Deity Challenge #12 - The Celts on Pangaea

[Grendeldef]

When I wanted to steal borrow your idea, I was thinking about no lump sum deals, i.e. lux for lux, embassy for embassy and white peace. Also AI teams are probably not whacky enough for Peter but definitely very whacky for me. However, I might still try this.

Not the 1st time but to me these just seem like an excuse to switch to some other game as it takes away the core of the game only leaving war as a way of communicating with others - the part that AI is already severely handicapped 1-on-1 vs human. How about a totally different approach and no DoWs at all, not even to a CS and add some some extra no goes like conquering and/or annexing if it seems too easy. Anyhow, we're likely to have seriously different & interesting CFC DC setups in the future.

 

[The Pilgrim]

The main reason I want to try a no deals is for comparison purposes. I played such game on immortal a while back and although it was a somewhat slower start, it was still very easy and didn't feel too much different from a regular game. I'm really curious to see how much the exclusion of lump sum deals slows you down on deity. I'm not ready to play pure war games every time myself. When and if I will, I'll switch to MP.

 

[Grendeldef]

Oh yes, I should actually have quoted Tommy but all my 7 working brain cells were already wondering if the weather permits starting cycling for this spring so I was just confusing the matter.
Leaving lump sum deals out would be an excellent implementation but leaving trades altogether out is just something I'm generally against - doesn't necessarily mean such a setup wouldn't be good for a DC.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Oh yes, I should actually have quoted Tommy but all my 7 working brain cells were already wondering if the weather permits starting cycling for this spring so I was just confusing the matter.
Leaving lump sum deals out would be an excellent implementation but leaving trades altogether out is just something I'm generally against - doesn't necessarily mean such a setup wouldn't be good for a DC.

Yeah, I realized you're referring to Tommy's suggestion, but used the opportunity to further explain myself. I have hard time focusing and include all thoughts in one post these days.

 

[tommynt]

Many people argue with realism, and converting civ into "reality" its best to look at how multiplayer works. There clever humans (well in theory at least ..) which PLAY TO WIN take over.

Humans d never ever give some1 dominating the game lux for lux deals, MAYBE players behind trade lux which each other

 

[The Pilgrim]

Many people argue with realism, and converting civ into "reality" its best to look at how multiplayer works. There clever humans (well in theory at least ..) which PLAY TO WIN take over.

Humans d never ever give some1 dominating the game lux for lux deals, MAYBE players behind trade lux which each other

That's fair point, but human rivals also don't play with unlimited happiness making keeping up with them next to impossible. Anyhow, the comparison with MP is not accurate. That has nothing to do with realism. We had this conversation before. MP takes away a lot of layers and while it's more challenging in certain ways, it's more simplified in others and thus for some players fun factor takes a hit. I'm not interested to make SP as close to MP as possible. Why? I can play MP if I want to.

 

[Grendeldef]

Many people argue with realism, and converting civ into "reality" its best to look at how multiplayer works. There clever humans (well in theory at least ..) which PLAY TO WIN take over.

Not directly addressed to me but as I have somewhat different view I might as well reply.

I'm not arguing with realism - I'm arguing for it and the hint is in the game title. The game is supposed to reflect the human development from society's pov and while the model obviously is simplistic it's got to have some merits as from the first incarnation it has been used in University level sociology studies modeling the human race and it's interactions with itself during different times. The current version surely has more depth than the original one did.

How or if at all, MP works has nothing to do with the above. In MP everyone's target is to win the game within the given parameters - this is not the case for civilizations over the time. Generally peoples want to be prosperous - only the very few have had a goal of conquering everyone else and unlike in the game in reality there is no such thing as absolute win. A civ can be successful for a period of time but that position isn't infinite.

It may very well be that the best players are in MP environment but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for turning away from the 'realism' elements. While making war has been essential part of civs in the past no one has ever been successful without the trade; wars can be bought.

I, for one, have no interest in MP in it's current status nor have I much of an interest in trying to change it towards my likings - the gap is too huge it to be worthy of time but BNW has some interesting concepts that may change this. Currently the MP seems just a very much slowed pace FPS.

On the hand it could be argued that Civ5 is like Sims with a chequered flag and with this I'd agree with. As a game it needs a measuring device for success/failure and VCs act as such even though there's no real counterpart in the real world. All the VCs are somewhat invented for the game's sake but I can live with that.

 

[Merenptah]

Still playing this and just finished 5 Social Policy Trees on Turn 263; Utopia Project is due for completion in 12 turns for a Cultural Victory on Turn 275 with 6 cities (and 4 puppets).


See spoiler below for pics and details on the story so far.

Spoiler :

Military Campaigns: Decided to go after Spain after victory over Persia (and getting his very nice capital which had Stonehenge and Hanging Gardens). Bribed Greece to join ... took Seville with Composite Bowmen and Madrid with Crossbowmen. Signed peace for Gold and a few turns later Alexander also signs peace and gets a nice city for that (Cordoba). In the meantime Persia spawned another city in the south and I see a few Prophets approaching Persepolis (strange because I thought his religion had been eradicated since no city was following his religion). This time it is me declaring war and capturing his other city (Susa) and leaving him with a two population city on a snowy hill as well as getting three (!!) unused great prophets out of it . Later Alex declares war on Isabelle yet again. Spain has only one city left, Barcelona, but Isabella built Himeji Castle there, so I decide to join in and take Barcelona (we do not want Alex to have Himeji do we?!) wiping out Spain. Now everyone hates me and thinks I am a warmonger, so I bribe Alex to declare war on Denmark. Denmark was already the strongest Civ having captured Korea's capital as well as other Korean cities leaving Sejong with a single City (Busan). So I also bribed Denmark to declare war on both Rome and Babylon just to be sure they are all busy with each other and that everyone will hate Harold more than they hate me. Interesting was that Harold was really cheap to bribe ... he just wanted like 50g + some Horses and Iron; bribing Alex on the other hand always cost me at least 300g.


Social Policies: Tradition, Piety, Patronage (Aesthetics), Freedom, Honor (RHS first then LHS), Finish Patronage

Aestetics was not really helpful in this game. Alex allied nearly all City-States, and as a result of his war with Harold I had to revoke most protections (since the last thing I wanted was to anger Harold as he started attacking City-States and conquering a few).



Religion: Desert Folklore, World Church, Pagodas, Cathedrals, Religious Texts

With hindsight I would not take World Church (and in fact will not take that again ever). Even with more than half the map converted (44 cities), Religion got me only 88 CPT. In conclusion I think that even in a focused culture game Tithe is so much superior since it gives 1g for each and every 4 followers rather than 1 culture for 5 followers in foreign civilizations only. In addition, Tithe also makes you less reluctant to take other cities, while with World Church your benefit from it decreases each time you conquer another city following your religion.



Tech Progression: Education -> Chivalry (rush Alhambra with GE from Petra/ToA ... was lucky with ToA since it was still available after finishing Petra on Turn 71 with a 5 turn build time so I decided to go for it) -> Machinery (upgrade CBs to Crossbows) -> Metal Casting -> Acoustics (free Ceilidh Hall in Capital) -> Printing Press (religion spreading takes off big time) -> Architecture (Hermitage)-> Navigation -> Oxford to Archaeology (for Museums and The Louvre) -> Scientific Theory -> Electricity -> Radio (Broadcast Towers) -> Military Science -> Biology -> Flight -> Plastics

It might have been better to save Oxford for Radio, but I didn't want to miss out on The Louvre and decided not to take that risk.

I am #2 on Science, 7 techs behind Denmark. Harold already has Bombers and I only have Triplanes to defend against .

 

[Merenptah]

@Grendeldef
For learning puposes could you please reveal your SP progression, Religion and possibly Tech progression. And how many non-puppet cities did you have? I saw that you took Liberty as last tree ... I just finished culture now (see previous post) but I had 6 non-puppet cities and Tradition only which I think slowed me down a bit. In fact I never won a CV with so many cities on any level let alone sub 300 and I would not have dared if it wasn't for Pagodas + Cathedrals as well as the awesome Civ UA/UB and starting location.

 

[tommynt]

It may very well be that the best players are in MP environment but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for turning away from the 'realism' elements. While making war has been essential part of civs in the past no one has ever been successful without the trade; wars can be bought.

dont wana quote all, but I see that my argument for "thats how mp works - thats how ai should act" isnt liked by some as its so easy to jump on the "mp suckz" bandwagon (mostly comming from people not even have tried yet).

Maibe I should phrase it different:
If AI d PLAY TO WIN (and dont come at me with civilisation developement where wining dont matter - its deity and ai SHOULD play to win) it d not give human gpt deals and it d not give humans lux for lux deals either (as it dont need the lux anyway).
Just because game designers were not able to code an deity ai which really plays to win, it doesnt mean that game d not be better if it would.

And if no better - at least more challenging.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

better is a matter of opinion. if someone skilled and familiar with MP still didnt like it and had reasons why, would you then give their opinions credit? you certainly like to diminish their arguments with "they arent good at it or havent played it so their opinion is invalid'.

 

[The Pilgrim]

dont wana quote all, but I see that my argument for "thats how mp works - thats how ai should act" isnt liked by some as its so easy to jump on the "mp suckz" bandwagon (mostly comming from people not even have tried yet).

I don't see such an argument here. If you do, please show me.
I doubt you would argue with that MP is a different game. Not better, not worse, but different. You might think it's better, but that's only your personal opinion. It's like driving. You can drive to work or local store or whatever or you can be a professional race car driver. Neither is good or bad, people just have different priorities in life. Not many want their every day drive to work to be a NASCAR race. And that has nothing to do with their driving skills.

Maibe I should phrase it different:
If AI d PLAY TO WIN (and dont come at me with civilisation developement where wining dont matter - its deity and ai SHOULD play to win) it d not give human gpt deals and it d not give humans lux for lux deals either (as it dont need the lux anyway).

This one is simple. While I don't disagree that deity AI should play to win, I also realize, that if I'm going to pretend it acts like human and thus treat it as such, it can't keep all the ridiculous bonuses it gets due to not being human. Maybe it's not a problem for you, but it is for me and I need to level the playing field to stay competitive. I can't compete with crazy expansion while being limited by unhappiness. At least I think I can't. Whether that's true or not I'll find out by trying.

better is a matter of opinion. if someone skilled and familiar with MP still didnt like it and had reasons why, would you then give their opinions credit? you certainly like to diminish their arguments with "they arent good at it or havent played it so their opinion is invalid'.

Probably not. Because for Tommy MP is the only 'real' way to play, SP is just a training in the best case scenario and a complete waste of time if we don't try to be gentle. You can't beat up other people and show them who's the big daddy while playing non competitive SP, so what's the point?

 

[Grendeldef]

dont wana quote all, but I see that my argument for "thats how mp works - thats how ai should act" isnt liked by some as its so easy to jump on the "mp suckz" bandwagon (mostly comming from people not even have tried yet).

Well, I for one didn't say I don't like your opinion, I said I have a different view - more than a minor difference. The jump might be an easy one but I didn't even try to make it so I'm not a passenger but an outsider. Again, the only thing I stated about MP is that everyone is there to win and if this is not the case I'm confused. My personal experience of MP is none and interest in it barely above that so I don't need to comment it on any further. It may evolve into any direction the developers wish I just hope that SP isn't on a path towards simple wargame.

Maibe I should phrase it different:
If AI d PLAY TO WIN (and dont come at me with civilisation developement where wining dont matter - its deity and ai SHOULD play to win) it d not give human gpt deals and it d not give humans lux for lux deals either (as it dont need the lux anyway).
Just because game designers were not able to code an deity ai which really plays to win, it doesnt mean that game d not be better if it would.

And if no better - at least more challenging.

Rephrasing doesn't change our positions on the matter, we'll still disagree.
Whether AI is playing to win is a matter of interpretation. It certainly isn't trying to lose. To a degree AI is trying to win and it may consider gpt deals beneficial either for keeping the trading partner happy or more likely it's aiming for 'We Love the King Day'. With virtually unlimited happiness growth is a status to pursue. Much the same with lux for lux trades; surely generally better for humans but not worthless from AI's pov.

The above however is irrelevant. This is a game for commercial purposes and it's core target group is the general public who wants to have fun without thinking it too much. However, the publisher generously caters for smaller interest groups such as more competitive oriented player who need more challenge, for those deity exist.
To be a reasonable game there needs to be a chance for winning and for losing so somekind of demarcation line needs to be drawn. This line can't be were the game is unwinnable so occasionally it results easy, perhaps even too easy games just to avoid constant impossibility.

It's not that the AI is too stupid to win. It'd a commercial suicide trying to program AI capable of beating humans so AI gets bonuses which are set keeping in mind the original purpose of the game. If the developers so wished the game would be impossible to win even with the current AI but such a game would be pointless.
Also, since trade & diplomacy are implemented in the game it'd absurd to prevent usage of those in AI vs human games. On the other hand MP isn't necessarily limited by the AI or the core concept so it's a free playground for those who wish to participate but essentially - it's a different game.

 

[Grendeldef]

@Grendeldef
For learning puposes could you please reveal your SP progression, Religion and possibly Tech progression. And how many non-puppet cities did you have? I saw that you took Liberty as last tree ... I just finished culture now (see previous post) but I had 6 non-puppet cities and Tradition only which I think slowed me down a bit. In fact I never won a CV with so many cities on any level let alone sub 300 and I would not have dared if it wasn't for Pagodas + Cathedrals as well as the awesome Civ UA/UB and starting location.

Please, do not follow my path as it can only lead to selfdestruction as I know next to nothing about culture games - this was my 2nd in 18 months but if you want to use it as how-not-to-do-it then knock yourself out by all means.

I think I've covered this in highly inconsistent manner in my various posts during the game but a short recap.

Full Tradition, then Liberty up to Representation, Piety short of Theocracy, full Freedom, Theocracy, full Patronage & the rest of Liberty.
I wasn't focused on faith production but relied on Desert Folklore. Early faith after enhancing went for a missionary, 4 Cathedrals then 2 more prophets and finally 3 artists.
8 cities, 4 own & 4 puppets out of which 2 were former capitals. I originally wanted to avoid puppets altogether but things just won't obey me so I had to capture few but kept myself true to no annex policy - nothing to do with finishing as quickly as possible.
Teching path was pretty much the same as in normal dom/sci game but much slower. I only ran few specialist to get one GS. Only worth mentioning detour was archaelogy which I took much earlier than usual.
Pretty straight forward game after the initial war with Darius, Alex & Isabella.

 

[Maxym]

"Full Tradition, then Liberty up to Representation, Piety short of Theocracy, full Freedom, Theocracy, full Patronage & the rest of Liberty."

For someone who does not plat CV, those are pretty much bang on choices and timing if settling three or more cities. With fewer cities, and raging barbs early honor can also work I think, especially if one aquires a puppet empire along the way.

 

[Merenptah]

"Full Tradition, then Liberty up to Representation, Piety short of Theocracy, full Freedom, Theocracy, full Patronage & the rest of Liberty."

For someone who does not plat CV, those are pretty much bang on choices and timing if settling three or more cities.

I am truly impressed. Opinions are nice, but even better if you can back them with some hard figures. This table shows the total culture cost to fill 5 SP trees depending on number of cities and assuming you start with full Tradition:

View attachment CultureNeeded.bmp

This clearly shows that taking Representation before Religious Tolerance is better if you have three or more cities, while it is better to take Religious Tolerance before Representation with only two cities. With four cities, taking Representation shaves off almost 10,000 in terms of Culture needed (compared to just taking Religous Tolerance), which confirms that Grendeldef indeed took the optimal path.

Here is the table used to calculate SP costs:

Spoiler :

 

[Maxym]

I am truly impressed. Opinions are nice, but even better if you can back them with some hard figures. This table shows the total culture cost to fill 5 SP trees depending on number of cities and assuming you start with full Tradition:

View attachment 347257

This clearly shows that taking Representation before Religious Tolerance is better if you have three or more cities, while it is better to take Religious Tolerance before Representation with only two cities. With four cities, taking Representation shaves off almost 10,000 in terms of Culture needed (compared to just taking Religous Tolerance), which confirms that Grendeldef indeed took the optimal path.

Here is the table used to calculate SP costs:

Spoiler :

View attachment 347256

Forgive me I am having a hard time figuring out what you mean in your post. It seems that Gendeldef did just that: representation before RT and settled three+ cities, just as I said in my post.

I wish I was able to back any of my assertions up, but I can't, if I need to find something out, I just look for what Browd posted usually. But these tables are great, I will refer to them from now on. The only time I bothered to test anything was to find out what happens when you settle on deer and I managed to screw that one up

How does settling late cities let's say annexing a wonder heavy cap in late 170's affect the calculation, I wonder. Prolly still better to get RT first as long as you get rep. before annexing, but I am guessing again.

I just go with my guts and info I glean from these forums.

Can you tell me then, if going into representation before filling trad makes sense, or if trad bonuses will outweigh the 10% reduction? Of course table will say go into rep first as it will decrease number of CP required? By how much? But the opportunity costs of not having trad filled ( later freedom, lost wonders, no cash to rush culture buildings) might actually outweigh the benefit.

 

[Merenptah]

Forgive me I am having a hard time figuring out what you mean in your post. It seems that Gendeldef did just that: representation before RT and settled three+ cities, just as I said in my post.

I wish I was able to back any of my assertions up, but I can't, if I need to find something out, I just look for what Browd posted usually.

I wasn't beeing sarcastic. Whether you did the math or not, I don't know, but if you didn't then I did it for you and just showed that 3 cities+ is exactly the cutoff point to Representation first and RT after and just what Grendeldef did (what I said I think).

The table just shows the cumulative culture needed to build the UP asuming no Oracle and SOH and a full Tradition opener.

How does settling late cities let's say annexing a wonder heavy cap in late 170's affect the calculation, I wonder. Prolly still better to get RT first as long as you get rep. before annexing, but I am guessing again.

For a late annex, I would go full Tradition -> Religious Tolerance -> [Patronage/Aesthetics or start Liberty if Policy saving disabled] -> full Freedom .. and then try to time Representation with the Annex ... and you will still get the full benefit of that SP.

Can you tell me then, if going into representation before filling trad makes sense, or if trad bonuses will outweigh the 10% reduction? Of course table will say go into rep first as it will decrease number of CP required? By how much? But the opportunity costs of not having trad filled ( later freedom, lost wonders, no cash to rush culture buildings) might actually outweigh the benefit.

I tried all kinds of combinations, even with Policy saving; but in practice nothing beats going full Tradition first. It looks nice on paper to go fot RT or Rep first if aiming for a Culture victory, but then you will lack Growth and thus Science and Hammers ... and Gold .... and Happiness .... and it takes longer building World Wonders and the NC + the free Culture building (Legalism) really makes a difference even and particularly if you settle more than one city.

 

[Maxym]

I wasn't beeing sarcastic. Whether you did the math or not, I don't know, but if you didn't then I did it for you and just showed that 3 cities+ is exaclty the cutoff point to Representation first and RT after and just what Grendeldef did (what I said I think).

The table just shows the cumulative culture needed to build the UP assuming no Oracle and SOH and a full Tradition opener.

Cool thanks Merenptah, I wasn't sure that's why I asked. Thanks for pointing out Its w/o oracle, I was trying to figure out if my late annex in gotm58 is going to pay for itself. I knew it will at the moment, I just try to see if it will produce more than 10% of cpt but I never know long term. Now I check Assuming i estimate number of turns needed to win correctly.

 

[Merenptah]

Cool thanks Merenptah, I wasn't sure that's why I asked. Thanks for pointing out Its w/o oracle, I was trying to figure out if my late annex in gotm58 is going to pay for itself. I knew it will at the moment, I just try to see if it will produce more than 10% of cpt but I never know long term. Now I check Assuming i estimate number of turns needed to win correctly.

Just edited my post for a full reply.