Grumpy Old Men AWP Hub

[Bezhukov]

If we're playing Monarch, I'd like to request no tech trading, or this will be a VERY uphill battle.

 

[ThERat]

in case you missed it, I started the new game here
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3849545#post3849545

 

[T_McC]

And the end:

Final kill ratio was 2855-296.

 

[Bezhukov]

Yeah, but did you build the bank in Lyons?

Lurkers want to know!

 

[Kylearan]

Hi,

congrats on your victory! Great game, great read, and very inspiring. So inspiring in fact that I tried it myself as well, and it went completely different to your game until now (~1200AD).

I'm a bit surprised that you "only" had a kil ratio of 10:1. I would have predicted one needs a better ratio to win.

-Kylearan

 

[ThERat]

great Team effort, we did learn a lot about AW I guess. We also had some interesting issues about the 10 turn rule

T_McC, could you post the save, since I'd like to watch the replay and add this game to my little HOD, though I guess the score won't be high.

I'm a bit surprised that you "only" had a kil ratio of 10:1. I would have predicted one needs a better ratio to win.

This is due to 2 factors, erratic sea battles and the fact that one needs to suicide a lot of cats and cannons for the success, the game was designed that way as we all know. In fact I think 10:1 is a great ratio, keep in mind armies do not exist any more, hopefully the expansion will do sth about this.

 

[Bezhukov]

The other factor was the outstanding quality of the lands on their spur, and not less the outstanding quality of T McC's regular play.

 

[knupp715]

This was a great game. I learned a lot about AW and Civ from this SG. For example, I learned that you probably shouldn't have the luxury slider on 30% if you don't need it, and especially if your in a golden age.

Thanks for the great game guys.

 

[romeothemonk]

The other factor was the outstanding quality of the lands on their spur, and not less the outstanding quality of T McC's regular play.

Actually, Bez, after playing with all of these guys, except Knupp, before, it is the combination of their unique skills that really plays AW well.

ThERat is meticilously detail oriented, picking up on things that others don't see and overlook. This coupled with fundamentally sound plays really amplifies the abilities of the others.

Greebley is a warmonger after my own heart. He really pushes out and moves everything forward.

Knupp is a willing student of the art.

T_McC is a consolidator. I like to think of him as Bernard Montgomery, the master of consolidating to acheive overwhelming local superiority.

All that said, I am really impressed with your teams play here. After you guys started this, I of course had to try. I had 3 false breakout attempts before the last one took allowing me to acheive domination 1 turn before the end. It was really cool to have a drill 4, combat 4, march cannon.
In AW first strikes and immunity to first strikes are a key.

 

[Bezhukov]

I think I stipulated that in an earlier post, but T McC is a garbage-collector extraordinare and merits special recognition.

 

[ThERat]

I do not think that anyone here played below par of what the others are capable of.

knupp has not played with us in AW before and he needs to adapt to each of our playing styles. I had no issues taking over turns after him.
I know Greebley too well after so many games together, it's a pleasure to play with him, T_McC knows the ins and outs here as well.

I think what made this a success are the combined efforts and ideas of the Team. There wouldn't be a point to play SG's, if everyone plays the same way and has the same ideas. You need different characters and ideas. Of course, sloppy play is not possible at this difficulty level.

So, I think it was the Team and not an individual who deserves special merit.

 

[Bezhukov]

Fair enough - your game.

 

[T_McC]

So here's the replay file for the game ...

It was a good team effort. Everyone was pretty new to C4AW, so we learned a new exploit or two: The AI doesn't understand Fortresses and their effect on the pathing algorithm. I was a little disappointed that we couldn't break the Incans pre-Grenadiers, but what are you gonna do? Naval invasions with Galleys are almost impossible with the way naval combat goes.

And we learned that AW isn't really implemented properly in Civ4. Why should the human suffer WW in an AW game? Part of the conceit has to be that the civilization thrives on warfare to the exclusion of all else. The correct way to implement AW is to treat the human as Barbarians under a different flag. So the human suffers no WW, ever, and the AI do not suffer any WW from fighting the human. If that's too difficult to program then make it no WW for anyone for anything. This would make the early- and mid-game easier, but the late game more difficult.

And the AI should not be receiving "Common Struggle" diplomatic bonuses, again, Barbarians under a different flag ... not that it would make much difference other than the possibility that the AI might occasionally fight with each other. This might also create different tech trading blocs so it would be less necessary to feel like you have to play No Tech Trading in conjunction with AW.

 

[ThERat]

And we learned that AW isn't really implemented properly in Civ4. [...] This might also create different tech trading blocs so it would be less necessary to feel like you have to play No Tech Trading in conjunction with AW.

These are excellent thoughts, T_McC. I fully agree with you. It's an entirely new game here in Civ4 and I have to say that the C3C version of AW was much better. It wasn't implemented or a planned concept then, but it was a truly enjoyable experience. I do not understand that an AW flag is available now and the implementation really falls short of what people would expect (at least us AW warmongers).
In AW games you will surely never get AI wars since they are 'fused' by the common enemy. Neither the AI nor the human has an option to escape WW via civics. This is astoundingly wrong. It really needs to be addressed, I do hope a patch or the expansion will help here.

For me, the WW concept is so broken (not only in AW, but also in any warmonger game), that I seriously consider stopping to play Civ4. It really annoys me to no end to be forced in every single war to fight fast and furious and go for peace quickly. There is no element that allows me to play a offensive strategic war. The overriding WW is always looming.
And I am not the player that likes to go for space or culture (it's another broken concept the way it is implemented). These victories are dull and really repetitive.
Sorry to rant here, but it seems few people are even discussing those issues.

 

[Bezhukov]

There are a lot more options for happiness in CivIV than CivIII, which offsets the WW somewhat. I was able to manage 22 WW unhappies well enough to stay in Representation in my AW game.

On the other hand, the one game I had where I actually had to fight an extended war with an AI of comparable strength, and where the AI kept redeclaring on me after I'd sued for peace, that was a real (unfun) *****. The Desert War scenario is also crippled by WW (a missing culture slider doesn't help).

 

[ThERat]

There are a lot more options for happiness in CivIV than CivIII, which offsets the WW somewhat. I was able to manage 22 WW unhappies well enough to stay in Representation in my AW game.

I agree to an extent. But, why should one suffer from WW if you get attacked and as you mentioned get attacked repeatedly. In another game (DG02 - facist variant) we fought Gandhi, then went for peace. Later on we started a war against Hatty and due to a defensive pact, Gandhi declared on us and the WW is immediately back, this is utter nonsense to me.

 

[Bezhukov]

As to your sig quote, the luxury of playing the odds is not one our merciless Mother Nature always affords us. Not all the bold are rewarded, indeed few are, but over time it is only the bold who survive...