^ Show me that "evidence" please, can't seem to find it.
It's in the first post, in the spoiler. It's called a victory screenshot. You know, when you actually win the game instead of just stopping at a random point and saying "I assume I win the game," which doesn't actually qualify as evidence? So far I haven't seen any of the detractors post a similar picture for this map.
Given that his fundamental thesis is that there are certain maps where delaying Bronze Working will allow you to win a map, the counter-evidence is naturally to actually
win this map and end up in an undeniably stronger position. Since nobody's actually bothered to provide the screenshots and the write-up, the actual evidence against his proposition that has been presented so far in this thread is: zero.
Instead, all we get are vague aphorisms that have nothing to do with his thesis, such as the following:
There are some signs so far, signs as reliable as most UFO sights.
Now, then, on to the next point.
People attack him for a reason, after all.
That is unquestionable. Whether the reasons are valid and can be backed up with evidence by actually playing the map and posting the victory screens as he has done is what is in question.
Either he's right that delaying BW is just as good or even better and is not willing to prove it, or he's wrong and not willing to admit it.
Between the two sides, he's the one who's actually posted a game and a victory screen. This is what is known as evidence. Misrepresenting his case and the proceeding to not play the map is not evidence.
Any way, i do not quite get the reason why people are defending the idea so far. It's not like we're on a witchhunt or something, i'd say that people here are quite reasonable.
I'm not defending him, either. I'm just pointing out the one of the sides in this debate has bluntly refused to actually win the game, and it isn't his side.
Just so far there is no evidence at all for what Brennus.Quigley is arguing about, and speaking for myself i was open minded when i first read his so-called guide. There are so many great players here on the forum, players that know alot more than i do, thought that Brennus.Q actually might be one of them.
So beat the map, already, and post the victory screen. Problem solved.
Also i find it hard to understand why people who refuse to play with huts/events are marked as the bad guys, it's pretty much an unwritten agreement here in S&T that for strategical discussions/games they have to be turned off as they'll alter the game ALOT. It's fine that he wants to present his way to play the game, it's just that he's wrong in S&T with his settings that he can't seem to give up.
So do combat odds. And espionage odds. And city flipping odds, unless I'm mistaken, which I very well could be. I've lost games on less than a 10% chance. The RNG decides a lot of things in this game. Until combat ceases to have an RNG, the "random events occasionally decide a game" argument is insufficient, because they're doing it anyway.
I was lurking this sub forum for 3 years before i started posting, so in 5 years i haven't seen a single game with serious strategical background and huts/event on EVER. Consensus always was: learn the game and the strategy without huts/events, if you like them you can turn them on later and win or lose the game even faster, depending on what you get.
You missed Sisiutil's ALC series, then.
As long as we can't agree on turning events and huts off i don't see any point in continuing this topic. Events might make slavery worse? Well, they can also turn Axemen into the best rushing unit in the game. It's just pointless to discuss on a 100% random base, and i fail to see why the OP doesn't seem to understand this. Tons of things can happen in a game, but most of those RNG based things aren't even remotely close to the way a lucky hut or a bad event can alter the outcome. And speaking of the things that come close, even a 2000 BC dagger isn't as random as a slave revolt.
It should go without saying that if you can't agree you shouldn't continue posting in this topic. I'll offer a suggestion: play and win the game, and restart if you feel you get any event that makes you lose the game (except Slave Revolts, as those are one of the conditions). Avoid those huts like the plague. Then post the victory screen, and you will have presented your evidence.
As I said, this reminds of the castle discussion. Every high-level player dismissed Engineering as coming too late and castles as useless when they arrived, yet not one of them could actually answer questions such as how quickly one could get Engineering, what the anticipated effect of the trade route would be, etc. They hadn't actually done the testing that would have allowed them to present evidence. All they could do was spout personal authority as though the fact that they knew a different way to go up the tech tree qualified them to speak on things that they hadn't actually tried.
I'm certain you can see the similarities.
To sum up: Brennus.Quigley's thesis is that on certain map types, delaying Bronze Working puts you in a good winning position. He has posted this map and save as his evidence. The only possible way to disprove this is to post a playthrough up to and including the victory screen that shows a stronger position through seeking Bronze Working.
