Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by addyh, Jan 24, 2008.
* deleted *
I doubt that would come with much success, as the general view is that SE > early game and CE > late game. The SE would defeat the CE and prevent the CE from any possible victory.
The problem with a head to head competition is that it would have little or no correlation with performance in ordinary games. It's kind of like beating a stack of axemen with a stack of chariots, and then proclaiming that chariots are better for conquering cities.
I'd say that such a head to head would be best done with a scrub leader with no economic traits that bias toward either type of economy, such as Charlemagne. Maybe turn on unrestricted leaders and have him lead a civ like Germany or America.
Which system is better head-to-head against the other is also a different question from which system is better for defeating a group of AIs in a single-player game. That's not to say that it isn't worth pursuing, but merely to recognize that there are two different questions.
Anyone playing a cottage strategy on a pangao map heads-up, is gong to lose. If you don't believe me, try logging in multi-player. There are still newbs who try it, and learn quick what happens the hard way.
As even Dave admitted, CE only works because the AI is stupid.
For a while now I've wanted to start a head to head with the 'many leaders' format as seen in the sucession games forum.
In this head to head , two players would go at it on the same map with different leaders, no rules, earliest victory wins.
Not a way to settle the SE/CE debate, because that will never be settled. It's just an idea for a bit of fun with two good players and the rest just observing. Possibly check points every 60-70 turns or so. If one wanted to do cottages and the other not, then so much the better.
Any takers for that ? Would need two players at a similar skill level.
BTW Dave is probably waiting to see how many pages this runs before a response
Actually I may have to pass this one up (for now). I'm busy with some things, and getting a little too bored with the game.. BUT, I just may end up doing a few SSE team games with Cheffster in the near future we will see. The problem, is he DOES build cottages, and I hate them, so we may end up clashing a bit, which is ironic.
Er, isn't that even more true of your method?
Wonderspamming on MP = :suicide: because humans aren't stupid enough to ignore the guy in the corner with several tasty wonders and virtually no military.
But that's not the point, is it?
I mean, would you really like the AI to play just like a human?
Personally, I think that would ruin the game, precisely because it would make most strategies completely useless.
So I say screw all this "my strategy's better than your strategy" nonsense. Civ4 is a much better game for allowing so much choice between different strategies.
And, imo, this forum is at its best when it celebrates that fact, and helps players, new and old, to realise the full breadth of options available to them.
It's at its worst, however, when it descends into chest-beating arguments over who has the best strategy.
Edit: Maybe you're getting bored of the game because you play the same way every time and it's getting too predictable and easy. Why not try to come up with a new and different way of beating the higher levels, with which to educate and entertain us mere mortals?
You could also make teams, like you will find in the succession games forum, to lessen the pressure and committment which would have to be quite large if one is solo. Cottage team and specialist team. That being said, both economies are good. FE/SE is just more versatile and more capable of adapting in my experience, especially at deity.
Hmm the idea has some appeal, i.e. if this would actually mean Harder Difficultie = More Advanced AI Algortihms, insted of the current model, which is Harder Difficultie = More Ridiculous Bonus ... Unfortunately i don't really believe in this beeing possible...
A heads up would be great. Not as competition do decide who's the better player and which strategy is the ultimate but to see various decicions under the same circumstances. What leads to which results? I might even play if I have to. but I'd probably lose at once to some barbarians because I always underestimate them and the enemy by building too few troops early.
ugh, really intelligent AI (no pun intended..) would be scary...
If you want more "human" behavior from AI's turn on Aggressive AI, I would really like to see Obsolete and the likes get away with that tiny army and wonderspamming next to some decent AI's with Agg. AI turned on. (I sometimes get declared on for not having metal in time, it's sick. Opportunistic bastards! )
It's kinda interesting that none of these high level games have this option turned on, still they do a lot of military and stuff later. I don't know if it's an advantage or disadvantage, but it's interesting. (Maybe I should do one to show how it's like for me )
I don't really see a point in this. Human=Aggressor? Nope. Human=Variety of strategies.
Humans seize opportunities, AI's doesn't with normal setting. Many games there are huge benefits to rushing the human early and taking his lands. With Agg. AI checked you need army to scare them off, else they see you as easy prey. (If I noticed an AI spamming wonders and having warriors as defense, I would rush at once...)
It acts more like a human, of course it isn't playing like a human in reality...
Is there really any debate over CE vs SE? Most of the games I've seen posted in the Forums use hybrid CE/SE/FE economies. "Pure" economies and their advocates seem a little too OCD for what is, let's remember, a game. Still, a demo would be highly instructive (I still can't for the life of me figure out how some guys win the Lib Race pre-500 AD) and alot of fun.
Yes, the AI can never replicate human play because it is so comparatively stupid. Making it more aggressive simply brings about a scenario similar to Bugs Bunny versus Elmer Thud.
Gods of Civ but this thread has gotten off-track.
Different economies for different people/times/places. Get over the rest. Now, to bring us back on topic.
1. I also would very much like to see a game of Dave's. Since he hasn't said anything in this thread yet however, wisely so I'll add, I doubt we will.
2. God once offered Dave the gifts of food and hammers, which he swiftly declined for cottages.
Dave's cottages are so powerful they can seen from space view, with the naked eye.
(Inspired by http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/ with some revisions)
(1) If you have five golds and DaveMcNorris has five golds, DaveMcNorris has more commerce than you.
(2) There is no 'ctrl' button on DaveMcNorris's Civ game. DaveMcNorris is always in control of military and luxury resources.
(3) There is no backyard behind DaveMcNorris house. There is only another matured town.
(4) DaveMcNorris is suing Myspace for taking the name of what he calls all the Civ land for his cottage spamming.
(5) Alpha Centauri exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with DaveMcNorris.
(6) DaveMcNorris can kill two catapult stones with one cottage.
(7) There is no world civilizations. Just a list of countries that DaveMcNorris has allowed to live.
(8) DaveMcNorris researched to Future Tech infinity - twice.
Separate names with a comma.