you took the words out of my mouth. post-liberalism, CE can outshine on nearly any map
CE past Prince
- Thread starter royal62184
- Start date
you took the words out of my mouth. post-liberalism, CE can outshine on nearly any map
This is actually really good thanks for sharing.
pigswill
fly (one day)
I run a hybrid economy (some cities focus on cottages, some on hammers to build units and some (usually not many) focus on specialists for GP production). My guess is that quite a few players do the same.
Some city locations are more suitable for a particular city type, that's the basis of city specialisation. Maybe running a particular economic model (pure SE or pure CE) could lead to sub-optimal tile use and therefore a sub-optimal economy. I'll leave that one for the good players to argue over.
I'm still working on winning emperor so I can't comment on higher difficulties but a hybrid economy worked fine for me at prince and monarch.
Some city locations are more suitable for a particular city type, that's the basis of city specialisation. Maybe running a particular economic model (pure SE or pure CE) could lead to sub-optimal tile use and therefore a sub-optimal economy. I'll leave that one for the good players to argue over.
I'm still working on winning emperor so I can't comment on higher difficulties but a hybrid economy worked fine for me at prince and monarch.
vicawoo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 3,226
Actually, that's still a CE. I think a lot of people are using hybrid economy quite loosely. For example, cottaging your capital but running scientists everywhere else I say still fits under SE.
And to make unconqueredsun uncomfortable, I wouldn't so flippantly dismiss one of the few bonafide deity level players in civ iv, and no, all these BTS deity players don't count.
paulthebug
Warlord
I am really curious here.
Why don't you guys trash it out by playing a demo game?
Lizzy sounds good.
Why don't you guys trash it out by playing a demo game?
Lizzy sounds good.
That's true for the aforementioned reasons. It is foolish to play a pure SE throughout the game for the sole purpose of playing a pure SE. Therefore, I'd like to call an SE an economy that uses specialists as the majority of GNP pre-industrial age, but then combines cottages with maxing out specialists (otherwise you'll be hurting to not make the switch... unless you've got a horde of happiness).
I don't see why SE players have to stay away from cottages lest they become a CE/Hybrid. I find it perfectly fine to fuel your early game domination (not the victory word) with an SE, and then adapt to what's best later on, which happens to be cottaging a few farms over (read, not all of them; you'll still be running many specialists, but now no longer able to run as many as you want).
I know, I was just making an aside remark.
Thing is that you still get plenty of commerce. Seafood tiles, riverside farms, and most of all, trade routes! It will turn out that a good 10-30% may well be from commerce (especially considering if you do stuff that amplifies your trade route commerce)... and in high levels that may be the difference between a tech lead and a tech trailing.
Unconquered Sun
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,462
I am really curious here.
Why don't you guys trash it out by playing a demo game?
Lizzy sounds good.
Lizzy sounds bad. One of her traits is useless for a FE.
Bleys
Deity
And harder doesnt necessarily mean "more fun".
There is plenty of micromanagement in all "economic" styles of play for everyone. As your target difficulty goes up, its common sense that your micromanagement level must also increase, otherwise, whats the point? Isnt better micromanagement the same as "more skill"?
This applies to all strategic styles of play. The more attention you pay to the details, the more you will be rewarded by a better performance overall. The people who I feel are struggling the most are the ones who fail to execute a more structured plan in a given situation. Two traits that decidedly DO NOT work on the higher levels are "Wishy Washy" and "Lost on the Path".
It kind of bothers me that there seems to be so much emphasis put on labels. One think about any SE, it has a ton of branches itself (yes, the CE path seems more straight forward, its nuances more obvious). There is no definitive SE though,
Also, lets stop with the lame comments about "the luck of the start". I restart often. I play many many games to 50 turns or so. If I dont like it, I stop and restart. I want to ENJOY the game I am playing, not look at it like its "work".
Same goes for games I wish to read and follow. Personally, I would rather see a walkthrough/play-along that is solid, well-executed, as opposed to some horrible crap-luck spot where it takes until 1000 AD to equalize with the barbarians. Those bore me. I play whats fun, and read whats fun, because its a game, and fun is pretty much why we do it, at least most of us.
There is plenty of micromanagement in all "economic" styles of play for everyone. As your target difficulty goes up, its common sense that your micromanagement level must also increase, otherwise, whats the point? Isnt better micromanagement the same as "more skill"?
This applies to all strategic styles of play. The more attention you pay to the details, the more you will be rewarded by a better performance overall. The people who I feel are struggling the most are the ones who fail to execute a more structured plan in a given situation. Two traits that decidedly DO NOT work on the higher levels are "Wishy Washy" and "Lost on the Path".
It kind of bothers me that there seems to be so much emphasis put on labels. One think about any SE, it has a ton of branches itself (yes, the CE path seems more straight forward, its nuances more obvious). There is no definitive SE though,
Also, lets stop with the lame comments about "the luck of the start". I restart often. I play many many games to 50 turns or so. If I dont like it, I stop and restart. I want to ENJOY the game I am playing, not look at it like its "work".
Same goes for games I wish to read and follow. Personally, I would rather see a walkthrough/play-along that is solid, well-executed, as opposed to some horrible crap-luck spot where it takes until 1000 AD to equalize with the barbarians. Those bore me. I play whats fun, and read whats fun, because its a game, and fun is pretty much why we do it, at least most of us.
iamnleth
Warlord
I'm far from being an expert, but I would love to see another show down of that type.
I know, but sometime it does. Either way, it was just some rampant observation that I should have separated better.
It isn't so much as micromanagement means skill... it's the entire aspect of the gameplay. Micromanagement allows maximum efficiency, but you must go beyond that. You have to maximize efficiency throughout your entire strategy. This means that skill is a mix of micromanagement and a lot of planning ahead.
It is necessary to have well-defined definitions in order to communicate strategies. No, the fact that what you're running is not regarded as an SE by the majority, but rather a hybrid, doesn't matter. Coming into these forums and trying to strategize and communicate with everyone, however, then makes it matter.
I agree. In fact, I will shamelessly restart plenty of times until I get a nice start that pleases me. However, since we're talking strategically, we're also talking in a competitive sense. A true competitive-style game would render restarts pretty cheesy. Competitively speaking, you play each start that you get as it is. In that case, we need to evaluate strategies on an overall/average basis, rather than making them dependent on certain map, terrain, opponents, etc. features.
popejubal
Emperor
People arguing that CE is better or SE is better are just like people arguing that snow skis are better than waterskis or vice versa.
Both are very good for what they do. Both can work for what the other does well, but will not work nearly as well as you might hope from the fact that both have "ski" in their name.
CE works very well for empires that have a decent number of food resources scattered across a landscape with nice curvy rivers and lots of grass. CE loves Flood Plains.
SE works very well for empires that have their food resources concentrated in clumps for massive food production using relatively few tiles. SE loves fish.
Financial trait does very nice things for CE. Not so much for SE who don't often work too many 2 commerce tiles.
Philosophical (obviously) does very nice things for SE. It also does quite nice things for a CE since the CE will almost certainly still have a GP farm.
AGG and CHA and CRE and IMP do nice things for SE since they all make either the prosecution or the buildup for war easier and SE does wonderful things for a warmonger.
SE does not mind missing out on
resources and religions so much since the SE can run the culture slider quite high without losing too much science since the SE gets its science from scientists rather than from beakers.
A SE empire will have much more production available than a CE empire will. (Note that the CE empire may have more production on any particular turn, but the SE has access to immense production via the whip and draft since it can whip the population without the same production and research losses that the CE would experience and it can regrow MUCH more quickly than the CE empire could with its abundant farms.)
A CE with lots of fully matured towns will out tech a SE empire of the same size and resources in the late game, therefore the SE will need to leverage its early dominance to have a bigger and more prosperous empire than the CE would have before it gets to the late game. Fortunately, an empire that should be running a SE can do this.
A CE will manage itself better than an SE will since the SE needs to have you hold its hand on assigning tiles to be worked and assigning specialists to appropriate cities.
...so which is better? Obviously the CE is better - for continents and leaders who would benefit from the CE's advantages. And the SE is better for continents and leaders who would derive more benefits from the SE advantages.
Both are very good for what they do. Both can work for what the other does well, but will not work nearly as well as you might hope from the fact that both have "ski" in their name.
CE works very well for empires that have a decent number of food resources scattered across a landscape with nice curvy rivers and lots of grass. CE loves Flood Plains.
SE works very well for empires that have their food resources concentrated in clumps for massive food production using relatively few tiles. SE loves fish.
Financial trait does very nice things for CE. Not so much for SE who don't often work too many 2 commerce tiles.
Philosophical (obviously) does very nice things for SE. It also does quite nice things for a CE since the CE will almost certainly still have a GP farm.
AGG and CHA and CRE and IMP do nice things for SE since they all make either the prosecution or the buildup for war easier and SE does wonderful things for a warmonger.
SE does not mind missing out on
resources and religions so much since the SE can run the culture slider quite high without losing too much science since the SE gets its science from scientists rather than from beakers.A SE empire will have much more production available than a CE empire will. (Note that the CE empire may have more production on any particular turn, but the SE has access to immense production via the whip and draft since it can whip the population without the same production and research losses that the CE would experience and it can regrow MUCH more quickly than the CE empire could with its abundant farms.)
A CE with lots of fully matured towns will out tech a SE empire of the same size and resources in the late game, therefore the SE will need to leverage its early dominance to have a bigger and more prosperous empire than the CE would have before it gets to the late game. Fortunately, an empire that should be running a SE can do this.
A CE will manage itself better than an SE will since the SE needs to have you hold its hand on assigning tiles to be worked and assigning specialists to appropriate cities.
...so which is better? Obviously the CE is better - for continents and leaders who would benefit from the CE's advantages. And the SE is better for continents and leaders who would derive more benefits from the SE advantages.
Wodan
Deity
Just off the top of my head, I can think of a half dozen situations where that generalization isn't true... may I suggest changing "always" to "usually".
Wodan
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
I am not really in favor of a "Contest" between CE vs SE. In fact I think it may have been done if I have read some reports before.
But is anyone was interested in such a contest
They should avoid Phil or financial. Traits should come from Spiritual, Imperialistic, Protective, industrious, expansive with UB's that would not favor either "economy".
But is anyone was interested in such a contest
They should avoid Phil or financial. Traits should come from Spiritual, Imperialistic, Protective, industrious, expansive with UB's that would not favor either "economy".
OTAKUjbski
TK421
I am really curious here.
Why don't you guys trash it out by playing a demo game?
Lizzy sounds good.
Here are two reasons that have already been mentioned in this very thread: (emphasis added)
Even now, there are still arguments about what the distinction between SE, CE & FE are. Until the various economic models and economic strategies are agreed upon, refering to them in such simple two-letter terms will continue to breed nothing more than confusion and strife.
Starting a head-to-head competition prior to agreeing upon the definitions would be even sillier.
If by some magical chance we all somehow manage to nail down and agree upon the economic differences and properly define them, one game is NOT going to prove anything.
So far, every head-to-head challenge has been met with fierce opposition from both sides at the conclusion.
The only difinitive test would involve multiple leaders on multiple maps by multiple players using multiple strategies on multiple difficulties at multiple speeds.
I hate to say it, but that just ain't gonna happen. (Too many man hours.)
Wodan
Deity
There was such a contest (I started it). Actually there were two of them. You can easily dig up the threads if you're interested in reading several thousand posts.I am not really in favor of a "Contest" between CE vs SE. In fact I think it may have been done if I have read some reports before.
But is anyone was interested in such a contest
They should avoid Phil or financial. Traits should come from Spiritual, Imperialistic, Protective, industrious, expansive with UB's that would not favor either "economy".
And yes one condition I insisted upon was to avoid Phil or Financial. The idea was to compare CE to SE as a baseline. If we were able to draw some conclusions without Phil or Fin, then it should be easy to extrapolate it with one of those two.
Wodan
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
There was such a contest (I started it). Actually there were two of them. You can easily dig up the threads if you're interested in reading several thousand posts.
And yes one condition I insisted upon was to avoid Phil or Financial. The idea was to compare CE to SE as a baseline. If we were able to draw some conclusions without Phil or Fin, then it should be easy to extrapolate it with one of those two.
Wodan
Thousands of posts? Hell, I get bored reading my own posts, I'll pass.
obsolete
Deity
Not quite so simple. SE doubling as a spy economy not only will cheaply snatch your BIG techs from you the instant you gain them, but they'll run around sabotaging your ship parts when you do get a lead. But that is assuming he hasn't destroyed your towns with his spies in the first place.
The same principle works vs the AI.
Wodan
Deity
Dave, the master of the one line smack-down post.
He's right on the Slider, though. A CE can crank out EP late game, if it really wants to.
Wodan
He's right on the Slider, though. A CE can crank out EP late game, if it really wants to.
Wodan
