Random events and huts.

[rah]

Using combat as a comparison isn't the same since combat is why I'm playing the game

I'm not saying I don't use slavery. I just don't run it the whole game like some here do. And I don't change on a whim, I plan them to minimize the losses like everyone does on civic changes.
And I don't prepare for for the Aryans either even though there are many games where it happens and it isn't a game ender. (and I would like to keep that one event out of the discussion even though it seems impossible. It does seem to be the one event that everyone thinks is absurd) I've just been in so many MP games where the slave event has had impact that choosing not to use slaver all the time could be considered a strategic decision. I do wish it's occurrence was more consistent.

And I appreciate that you note the facts and don't outright insult me.

I would love to see a numbers analysis (i'm sure they are out there in older threads) on the benefits of whipping later in the game when all your cities are large enough to produce the units in less than three turns anyway. I can't get my head around that its a benefit at that point. Early on when you can replace the pop in a matter of a few turns and the land isn't as mature, is easy to see the benefit.

 

[lymond]

There was nothing in my post that was meant to be insulting or condescending. You are looking to pick fights where none exist. The "role-playing" comment was a generalization. You make the comment to the affect "it's just a game". Well, that works both ways.

I mentioned also that there's nothing wrong with playing events if you enjoy them. I think it's great that your MP group plays together and gets enjoyment out of them. The point though is that this is a Strategy forum and the experienced group here generally does not advise events/huts for improving your game and moving to the highest level. You will find very little agreement there although you are free to argue it til the end of time. Doesn't mean one should not play and enjoy events if they so choose - there are many who do.

As for slavery late game and with higher population there are articles/post on the numbers around here somewhere if you look. The answer is that whipping is less efficient at that stage and actually starts becoming less so I think once you hit the 6 or 7 pop though. This does not mean it is not extremely useful...let's say midgame. I think you find many eventually move away from slavery as the game progresses, if playing a late victory. It's invaluable though for a long time in conquest/dom games. However, the late game slavery argument IMO has no bearing at all on the events/huts argument. It's irrelevant.

Also, you mention wishing Aryans not being mentioned. But the fact is that is there, along with quite a few other broken events. However, the issue is much larger than an event here or there, but the overall implementation of the event system in a strategy game such as CIV. I'm not saying it doesn't add a bit of flavour for those who prefer that aspect, but it certainly doesn't work for comparative or competitive purpose and does not scale for difficulty. This includes huts as well.

edit: I'd like to clarify "role-playing" context as strictly in terms of playing Civ. Not role-playing games in general. There are different ways folks play the game and many, including myself, enjoy role playing as well or playing scenarios - such as with modpacks or delivered content. In other words, where CIV becomes more than just a mere strategy game.

 

[rah]

The point though is that this is a Strategy forum

Actually this is the CIV IV general discussion forum. But that's just being picky

I'm not looking for a fight, just a discussion but there are people here that are inferring that I can't be considered a serious player because I use event in our MP games. That is just an opinion which I took offense to. If that was not the intent then fine, I'm wrong. I have already conceded that they don't belong in comparison games, and have not once tried to insult people by saying that if you play against a stupid AI instead of other humans that it makes you a lesser player. I just expect the same respect.

I came hear to learn. And there are quite a few that I've picked up some tips from, But the game we play is sooooooo much different then the one you guys play. We play NTT, no vassals, aggressive AI, events and huts, no DV. (only use AIs to fill a map when necessary) This makes comparison on the value of some of stats here really difficult, and trying to coax what I'm looking for tricky. So I guess I get a bit touchy when people infer that we're not playing competitive CIV since we're not playing what you are. You're playing against other humans through comparisons, we're doing it head to head. Which is more competitive is open to debate. Building worker first means an early elimination in our games usually, but is the common strat in SP. There are so many differences.

 

[gps]

Random Events suck and there's nothing you can say that will change my mind on that fact. They don't belong in the standard CIV game.

Well, that's a bold statement considering the fact that they actually are in the standard version - of BTS at least. You may not like them, many people may not like them, even if noone liked them that does not change the fact that they actually are in the standard version. And they are there because the game designers - for me the ultimate authority regarding what belongs in the game - decided to have them there. And they even gave you the option to turn them off if you don't like them, so I don't really see the big issue here. From my point of view they did everything they could do to please everyone. Random events must have some impact and even sometimes put your game at risk - otherwise they are pointless. And if I think back to the good old Civilization I days I remember many games ending after only a couple of turns because my baby civilization was killed of by a massive barbarian uprising. So I'd say randomnes and the risk of failure actually has some tradition in 'standard' CIV games...
I have all respect for people who want to play this game 'competitively', I have a lot of respect for the scores they reach and for how they beat deity level games - which I could not. But sometimes it's also a bid ridiculous to read from people who spend three weeks recreating map after map after map until they have the perfect starting position to get a new highscore or know exactly which tech to research now to be able to trade it for another tech they know they need and they know the AI will have available 15 turns later. They know the game mechanics so well they reduced their strategy on playing the game mechanics rather than playing a historic strategy game. But to each their own. Sometimes I just wonder, if it's not more 'competitive' to just play the game the way it is, and try to deal with and survive what is thrown at you: all the nasty stuff like ramdom events, AI ruining your play with AP decisions that do not fit your strategy, etc. This might not always result in a win or a new highscore. But I don't think it's less competitive or less strategic or whatever. Civ is a game that tries to recreate an alternate world history. And in world history things can go random, things can go wrong and things can go totally against what would be best for your highscore...

 

[RD-BH]

I've got good news and bad news ...

Good News) You've qualified for the final round of competition.

Bad News) You're first three cities will be Atlantis, Pompeii, and Herculaneum.

... it sucks to be you 8)