How do you defeat the Apostolic Palace?

[Bast]

Hi guys, check out my suggestion thread in BTS: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=240390

Let me know what you think.

 

[r_rolo1]

I think most of the problems atached with the AP ( and by the way in the UN too ) would be solved if:

-1 AP per religion ( it makes more sense than a muslim player acepts the dictum of the Pope or of the Dalai Lama about who is the World Leader )

-For a diplo win all of the remaining civs should had agreed in your victory, leading to a war against the recalcitrant civs by the ones that had agreed on the winner ( like in SMAC )

Just a idea....

 

[Ankh]

I didn't say that the victories made no sense. I said it made no sense that, in a game, one can elect oneself winner. This is stupid from a gameplay standpoint, not from a pseudo-realistic one.

I think is fine from a gameplay standpoint you think it's stupid our opinions differ here nothing more to say about this.

This comment is utterly useless. People should stop talking about balance, strategies, and anything about the game, then, since "if you don't like it, just don't play it".

Not true, diplomatic victory is gamebreaking and it's understandable from a gamepoint view that some players wont like it that's why there's an option to play without it. That's why you cant turn things off like great ppl or certian buildings/units.

A misisonary costs 40 hammers at normal speed. How hard is it to build a few for those cities that weren't connected to the holy city?
And regardless, how would it be more difficult than someone trying to go for a cultural victory? That's why i said it was an easy tactic for someone who is comfortable at a difficulty level: because you simply have to turtle

A culture victory is probably easier to pull of so you answered you own question here. Sure an AP victory is an easy tactic if you are comfortable playing on a certain level but so are all the different victories. Best solution: advance a level so the game becomes more challenging.

give in whenever someone threatens you, beelining for Theology while build/early-capturing 10 cities. Once all are converted, you send one missionary to every other civ, and proceed on electing yourself a leader. Clearly you must admit it's one of the easiest way to win the game, since you're basically doing nothing but turtling.

A culture win is easier to pull off maybe it's the culture victory that is broken?

Once again, let me state that i like the option of a diplomatic victory, and i like the concept behind the Apostolic Palace. It's just the mechanisms that are broken at the moment, like other mechanisms are. A simple example: some believe Corporations are broken. Would you go to every thread where people discuss this and tell them they can just play with Warlords, where Corporations don't exist, if they don't like the way they work

You think its broken i think it's fine and i'll tried to explain why I think so. About your statment about corporations is just a punch in thin air so I wont comment on that.

Basically when I play on a difficulty I find challenging I find that the path to an AP victory is as hard to pursue as any other victory. If I felt the AP victory was broken or cheesy or gamebreaking somehow I whould persue that strat everytime I played to be able to win but I wont since I know I just can't pull an AP win off from some starts. That to me is an example that the AP is fine and balanced.

 

[Percy]

I think is fine from a gameplay standpoint you think it's stupid our opinions differ here nothing more to say about this.

You think it's ok to win a game by snapping your fingers. Ok.

Not true, diplomatic victory is gamebreaking and it's understandable from a gamepoint view that some players wont like it that's why there's an option to play without it. That's why you cant turn things off like great ppl or certian buildings/units.

By that reasoning, other things are gamebreaking, such as:
Razing Cities,
Barbarians,
Making Peace or War,
Tribal Villages,
You Get The Idea.

A culture victory is probably easier to pull of so you answered you own question here. Sure an AP victory is an easy tactic if you are comfortable playing on a certain level but so are all the different victories. Best solution: advance a level so the game becomes more challenging.

A cultural victory is easier? Riiiiiiiight. Explain, prove, please. Because as it stands, it's just words in the air. And by "comfortable", i explained what i meant precisely: being able to keep up a bit in tech, to have decent diplomacy to avoid being DoWed, and that's it.
As for the "move up a level", well, then again, so it's useless to debate about whether things are broken or not, the answer will always be "move up/down a level". Very interesting.

A culture win is easier to pull off maybe it's the culture victory that is broken?

See above.

You think its broken i think it's fine and i'll tried to explain why I think so. About your statment about corporations is just a punch in thin air so I wont comment on that.

No, it's not. Plenty of people argue that it's broken. I don't know if it is or not, but in any case, it's discussion that will help determine it. If people kept repeating "then just don't play with Corporations", then it wouldn't be fixed if it needed to be. It's the same for every single bit of gameplay in the game, if everytime someone argues (i said "argues", not simply "states") something is not right, someone else answers "move up/down a level", then nothing gets fixed, ever.

Basically when I play on a difficulty I find challenging I find that the path to an AP victory is as hard to pursue as any other victory. If I felt the AP victory was broken or cheesy or gamebreaking somehow I whould persue that strat everytime I played to be able to win but I wont since I know I just can't pull an AP win off from some starts. That to me is an example that the AP is fine and balanced.

How does it prove anything, at all? You don't find it easy? Fine. How many times have you tried? Because, before cleaning my save folder, i seem to remember my best scores in the HoF were from an AP-diplomatic victory. By your standards, it's a proof it's easier and more efficient than the other ones.

 

[Ankh]

Percy: You arn't really contributing anything new to this discussion now and if you want to continue it I suggest you bring something new to the table, because we are just starting to repeat ourselves now.

 

[Percy]

Bringing something new? Showing that reasoning such as "Not true, diplomatic victory is gamebreaking and it's understandable from a gamepoint view that some players wont like it that's why there's an option to play without it. That's why you cant turn things off like great ppl or certian buildings/units." is flawed, is actually countering your arguments by logic and fact, thus bringing something new to the table, i believe.

 

[Ankh]

Bringing something new? Showing that reasoning such as "Not true, diplomatic victory is gamebreaking and it's understandable from a gamepoint view that some players wont like it that's why there's an option to play without it. That's why you cant turn things off like great ppl or certian buildings/units." is flawed, is actually countering your arguments by logic and fact, thus bringing something new to the table, i believe.

Uh?? so how are you countering my arguments by logic and fact?? I stated that diplomacy is gamebreaking to the game thats why you can turn it off and you "countered" this with:

By that reasoning, other things are gamebreaking, such as:
Razing Cities,
Barbarians,
Making Peace or War,
Tribal Villages,
You Get The Idea.

All that you posted have a serious impact on the game and hence can be disabled just like the AP diplomatic win as we were discussing remember?. This dosn't bring anything new to the table and i'm sorry to say: this isn't going anywhere.

Iv'e stated why I think the AP is fine and you can think it's broken all you want but I think its already proven that it isnt so horrible broken after all, sure it has issues but most things have, sure it can be improved etc. But it aint gamebreaking. The OP lost a game becasue of a vote and solutions to that problems were posted as theocracy.

AP wins on the highest levels are far from easy it's been said by me and other ppl in this thread also proves the AP aint broken.

You may think it is and if you do you have the option to disable it just as a player who hates barbarian can disable them or a builder who wants to play peacefully can disable war.

 

[Percy]

You didn't understand. You go by the logic that the AP should be gamebreaking (as in, unbalanced), which is proven by the fact it is disabled.

So, by the same logic, since it is possible to disable war, then you think War is gamebreaking (as in, unbalanced), or should be? Same for Peace? Same for Razing Cities?

This makes absolutely no sense. This is countering your argument by facts and logic, hence contributing something new to the debate (because a debate is about arguments, remember?).

AP wins on the highest levels are far from easy it's been said by me and other ppl in this thread also proves the AP aint broken.

Ah, but many have said that, like me, they think it is actually broken. So, again, this argument is null. Besides, as a general comment, i'd like to point out that popularity and truth are two different things. The majority is not always right. Urban legends and folk beliefs are here to prove this to us.

You may think it is and if you do you have the option to disable it just as a player who hates barbarian can disable them or a builder who wants to play peacefully can disable war.

Let's take the following hypothetic situation:
With the next patch, there are changes to the way Barbarians work:
- they can spawn on a square near your city
- you cannot attack them
- when they attack a city, they take it without a fight, destroying the defending units in the process.

This is absurd and completely unbalanced, right? Well, according to your logic, this would be fine, and players shouldn't complain about it and discuss modifications of the system, because one can safely disable them if they don't like them.

My logic is that, in spite of the fact that you can disable something or not, it is very worthwhile to point out the flaws in the game so that it becomes better. Being able to vote yourself to religious leader by having your entire empire converted to a religion, and only one single city per each remaining civilization converted to that religion, is utterly absurd, and makes no sense, neither realistically (which is not that important in a game after all), nor, more importantly, from a balanced gameplay standpoint.

 

[Ankh]

You didn't understand. You go by the logic that the AP should be gamebreaking (as in, unbalanced), which is proven by the fact it is disabled.

So, by the same logic, since it is possible to disable war, then you think War is gamebreaking (as in, unbalanced), or should be? Same for Peace? Same for Razing Cities?

Now your just being irrational stay serious please.

Ah, but many have said that, like me, they think it is actually broken. So, again, this argument is null. Besides, as a general comment, i'd like to point out that popularity and truth are two different things. The majority is not always right. Urban legends and folk beliefs are here to prove this to us.

You think the AP is stupid Yes and i'm claiming it isn't. This may come as a surprise for you but there are actually people with a different opionion then yours outside in the big world.

Let's take the following hypothetic situation:
With the next patch, there are changes to the way Barbarians work:
- they can spawn on a square near your city
- you cannot attack them
- when they attack a city, they take it without a fight, destroying the defending units in the process.

This is absurd and completely unbalanced, right? Well, according to your logic, this would be fine, and players shouldn't complain about it and discuss modifications of the system, because one can safely disable them if they don't like them.

This whould just be bad game design and have nothing to do with my logic you're just being desparate now.

My logic is that, in spite of the fact that you can disable something or not, it is very worthwhile to point out the flaws in the game so that it becomes better. Being able to vote yourself to religious leader by having your entire empire converted to a religion, and only one single city per each remaining civilization converted to that religion, is utterly absurd, and makes no sense, neither realistically (which is not that important in a game after all), nor, more importantly, from a balanced gameplay standpoint.

That is your opinion, I disagree and i'm not going to start a crusade to convince you othervise. I have said in my earlier posts why I think the AP is fine and explained why. If you cant think outside the box and understand my opinion why I think the palace is fine then we have nothing more to discuss. You need to open your views and not get all defensive you know, to a degree I agree with you but it seems like you missed that in your blind defensive rage.

 

[Percy]

Now your just being irrational stay serious please.

This whould just be bad game design and have nothing to do with my logic you're just being desparate now.

Please don't throw ad hominem attacks. Either you have the arguments to contradict a reasoning, and you post them, or you don't. Posting "you're being desperate" is not an argument.

You think the AP is stupid Yes and i'm claiming it isn't. This may come as a surprise for you but there are actually people with a different opionion then yours outside in the big world.

You are joking, right?
Look, this is how the discussion went: you said that you thought it was fine, and that, since others shared that view, it was right. I simply countered that by saying that people thought like me as well. So the fact that others share your or my opinion is actually not at all relevant.
Once again, you're turning to personal attacks and criticism instead of focusing on discussing the ideas themselves.

That is your opinion, I disagree and i'm not going to start a crusade to convince you othervise.

Well, i'm not having this discussion alone, have I? I'm not answering to myself, am I? So you're obviously interested enough in convincing others. So please don't act all detached trying to make me look as if i'm taking this too seriously when you have the same behaviour on the issue.

I have said in my earlier posts why I think the AP is fine and explained why. If you cant think outside the box and understand my opinion why I think the palace is fine then we have nothing more to discuss.

Please correct me if i'm wrong: you've been saying that the AP was fine because diplomatic win could be disabled. If this was not the case, would you still think that the AP is perfectly fine?
As a sidenote, you still haven't explained why you think it makes sense from any perspective to be able to push a button and decide you're the world's diplomatic leader all by yourself. I'm not talking about saying "that's fine", i'm talking about giving arguments in favor of this opinion.

You need to open your views and not get all defensive you know, to a degree I agree with you but it seems like you missed that in your blind defensive rage.

You need to open your views and not get all defensive you know, to a degree I agree with you but it seems like you missed that in your blind defensive rage.

That's it, i've said it to you as well. And we can all see how this type of attacks is leading nowhere. So, please, for the last time, can you keep on posting about facts, reasoning, arguments, and logic, or not post at all, please?

 

[Ankh]

Please correct me if i'm wrong: you've been saying that the AP was fine because diplomatic win could be disabled. If this was not the case, would you still think that the AP is perfectly fine?

This is wrong as many other things you claim i have said! Iv'e been saying that the AP is fine as it is regardless if you can disable it or not i've said for those people who dont like it you have the option to disable the diplomatic aspect of it.

Percy I dont understand if you are misunderstanding me the whole time on purpose or if you just dont understand at all what i'm saying and drawing some strange conclusion based on that. I could respond to you more but it whouldn't lead anywhere and only deterioate this thread even more.

Now if you think it's easy to win an AP diplomatic win please try it on emperor+ and you'll soon find out that the AP is far from broken.

 

[Percy]

This is wrong as many other things you claim i have said! Iv'e been saying that the AP is fine as it is regardless if you can disable it or not i've said for those people who dont like it you have the option to disable the diplomatic aspect of it.

Ok, then maybe i misunderstood. I don't have the patience to go through the thread to verify. But if that is the case, then all this time you've been saying that, you have not been contributing to the debate at all, because the question was not about liking or disliking the AP. I like it. I just think the mechanism is broken.

Percy I dont understand if you are misunderstanding me the whole time on purpose or if you just dont understand at all what i'm saying and drawing some strange conclusion based on that.

I think you have been mixing two separate issues:
- is the AP fine as a game feature?
- is the AP broken in its current mechanism?
You have constantly been answering one by referring to the other, which is just not a good practice, and not very useful.

I could respond to you more but it whouldn't lead anywhere and only deterioate this thread even more.

So far, what has been deteriorating the thread is the ad hominem attacks towards me, as well as your inability or unwillingness to provide strong argument to the fact that it's ok to vote yourself the world's religious leader.

Now if you think it's easy to win an AP diplomatic win please try it on emperor+ and you'll soon find out that the AP is far from broken.

This is a non-argument.
Let me show you that by, once again, using an absurd case: if there was a way for a player to win the game instantly by pressing a button once he reaches 1000 AD, the game wouldn't be fair and interesting, and it would be, as you said earlier, poor game design. Yet, a noob wouldn't be able to do this on Emperor, since he would be long dead by then.
By the same reasoning, i cannot prove to you it's easy to do on Emperor, because i cannot play Emperor. In fact, i'm hardly enjoying Monarch because the AI builds so many units, and War Weariness is really annoying, so i have to stop warring after a very short while, and since i'm trying to stop overbuilding, this is bad.
On the other hand, on the difficulties i'm playing, diplomatic have been the easiest victories i've achieved.

 

[FrancisMarion]

The only question that concerns me is:

Do you think the AP victory is something that should be modified in the next patch?

My vote is definitely yes.

 

[SickCycle]

I defy resolution then burn whatever city it's located in

Alternatively... I convert to the religion and spread it to my cities and elect myself its ruler or get people I'm friendly with elected.. or.. build it myself.. or.. use espionage to change there religion thus they can't be elected ooooo that one is the best specially if they are just about to build it and you get it locked into "your" religion then when they switch back they just wasted a bunch of hammers..

I never actually tried that last one but it sounds good once the palace is built it's locked into the religion it was founded under, yes? or does it change with the host?

Either way, it's a good plan.

People always want to change the game because they can't get around it, this is broke because... [fill in excuse] It's sad really

 

[SickCycle]

How are diplo victories easy... no one ever votes for me, they vote for themselves

The only way I've ever done it is to conquer the entire world and vassal them all and then if you start to get bored and don't feel like taking the other continents you push the little "Win" button. and start a new game

If it bothers you to push a button and win your game.. don't push it How often does the computer pull that off seriously, I've never seen it, actually it happened once to me but with the United Nations. I was on an island and running a super city I was up in techs I invaded the coast and took 6-9 cities and then made them a colony, I teched him everything and gave him all the gold I was making and he took over most the world, so he just voted for himself... sucked, worst part was he was "my" colony..

Seriously tho, it's one game in fifty where that happens.

Also as someone already stated, run theology if your that afraid of the little palace, in order for a diplo victory to even be an option the religion has to be in every civilization in the world.. if it's not in any of your cities the option will never appear..

Homer says: S M A R T

 

[Percy]

There's this nice little "edit" button, which is supposed to allow people to NOT double post.

Also, it's not because i cannot get around it that it sucks. I've never lost to the AI because of that. It's not because i can push a magic "win" button either, because i usually chose not to push it. It's just that the mechanisms are broken and make no sense, and could be made into something actually interesting, instead of being a feature that a) isn't used by the AI b) shouldn't be used by the player because you seem to agree it's too easy.

 

[travathian]

AP wins on the highest levels are far from easy it's been said by me and other ppl in this thread also proves the AP aint broken.

Your logic is so terribly flawed its baffling. Something being possible in know way validates or invalidates whether or not the AP is flawed. You really need to take an intro to logic course because most everything you have said this last page is built upon fallacy. Obviously winning by AP is harder at the higher difficulties, winning in general is more difficult at the higher difficulties. If it were considerably easier to win via AP at the higher difficulties than the lower ones, then you could propose that the AP is broken. Unfortunately you can't simply reverse an argument and claim that is true as well.

 

[FrancisMarion]

So far I've read several compelling reasons why at the very least minor adjustments are desirable. The only argument I've heard for keeping it the same is: lrn 2 play n00bs!

And it seems to me the people who are defending it really aren't affected by the AP, so why do y'all care if it's changed for the better?

 

[SickCycle]

Nothing is perfect, give it time they will tinker with all the new features and a bunch of things will get a nice overhaul.

Patience grasshoppa.

 

[uberfish]

My opinion is that AP is broken.

Having 1 religion in 1 city shouldn't be sufficient to screw a civ over with the various resolutions, never mind the diplomatic victory. At the very least the religion should be present in half the civ's cities before there is any effect from defying AP resolutions.