Camel Archer Useless ?

[Fippy]

if you've spammed factories and coal plants you can't leave enviro.

Add to all this the fact that you can simply run a golden age for anarchy free switches, and I say the spiritual trait is trash. I honestly don't know which is worse - spiritual, or protective.

 

[lymond]

 

[Seraiel]

What I mean is - compare the spiritual train in civ 4 to civ 3. In civ 3, roads produced commerce no matter what civics you were using. Everything worked fine and as intended under any form of government, so there was no drawback to switching back and forth except for 1 inherent difference - authoritarian govts gave you no war weariness and less commerce, representative governments gave you more commerce but war weariness.

In civ 4, the problem is that you make decisions early on in the game that establish a path and you become dependent on them. If you've settled tons of specialists in a super research city, for example, you don't really have the luxury to leave Rep as your science rate will just absolutely plummet, likewise if you have spammed cottages everywhere that have matured into towns, you can't leave US. If you've spammed watermills/workshops you can't leave SP, if you've spammed factories and coal plants you can't leave enviro.

Add to all this the fact that you can simply run a golden age for anarchy free switches, and I say the spiritual trait is trash. I honestly don't know which is worse - spiritual, or protective.

With SPI, you switch Civics continously, almost every 5 rounds at some part of the game, no Golden Age lasts long enough for that period. You're just not using the traits full potential.

Also: REP + Buro + Caste + Pacifism gives the most research. Towns need way too long to mature, but in rare cases so very long games and with a bad capital, Free Speech can be better.
Settling GPs is very bad and cannot be compared towards the other options, usually the special ability and bulbing are way stronger.
Also, Coal Plants and Factories without enviro are no problem. Keep cities small, run Biology Farms, use the Kremlin enhanced whip. That's the most efficient form of production.

And of course, decisions matter, it's a strategy game after all. One needs everything and commits towards a path, but that path is way more complicated then you make it sound, one needs Farms, Cottages, Mines, Windmills, Watermills, the full arsenal.
Only improvement I only build in one city are Forrest Preserves, and I generally don't like Lumbermills because chopping + Workshop / Farm / whatever is better in 99% of the cases.

You're just very fixiated on one playing style, but if you went deep into the single decisions, like "which improvement do I build next" you'd see that you're hurting yourself with every "always" rule that you have.

 

[lymond]

Interesting, I must try that.

Yeah, taking into account that time victories are primarily about Score, then corps are key, especially food. The Rats' reduction on that huge corp maintenance is huge, better than any Org dude. With the optimal setup, Corps should actually make you money too. Too bad Chuck isn't Org himself ..that'd be insane. Ofc, you can always try Roosy of the HRE.

And yet Time victories are an exercise in insanity

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Yeah, taking into account that time victories are primarily about Score, then corps are key, especially food. The Rats' reduction on that huge corp maintenance is huge, better than any Org dude. With the optimal setup, Corps should actually make you money too. Too bad Chuck isn't Org himself ..that'd be insane. Ofc, you can always try Roosy of the HRE.

And yet Time victories are an exercise in insanity

I've got a few Marathon Time victories in the HoF so I must be really insane

I do use Corps for this but usually with a Financial leader. I see now that HRE have some of the top spots for Time victories.

 

[noto2]

With SPI, you switch Civics continously, almost every 5 rounds at some part of the game, no Golden Age lasts long enough for that period. You're just not using the traits full potential.

Also: REP + Buro + Caste + Pacifism gives the most research. Towns need way too long to mature, but in rare cases so very long games and with a bad capital, Free Speech can be better.
Settling GPs is very bad and cannot be compared towards the other options, usually the special ability and bulbing are way stronger.
Also, Coal Plants and Factories without enviro are no problem. Keep cities small, run Biology Farms, use the Kremlin enhanced whip. That's the most efficient form of production.

And of course, decisions matter, it's a strategy game after all. One needs everything and commits towards a path, but that path is way more complicated then you make it sound, one needs Farms, Cottages, Mines, Windmills, Watermills, the full arsenal.
Only improvement I only build in one city are Forrest Preserves, and I generally don't like Lumbermills because chopping + Workshop / Farm / whatever is better in 99% of the cases.

You're just very fixiated on one playing style, but if you went deep into the single decisions, like "which improvement do I build next" you'd see that you're hurting yourself with every "always" rule that you have.

I have to be real honest with you right now... did you even read what I wrote? You think I fix myself on one playing style? That's 100% exactly the opposite of what I was saying. I'm not sure how you could possibly get that from what I wrote.

My entire point was that there are different ways of playing, using different economies, and that you can't just switch around easily.

Some games you spam cottages, bulb your GP, and have a huge empire, we'll call that play style A

Some games you have a small empire, you spam wonders, and settle tons of GP in your bur boosted capital, we'll call that playstyle B (And don't tell me this play style doesn't work, I watched Madscientist do playthroughs using this method and beating immortal over and over again consistently)

Some games you have a small empire, spam farms, bulb your GP, and then spam workshops/watermills and switch to SP, we can call that play style C

Is this making any sense?

And then my point is that if you've planned on doing A, you can't just switch your civics to those that are good for C, without really losing tons of effectiveness in your economy. You can't switch from B to A either. If you've planned on doing C, you have to stay on C, or lose tons and tons of economic output.

Am I making any sense here?

 

[Fippy]

Am I making any sense here?

Nope..until you admit that you are missing much of what better players know and do, it's pointless. You wrote SPI = trash and that you need enviro with coal plants (while not using SP), and so everybody knows..
Sorry, but a little truth does not hurt here. Before i argue i should learn what i write about.

 

[pigswill]

I remember a few years back that there was a very heated debate about cottage economy vs specialist economy and the conclusion from all of that was the hybrid economy won out.

If you're acquiring most of your cities through capture then their function (cottage, mines, farms etc) will have been decided by the AI; you can either put worker turns into turning a captured city into whatever you want or just make use of it as it is.

If you accept the idea of the hybrid economy then spiritual is about flexibility in terms of diplomacy and swopping the economy to the needs of the moment.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

You think I fix myself on one playing style? That's 100% exactly the opposite of what I was saying. I'm not sure how you could possibly get that from what I wrote.

He's talking about within one game, if you only play one style per game then SPI will seem less valuable.

 

[rah]

The important switch is caste to slavery and back and back and back. To be able to do this without penalty and immediately especially in an emergency is still quite an advantage.

Also on the religious civics, Maybe not as drastic, but still quite useful.

But yes on the other lines of civics, not as much. And just during GAs is usually sufficient.

 

[dalamb]

You're ignoring the benefits of being able to comply with an AI's request to change religion or civics, without anarchy, then five turns later switch back to what you really want to do. This can apparently give a nice boost to diplomacy. The requests tend not to come when you're in a GA.

 

[noto2]

Nope..until you admit that you are missing much of what better players know and do, it's pointless. You wrote SPI = trash and that you need enviro with coal plants (while not using SP), and so everybody knows..
Sorry, but a little truth does not hurt here. Before i argue i should learn what i write about.

No one here is better than anyone else. We all beat deity like 9 years ago in this super old game. This isn't my original profile on this site, I was around with Dave and Madscientist playing immortal and deity games, put your e-peen back in your pants, no one wants to see it here.

 

[noto2]

I remember a few years back that there was a very heated debate about cottage economy vs specialist economy and the conclusion from all of that was the hybrid economy won out.

No it didn't. There was no consensus. People kept arguing over definitions and the better players didn't bother joining the argument. It was pointed out that definitions were difficult to determine, for example, does a specialist economy have a cottage capital? Does a cottage economy have a GP farm? Usually the answer to both is yes.

One example, though, of a fairly easily defined economy is the settled specialist economy, when you get the pyramids early game. I'll reiterate this again - settling specialists works and you can beat immortal with it consistently, as has been proven by the better players here.

As for deity, well, the tricks you need to use to beat deity are the same every game and it got boring real fast, which is why everyone stopped playing the base game like 5+ years ago.

Spiritual is trash, I still say it. Almost as bad as Protective.

 

[dutchfire]

Moderator Action: Stop the thrash talking please
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[traius]

No it didn't. There was no consensus. People kept arguing over definitions and the better players didn't bother joining the argument. It was pointed out that definitions were difficult to determine, for example, does a specialist economy have a cottage capital? Does a cottage economy have a GP farm? Usually the answer to both is yes.

One example, though, of a fairly easily defined economy is the settled specialist economy, when you get the pyramids early game. I'll reiterate this again - settling specialists works and you can beat immortal with it consistently, as has been proven by the better players here.

As for deity, well, the tricks you need to use to beat deity are the same every game and it got boring real fast, which is why everyone stopped playing the base game like 5+ years ago.

Spiritual is trash, I still say it. Almost as bad as Protective.

In your paragraph, about the "lack of consensus," you still show the central thesis of the person you're replying to: even in a specialist focused game, you have cottages in a bureau cap, and in a cottage game you have a gp farm. That's a hybrid both cases.

In the next paragraph, you state that settling super specialists is fine because it can beat immortal. This is still a bad choice regardless. You get more out of a GP by bulbing than by settling. You settle a GScientist, you get 9 beakersper turn, you bulb, you get thousands.
Even if you got only exactly 1k beakers bulbing, it would take 111 turns to break even (before multipliers), assuming you weren't getting trade bait or pushing towards an end game tech (lib=path to something good). Since you CAN trade, you CAN get critical military techs, and you get it RIGHT NOW, settling is a bad play, even if you can do it on immortal. I can beat noble using workers only to chop, not improve anything. I can beat settler with the only build being warriors. This does not mean it is good to do so, even if I can win at some difficulty level.

As for everyone giving up the base game, I still play the base game, almost exclusively. I do play a round of the WW2 mod every now and again because I am a WW2 buff, but that represents less than 10% of my playtime.

 

[Izuul]

No one here is better than anyone else.

No it didn't. There was no consensus. People kept arguing over definitions and the better players didn't bother joining the argument. It was pointed out that definitions were difficult to determine, for example, does a specialist economy have a cottage capital? Does a cottage economy have a GP farm? Usually the answer to both is yes.

One example, though, of a fairly easily defined economy is the settled specialist economy, when you get the pyramids early game. I'll reiterate this again - settling specialists works and you can beat immortal with it consistently, as has been proven by the better players here.

As for deity, well, the tricks you need to use to beat deity are the same every game and it got boring real fast, which is why everyone stopped playing the base game like 5+ years ago.

Spiritual is trash, I still say it. Almost as bad as Protective.

 

[dalamb]

indeed.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

In your paragraph, about the "lack of consensus," you still show the central thesis of the person you're replying to: even in a specialist focused game, you have cottages in a bureau cap, and in a cottage game you have a gp farm. That's a hybrid both cases.

In the next paragraph, you state that settling super specialists is fine because it can beat immortal. This is still a bad choice regardless. You get more out of a GP by bulbing than by settling. You settle a GScientist, you get 9 beakersper turn, you bulb, you get thousands.
Even if you got only exactly 1k beakers bulbing, it would take 111 turns to break even (before multipliers), assuming you weren't getting trade bait or pushing towards an end game tech (lib=path to something good). Since you CAN trade, you CAN get critical military techs, and you get it RIGHT NOW, settling is a bad play, even if you can do it on immortal. I can beat noble using workers only to chop, not improve anything. I can beat settler with the only build being warriors. This does not mean it is good to do so, even if I can win at some difficulty level.

The settled GP city is not just settling great scientists and it is an extremely strong route that can make as many beakers as a mid/late game bureau capital. The key is wonder-spamming with a PHI leader. I rarely run citizens as specialists when I go this route (with the possible exception of running 2 scientists to try to get the Academy up). If your start has stone and marble close by, this is a viable strategy. You settle ALL great people and only use 1 GS for an Academy and MAYBE 1 for bulbing education (though I rarely need to do the EDU bulb in this strat b/c of so many beakers). It is a very strong strategy if you can do it. This strat also makes it easier to get the more powerful corporations if, say, you pop a GE for Mining Inc. or a GM for Sid's as you're approaching the industrial age. That's happened a number of times in these games for me. The capital becomes an absolute powerhouse that usually has a ton of to go along with several hundred per turn

That being said, it is very situational as you usually need stone/marble for the best early wonders, the ability to expand to 6 cities without war, and good diplo is important in the early/middle stages of these games as you become a juicy target and don't have many units.

Outside of the wonder-spam settled GP strat, bulbs are only worth it up to Liberalism IMO. After that, you're bulbing techs that are less important / can be traded for and still have to be self researched a good deal. I'd rather use those GP for a golden age. It is possible to run > 60 turn golden ages with proper micro and I'd much rather that than wasting mid/late game GP on weaker bulbs.

 

[Fippy]

I will still think very carefully about settling scientists, bulbs like Philo can give you a much quicker advantage (Paci) than slowly building up beakers from settled GPs.
In this example if you get Paci earlier you add more GP points and settling that scientist can be questionable. For Edu that's also true if you want Ox, and with PHI leaders Unis are not that expansive.

Strongest early settled GP would be priests imo.
While scientists can do much more, and should be reviewed case by case.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

It's a general strategy, though, and specific details can be changed to your taste. With 'Mids > Rep and a PHI leader, you will blaze past even Immortal AI when self-teching Philo. You can always save 1 scientist to bulb it b/c if you pull off the wonder-spam with a PHI leader, you'll have another GP in a matter of turns that early in the game, anyway. With PHI leader, Pacifism is less important (as you get less of a gain from it) but will help push out more GP faster for settling so it's really up to the personal taste. I may have bulbed Philosophy in some of these games, to be fair I don't remember. But, overall, settling all/almost all of your GP with this strategy is very strong.

Oxford is incredibly important to the settled-GP strat, so bulbing Educ may be needed. It all depends on how fast you're already teching. If I can get Education in < 6 turns (normal speed) I'll probably settle the GS I saved for it. If, for whatever reason, I have less settled GP and it will take more turns, I'll bulb Education with the GS. Post education, all my GP are settled with this strat.

Don't forget the smaller settled GP bonuses really add up with this strat whether it's extra from GM, extra from GA, extra from GSpy/GE, or the from GS.