Finally playing this

gold is plentiful enough to purchase key production tiles, which get priority in tile acquisition and a cost reduction anyway. dunno if kavithan gets reduced gold cost... iirc tradition reduced purchase cost as well.

in any event i've been following the liberty paradigm of founding 1t away from good tiles, and getting culture builds early... or just buy the OER with each city.

i also ninja'd in the hidden start picks. they're broken right now.
 
"Healthy" speed is a speed that corresponds to city growth, not "as much as you can get", as for everything you get you give up other things. Having more than really benefits you is a bad thing - and tiles are strongly effected by diminishing return as long as you don't settle in the middle of a riverless desert. KP is just overkill later on, the additional tiles you get will basically not do anything for you. And early on, AU can easily keep up with KP as they basically get 40-50 additional Culture for border growth per city while at the same time freeing production for the trade hub.
Sure, sure, i said in my previous post, "YMMV", and i said, "in my book", you know. Your book is different than mine and mileage also not the same, but psst, i was saying that Kavitha is "my" preferred sponsor, - not everybody's, right? :) All that said, - i just provided my point of view, for the topic starter, to demonstrate not everybody's doing the same. ;)
 
And in the same post you told GAGA that he probably has never even tried KP, implying that if he had he would probably share your opinion (or, to be more exact, not think that AU has "healthy" border growth), which is just wrong for the reasons I mentioned. It's okay to be inefficient, especially when it increases your enjoyment, but it gets you to a very different place than people who actually try to make the "best" decisions.

That's why I explained to you that, from an objective point of view (well, as objective as it gets with the little talking about Strategy that takes place for BE), your way of thinking about this is ineffective and that even though AU can't keep up with KP later on its border growth is still very "healthy", as it provides you with the tiles you need whenever you need them, while at the same time giving you an early game boost that KP can't keep up with, thus making it the objectively best sponsor for fast victories.
 
And in the same post you told GAGA that he probably has never even tried KP, ...
I did. It was a joke. My sense of humor is twisted, and often it's not obvious when it's in action. Sincerely, i feel i can and should apology for this. So i do. Please, forgive me, gentlemen!

... implying that if he had he would probably share your opinion (or, to be more exact, not think that AU has "healthy" border growth), which is just wrong for the reasons I mentioned. ...
It didn't imply that, being a joke... See, he said single free OER is "healthy" border growth, which is - i think you'd agree, - quite less than healthy for mid-game and late-game (i.e. majority of the game time) on its own (without any other sources of border growth, i.e. without any other +culture sources in cities whatsoever). I went to other extremum with my joke, you see. Call me silly if you want; i am, after all, sometimes (on purpose). %)

...
... your way of thinking about this is ineffective ...
Disputable. You didn't say a word about more serious part where i talked about "getting best tiles faster than otherwise possible". I doubt it's possible to "calculate" exact benefits of this, and its overall scale of usefullness in compare to other sponsors' bonus. I _feel_, however, that it's big. And feelings, of course, could be wrong. But we all - i am not an exception, - are used to trust our feelings, in general. Ergo, there was "YMMV" part, you see.

... while at the same time giving you an early game boost that KP can't keep up with, thus making it the objectively best sponsor for fast victories.
Yeah? Really? Can you _prove_ that faster _outpost_ growth of KP in fact gives less "boost" than those free OERs? I can't. More, i doubt it. There is significant correction which is made to one's progress by mid-game significant unhealth, but other than that, every single turn shaved off from an outpost's growth time - results in most things about that city being done 1 turn sooner. You know? You'll make laboratory in that city few times sooner with KP's outpost growth - here we go, extra ~dozen (at least; likely more) beakers for you. And other science builgings - few more dozens "bonus" beakers. All that - per each non-capital city. So we're already talking hundreds of extra beakers, from basic science buildings only, already. Extra culture, extra energy, earlier units (including earlier trade units - ergo earlier +health and +production to other cities, and this snowballs, you know), - you get my drift, i hope. And negative health-mid-game has dual effect in terms of KP outpost growth bonus: one negative, which is - it slows cities' development by those % penalties, which grow higher as cities' populations grow higher, - so if you had your outposts turning into cities much faster than usual (KP), then they eventually produce a bit higher unhealth than usual, thus giving a bit higher penalties than usual; but the other effect is positive, because normally you are expanding your colony exactly when your health is negative, and negative health _itself_ slows down outpost growth (one of effects of it), - making KP outpost growth bonus more important.

I'd say, we'll fail to find _reliably_ which sponsor in this case gives more "boost"; i feel it's KP, you declare (only declare - i haven't seen any numbers yet) that it's AU; and it's too complex a thing to calculate, i think.

I am ready to agree to disagree, and out of two of us, your opinion certainly holds more weight, and i know it. I still stick to mine, though - for now, at least. I hope it's ok. :)
 
I did. It was a joke. My sense of humor is twisted, and often it's not obvious when it's in action. Sincerely, i feel i can and should apology for this. So i do. Please, forgive me, gentlemen!
I am glad you now see how your joke was not acceptable and I'm sure the great Cyber-Gandhi will forgive you.

Yeah? Really? Can you _prove_ that faster _outpost_ growth of KP in fact gives less "boost" than those free OERs? I can't. More, i doubt it. There is significant correction which is made to one's progress by mid-game significant unhealth, but other than that, every single turn shaved off from an outpost's growth time - results in most things about that city being done 1 turn sooner. You know? You'll make laboratory in that city few times sooner with KP's outpost growth - here we go, extra ~dozen beakers for you. And other science builgings - few more dozens "bonus" beakers. All that - per each non-capital city. So we're already talking hundreds of extra beakers, from basic science buildings only, already. Extra culture, extra energy, earlier units (including earlier trade units - ergo earlier +health and +production to other cities, and this snowballs, you know), - you get my drift, i hope. And negative health-mid-game has dual effect in terms of KP outpost growth bonus: one negative, which is - it slows cities' development by those % penalties, which grow higher as cities' populations grow higher, - so if you had your outposts turning into cities much faster than usual (KP), then they eventually produce a bit higher unhealth than usual, thus giving a bit higher penalties than usual; but the other effect is positive, because normally you are expanding your colony exactly when your health is negative, and negative health _itself_ slows down outpost growth (one of effects of it), - making KP outpost growth bonus more important.

I'd say, we'll fail to find _reliably_ which sponsor in this case gives more "boost"; i feel it's KP, you declare (only declare - i haven't seen any numbers yet) that it's AU; and it's too complex a thing to calculate, i think.

I am ready to agree to disagree, and out of two of us, your opinion certainly holds more weight, and i know it. I still stick to mine, though - for now, at least. I hope it's ok.
It's basically the same thing as last time: You're entitled to have your own opinion, but you're not entitled to have your own facts.

I manage to win on around turn 200 rather constantly with AU, others did the same Pre-Patch - not sure if anyone else has bothered refining post-patch strategies as much, but I'm sure that if they did they managed to do the same. I don't manage to do the same with KP, I have not ever(!) seen anyone who claimed that he does and you said your strategy makes you win on around turn 230. So the data we have suggests that AU is stronger and if you want to contest that, well, build a strategy around KP that manages to get the same victory times as AU does. Until you do that AU is the better sponsor - and that's a fact.

But if you still want to want to claim this is not "knowledge": It is common practice, even in science, that if a claim that can but has not yet been disproved is supported by sufficient evidence we assume it to be true until proven otherwise, even if we cannot do an experiment that definitively proves that what we assume is right. If you disagree with that then you can literally not know anything to be true and then your definitions of knowledge and truth become meaningless.
 
Don't worry about Unhealthiness, just as long as it doesn't go below -20.

Build wide, not tall. I usually build 8 cities.

Rush the Industry virtue that gives you Health per Citizen. Then rush the Might virtue that gives you additional EXP per affinity.

Soldiers/Marines are good and cheap. Unless you're waging war, you don't really need a flashy military.
 
... and you said your strategy makes you win on around turn 230. So the data we have suggests that AU is stronger and if you want to contest that, well, build a strategy around KP that manages to get the same victory times as AU does. Until you do that AU is the better sponsor - and that's a fact.
...
I told you in PM that Einstein was much dissed by many peers of his, for stating facts of General Relativity in particular. In other words, sometimes "fact" is not what "most" people think and say.

Fact! ;)

As for "my strategy" - i believe you are mistaken. I do not remember speaking anywhere on this forum (nor anywhere else in the internet) about my "to win ASAP" strategy on Apollo, - only about varioues games which were not, in fact, "to win ASAP" (my long play habits, of course). I am sure i can win much faster than turn 230 with KP if i'd want, - if i do everything i can to win ASAP. Quite likely _well_ before turn 200 victory it would be.

That said, i haven't tried, so far, to do it.

P.S. Please do spare me the argument "you haven't tried - how can you know". Why? Because of the same thing which allowed great Jules Verne to know lands he never visited with great detail, for example; it's called, in short, "vision". Ability to know things one wasn't experiencing directly. This is as far as i feel allowable to elaborate.
 
I told you in PM that Einstein was much dissed by many peers of his, for stating facts of General Relativity in particular. In other words, sometimes "fact" is not what "most" people think and say.
Yes, and you know what he did? He proved existing theories wrong and provided the calculations that showed how he was right. What do you do? You just say "Naaaah. I don't think you're right. Because I have this strong feeling in my stomach that I'm right."

As for "my strategy" - i believe you are mistaken.
I do not remember speaking anywhere on this forum (nor anywhere else in the internet) about my "to win ASAP" gameplay on Apollo. I am sure i can win much faster than turn 230 with KP, if i do _everything_ i can to win ASAP. Quite likely _well_ before turn 200 victory it would be.
Yes, you're right. That post was indeed made by someone else. And just claiming that you can do what I've not seen anyone prove is a valid argument. Except that of course it's not.

P.S. Please do spare me the argument "you haven't tried - how can you know". Why? Because of the same thing which allowed great Jules Verne knew lands he never visited with great detail, for example; it's called, in short, "vision". Ability to know things one wasn't experiencing directly. This is as far as i feel allowable to elaborate.
See, I already told you in that PN that just assuming to be right leads you nowhere. A high IQ does not make you right by default and you've said multiple times now that you're "not an expert" on that topic - but yet you still claim that your "feeling" knows better than people who've actually spent time refining their strategies?

And I really hope you've achieved something that warrants comparing yourself to great minds like Einstein and Verne, because just being born with great potential means nothing.

But anyway, yes, it's time to end this now. Goodbye.


I do. Go with my blessing, my childs!
:D
The Great Cyber-Gandhi has spoken!

Spoiler :


(Yes, I know the head is not centered. :D)
 

Attachments

  • cybor.jpg
    cybor.jpg
    369.4 KB · Views: 363
... I don't manage to do the same with KP, I have not ever(!) seen anyone who claimed that he does ...
By the way, i have an explanation for this. You see, the KP outpost growth bonus loses much of its power if the player just "reacts" to things. It's not enough to be "quick" to realize most of its potential; one has to be "proactive", so to say - to foresee things and prepare them in advance exactly when optimal. Not before, and certainly not after things are needed. In terms of expansion, this is about which tiles you improve and when, when exactly you make colonists and trade units, when and where you add workers. And i think vast majority of players used to play with other sponsors lose substantial fraction of those "saved during outpost growth" turns which KP gives, and that's why KP advantage is seen, by most, as strong but not the best one.

Time is a tricky thing, especially when one has to work with and for some "future" - as it never can be truly certain, even in a game like Civ:BE.
 
Yes, and you know what he did? He proved existing theories wrong and provided the calculations that showed how he was right. What do you do? You just say "Naaaah. I don't think you're right. Because I have this strong feeling in my stomach that I'm right."
...[/SPOILER]
Please do take context into consideration. I mentioned Einstein not to prove my feeling or any point about KP; but only to demonstrate that your argument of "people say KP is not the best" (i sum it up, hopefully correctly) - is not an argument which i can agree with; and i explained why. Einstein thing doesn't prove i am correct about KP being the best sponsor, yes; it only proves you didn't prove to me that AU is the best.

I am sure you can see the difference. :)


...
you've said multiple times now that you're "not an expert" on that topic - but yet you still claim that your "feeling" knows better than people who've actually spent time refining their strategies? ...
...
No, i don't claim that. Never have claimed that. Never meant that. I merely hope my feelings have a right to be expressed, and be taken for what it's worth, or skipped entirely - at every reader's choice.

...
But anyway, yes, it's time to end this now. Goodbye.
...
Oh, noes! Please, do not go. It was an excellent discussion, Ryika, you are one of very few who actually understand most of what i say (make it my fault if you want, - entirely; partially, it certainly is). But, if you must go, i sure can't and won't hold you here...

Sad face. :( :(
 
Reminds me of the freedom vs order thread in Civ5. A lot of talk with no data/experiment.
Yep - so far, it is exactly so. Who knows, may be it'll get required experiment illuminated in it in near future. The uncertainty about the future, again... %) It's in the core of everything "interesting", eh. :lol:
 
Please do take context into consideration. I mentioned Einstein not to prove my feeling or any point about KP; but only to demonstrate that your argument of "people say KP is not the best" (i sum it up, hopefully correctly) - is not an argument which i can agree with; and i explained why. Einstein thing doesn't prove i am correct about KP being the best sponsor, yes; it only proves you didn't prove to me that AU is the best.

I am sure you can see the difference. :)
No one was arguing about what can be proved to you. They argued about what was fact, then they argued about what facts are.
Neither of which is what you said about KP.

You can revise what you are saying, to maybe get to something that isn't false, but, explaining what you already said? Look, you know whether you did or did not say unjustified things because you know what you meant. Honestly no one cares what you meant. No one on the internet should ever think that other people care what he means. If you would like to move on to synthesizing more knowledge, you can continue.with that. This takes the form of presenting ideas for analysis (as far as the genesis of knowledge is understood in modern day, that is). Don't conflate that process with expressing "my [intuitions] which have a right [...] to be taken for what they're worth."
There is a charitable interpretation of the latter which folds into the former, indeed; however, the constraints of time and language demand some decorum and rigour from every speaker. I.e, you can offer an idea. You may ask for for information which people may help you with. But tying up the dialogue with rehashing and defense of "what I meant" without enough "this is how this statement can be true and relevant" does not help.

This is the offense of your posts. Please consider this advice carefully or not at all, as I promise you that reviewing an opinion like the above is pointless if not done with the right mind.
 
... Honestly no one cares what you meant. No one on the internet should ever think that other people care what he means. ...
This works both ways, sir. When "you" from this statement is, well, you, and one of "other people" is i - your statement declares that you should not ever think that i care what you mean.

Very well. I can provide that. And thank you for saving my time, too. :goodjob:
 
Fins why u dont try a game and win asap. then its proofen ur right
Because i only have vanilla version of the game, and i was told only after my previous post here was made (via PM) that patches make Apollo game _much_ longer (which i didn't realize before). The "pre-patch" term Ryika was using here - is not about 1.0 (which i assumed by literal meaning of "pre-patch" term), but about 1.1 version (as contrary to 1.2 version), which makes sense at this time - after this particular one patch, 1.2.

It was my very idea to try such a game, and i even made 90+ turns of it, but given said circumstances, it'd be rather pointless to compare my results in 1.0 with other people's results in 1.1 and/or 1.2. Unfortunate.

In fact, this very different understanding of the "pre-patch" term, which we two had - fueled much of this specific discussion; now that it's sorted, i am much more in agreement with Ryika, and i think, Ryika is much more in agreement with my words above also, - now that we both properly know what each of us meant. :)
 
Because i only have vanilla version of the game, and i was told only after my previous post here was made (via PM) that patches make Apollo game _much_ longer (which i didn't realize before). The "pre-patch" term Ryika was using here - is not about 1.0 (which i assumed by literal meaning of "pre-patch" term), but about 1.1 version (as contrary to 1.2 version), which makes sense at this time - after this particular one patch, 1.2.

It was my very idea to try such a game, and i even made 90+ turns of it, but given said circumstances, it'd be rather pointless to compare my results in 1.0 with other people's results in 1.1 and/or 1.2. Unfortunate.

In fact, this very different understanding of the "pre-patch" term, which we two had - fueled much of this specific discussion; now that it's sorted, i am much more in agreement with Ryika, and i think, Ryika is much more in agreement with my words above also, - now that we both properly know what each of us meant. :)
Wait, so all of your replies in this section and the strategy one was based off of your non-patched experience with the game? :lol:
 
This works both ways, sir. When "you" from this statement is, well, you, and one of "other people" is i - your statement declares that you should not ever think that i care what you mean.

Very well. I can provide that. And thank you for saving my time, too. :goodjob:

Yes, you don't need to care what I meant! You got it exactly!

Sometimes when I am reading someone who is endeavouring to convince me of Q, I come into the belief that P, or even an insight into an argument that P. Sometimes I don't adjust my attitude on Q at all. I would go so far as to say this is the majority of all conversations everywhere that ignoring Q's truth-value is socially possible.
 
Top Bottom