Sorry, imprecise wording. My impression was that 1060 is a weak date for the Inca, that is, it could be beaten by the best Religious Victory players in two or three tries using Inca. Obviously a large number of tries was not sufficient to beat it with a non-Inca leader.
G-Minor 156
- Thread starter Ozbenno
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
You are alone in this opinion.
It is weak, because the Inca Empire can win much earlier than this. With your experience playing Inca games, surely you should how to best do this.
You how many months and attempts did it take you to achieve this marvelous feat of a t49 Inca win using Tribal Villages? Three t50 non-Inca gauntlet wins were achieved in 2 weeks without using Tribal Villages. I really don't see how you can say its such a strong Inca win when challenged so closely by non-Inca wins. The margin between the Inca and non-Inca wins should be far greater than a single turn. The Finacial trait alone is worth several turns which the non-Inca wins did not have.
I honest don't understand why you are so unwilling to admit that the turn 49 Inca win is weak considering it has the enormous advantages of the best possible traits for RL DV and the best possible t0 unique unit, capable of capturing cities, and the best possible Warrior based Worker stealer.
Sun Tzu Wu
I couldn't agree more...but at the same time, I find these games so addicting! Well, the truth of the matter is that I find the the competition to be the addicting factor.
I love these competitive games so much! For example, after I submit a game that is competitive, I check the table several times a day to see in which place it falls. I have been in the unenviable position that Pollina was in for this gauntlet--in first place for most of the gauntlet, then a game pops up on the last day that knocks you out of first place. For this gauntlet, Pollina was very humble and generous in describing his game. I was really surprised that the fourth game I submitted vaulted me into first place, because my previous submission improved my best submission by two turns, but gained me no improvement in the standings.
You are wrong, I share the opinion that it is not a weak game. This is so subjective that I find the argument to be foolish.
I really cannot tolerate the discussions that have gone on recently in the HoF forums. I intend to state my opinion, but apologize in advance that I will not publicly (and most likely not privately) respond to any rebuttal comments.
- I tip my cap to WastinTime for coming up with a new religious strategy using the Quechua attributes to blow away the previous top scores.
- I was also the one who pushed the HoF moderators to ban the liberation exploit. Honestly, I now realize that the Quechua strategy is more damning than the liberation exploit.
- Previously, I honestly had no interest in pursuing any of the top religious victory slots in the HoF other than for purposes of providing a good-natured annoyance to STW.
- The deity religious HoF table has been totally devalued. It has opened my eyes to see what I have always known (but never admitted to myself): Nerfed game settings create an artificial setting where
"tricks"unbalances settings (non-ancient starts, huts, PA, Inca) can be used to overcome solid play. Of course, just because a game played with any of the previously named settings is used does not mean a game is not played with superior strategy and execution.
I am also tired of the passive aggressive jabs being made toward WastinTime and his Inca games. Step up, stop complaining, adapt and persevere or get over it!
Couldn't agree more
Remember that the HoF table is just about finding the best times possible given the restrictions placed on you. One leader is always going to come out tops for whatever reason, just the nature of the game. If you don't like that it is Inca, then you can still play gauntlets, challenges and go for a good EQM score. I know I can't compete with the better players here so I set myself lower goals than having Deity #1 slots.
WastinTime has a nice lead at the top of the Deity EQM table, where Inca is banned, so I'm sure that his/her domination of the Deity Religious tables is more to do with being a great Civ player than the Inca being overpowered.
Incorrect, it is you that is alone in your opinion.
Amen!!!
As I have said before, the persistent attacks have diminished the attacker.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
I am truly sorry that some people precieve my comments as attacking WastinTime. I'm simply in favor of an Inca filter. It's nothing personal; its just a game we enjoy in our free-time.
I still maintain that an Inca t49 win with Tribal Villages isn't that strong as three non-Inca t50 wins without Tribal Villages. I ask everyone to examine this comparison objectively without getting overly emotion or assuming motivations that may not actually exist.
Sun Tzu Wu
I still maintain that an Inca t49 win with Tribal Villages isn't that strong as three non-Inca t50 wins without Tribal Villages. I ask everyone to examine this comparison objectively without getting overly emotion or assuming motivations that may not actually exist.
Sun Tzu Wu
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 7,920
Reason #1 for this gauntlet is coincidental. So let's go on to the real reason for this gauntlet, reason #2, highlighted above in DarkRed font.
There are at least four components to the question raised in reason #2 above:
1) Can the winners of this gauntlet actually defeat the #1 game in this slot?
Close, but "no cigar".
2) Is the Inca win in this slot strong or weak. If strong and the gauntlet winners defeat it that suggests that non-Inca is stronger than Inca. If strong and the gauntlet winners narrowly lose, or if weak and the gauntlet winners defeat it narrowly that doesn't answer the question either way. If weak and the gauntlet winners fail to defeat it that suggests that Inca is much stronger.
I suppose Firmlife and I are in the minority that believe the t49 win with Tribal Villages was a weak #1 game, given the Civ was Inca. Quite honestly, I haven't seen any convincing argument that the #1 t49 Inca win is at all a strong Inca win. We can compare it to the Tiny Quick non-Inca win which is t43, a very strong game for a non-Inca win; a strong Inca game might be t40 for Tiny Quick. With due respect to my fellow winners, a Small Quick non-Inca t50 win isn't especially strong; I'd expect a strong win it to be at least t48. Based on that I'd estimate that a strong Small Quick Inca win to be t45. I grant that this is all speculation on my part, but I have had some small experiences with RL DV wins, so I'd hope you'd agree they should be given some consideration.
My point is that a well reasoned assessment of the strength of the #1 Small Quick Inca win is especially relevant to this Minor Gauntlet.
3) How strong is the Inca Empire on Quick speed?
Many have assumed that the Inca's Quechua is especially powerful on Marathon speed and they are absolutely correct. But how does the fact that Quechua can be built t0 affect the Quechua's power on faster speeds? On Duel Quick Conquest, Inca is #1 with a t11 win (earliest possible). How is this relevant to other map Sizes, in particular Small? The same technique can be used to used to kill an AI's 2 Archer defenders of its 2nd Settler with the original Quechua with the possible help of a second Quechua built t2. This will provide Inca with a very early Worker. The odds of this are low, but certainly much higher than doing this and capturing the AI's capital by t10 as in the Duel Quick Conquest games. A very early captured Worker allows Inca to continue more Quechuas or start a Worker at t2 or wait till t5 for Population 2. One Worker and 6 Quechuas or Two Workers and two Quechuas by t10; both are strong strategies for RL DV.
4) How does this relate to other Deity Victories Conditions as mentioned by Reason #2?
Is is the toughest part of the question. Looking at the Deity HoF Table, one can see that the Inca Empire has done quite well with the Domination Victory sweeping the lower Map sizes at all game speeds. It remains to be seen whether it can take the rest of the Map sizes at all game speeds. Surprisingly, the Inca Empire hasn't done quite as well with Deity Conquest Victory, but it does completely domination the Marathon speed row, Duel map column and most of the Tiny map column. For other Victory Conditions, it has used primarily at Marathon speed and smaller maps, but if the Domination Victory sweep is a valid clue, the Inca Empire should have similar success in most other Victory Conditions too. If you can dominate the map, you can win by any other Victory Condition, except RL DV which is actually where the Inca Empire is strongest.
From the above, I hope everyone understands that I'm taking a reasoned approach to this discussion. I haven't the least bit of interest in attacking people, but that doesn't mean I won't attack their arguments. There's a huge difference between the two; I have made some mistakes in the past in this regard; I will not make them again, since as neilmeister points out; attacking people only diminishes the attacker. In any case, I will continue attacking arguments that in my honest opinion are wrong and that's part of the reason we have these forums.
Sun Tzu Wu
And I will certainly continue to appreciate and respect you for doing this.
Similar threads
