free techs from rationalism really badly. I could have had nukes 18 turns(!) earlier if I had planned my science progress ahead.
N0QUITTERSULTAN
Chieftain
LOL...pride is a funny thing at NQ..i have some enemyis at NQ always attacking me because of pride.. but i like it..
Moderator Action: *snip* that was inappropriate. Flaming is not allowed here.
Moderator Action: *snip* that was inappropriate. Flaming is not allowed here.
Well, each nuke halves the population, so 5 would be enough to reduce a 32-pop city to 1-pop. And capturing the city also halves the population.
Well the main problem many people playing FFA games seems to forget:
It is ing timeconsuming.
If your normal "gameplan" involve nukes and you are neither "allowed" to quit you have to prepare for 5+ hour games.
This is limiting the "community" to nerds only.
No1 with a busy life can commit regularly 5+ hour nonstop to a pc game.
There the huge advantages of more warbased gametypes and smaller games/ duel comes into play.
Less timeconsuming and you can just SAVE when life gets busy.
I just dont see why not more games are played with turn limits, it was standard also in open games in civ3 and civ4. This would open games to "normal" people and d maybe not scare so many away from multiplayer after several games.
But maybe adjusting is too hard for some.
Moderator Action: This post has totally nothing to do with the topic.
donhenriko
NQ Officer
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 143
We already know that you don't like NQ rules; and that we are all nerds. That is fine. That's your opinion. But do you really need to shout it out loud every 2 months or so?? We know all to well what you think. That being said, you're not even the best duel player; MGT apparently destroys you. HAHA. He made a lovely post at civplayers.com which I stand by 100 %. http://www.civplayers.com/index.php?section=smf&topic=9993.0
But you MUST understand that MANY players don't like the always war duel/teamer with no CS setting played in CP. Many players just think it has nothing to do with Civ. I pesonally think that your way of playing Civ has butchered it, making it another game than it actually is.
Civ is a game where you should balance between war, science, culture and diplomacy IMO. You must accept that players like it this way, even though you don't. I guess it has to do with excessive pride and a huge ego that just can't stand that 2 vs 1 sometimes will happen and result in your losing the game; you just can't stand to lose (refusing to report losses on CP being one proof). Furthermore, the way you play Civ has more in common with Starcraft and Age of Empires than a SP Civ game.
I guess many people do agree with us, since NQ has on average twice the number of players in the chat compared to CP at any given point. You say adjusting is hard for some: Maybe players don't want to play duels and teamers. Has that ever struck your mind??? Maybe players actually like the rules played at NQ, has that ever struck you mind? Why would it be so popular if players didn't like it?
Even though you don't like it doesn't make your opinion the final say in the Civ Community. Just accept that players have different preferences and enjoy your duels. STOP BOTHERING US. This thread was constructive until you came along calling us all noobs and nerds.
P.S. Calling people nerds for wanting to play a real FFA game is just ridiculuous. What is nerd is to refuse to report losses at CP because you are afraid of losing your precious rank. HAHA.
P.S.S. And so what if it is time consuming? If people have the time to play a FFA game, who are you to tell them that it is a problem? Jesus, you are really something ...
P.S.S.S. What is scaring players away from MP is actually people like you; insulting everybody and calling everyone noobs:
MGT quote:
"And to everyone else in the league, don’t go down tommynt’s path and take all of this too seriously. If you have too much pride you will not progress, but will be left with an outdated strategy. Tommy takes every loss personally and insults his winning opponent in a very disrespectful way. If you lose, take it on the chin and move on. If you have to leave a game for whatever reason, concede with dignity and keep the experience enjoyable. It is fine to talk or point out your mistakes or your opponent's mistakes, but try to leave out personal attacks which paint you as a bitter sore loser"
Also, the continuous noob farming so common at CP is another factor in scaring players away from MP. How did you get 100 game win streak?? It was not by playing against players like R-Done, universal and MGT. Nobody is forcing anyone to play a NQ game. It is 100 % voluntary. If you don't want to play it, don't do it!!! To say that it scares players away from MP is just ludicrous. Your beloved buddy CanuckSolidier has even admitted that NQ has helped the community to grow, not the other way around. But I guess sticking to facts is beyond your way of reasoning.
Moderator Action: This post has totally nothing to do with the topic.
- Status
Similar threads
