1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Settling Great People

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by Artichoker, Feb 4, 2009.

  1. FlyinJohnnyL

    FlyinJohnnyL You need more workers....

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    While I don't agree with you, I *guess* I kinda understand your stance on TGW, 30. What I don't get, is your anti-mids preference. To me, mids is to SE what cottages are to CE (especially financial), and yet you're willing to use cottages with a financial leader. So what gives?

    Perhaps I'm off on this assessment as I rarely run much of an SE myself....
     
  2. 30+

    30+ Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    I used to play entirely with Gandhi and SE/FE when I first started playing and it seemed people were really hung up on SE and Mids. Like somehow you cannot use an effective SE if you don't use the Mids. I just don't buy into it and think the Mids are a crutch. That's just my choice. Many times even if I do take over a Capital with Mids I refuse to use Rep. I have reached Liberalism by 1 AD (yes, 1 ad) by bulbing and with no help of the Mids.

    YOU DONT NEED THE MIDS.

    The strength in a SE/FE comes from 2 things. Superior tech via bulbing (including trade, back fill, and selling techs for cash to keep research high) and superior production from the Whip. The strength of SE/FE is in no way, shape, or form dependent on the Mids. Keep in mind the way I use SE is geared towards the bulb, Big Tech, and an overwhelming number of units with help from the whip. This means it is necessary for me to use a Philo leader. If I used say Ramesses then it would make more since to lean on the Mids because you wouldn't produce the needed amount of GS for bulbing. Of course I feel the Mids are a crutch so I don't ever go that route with Non-Philo leaders.

    Just think if every single civilization in a game made it a priority to get the GW or to get the Mids. And when I say prioritize, I mean everyone in the game was immediately making an attempt to chop the damn Wonder out. Under those circumstances just how many times do you think you would actually get the GW or the Mids? The same can be said for some of my favorites, SH and OR and GL. Of course, not getting those don't effect your game nearly as much as not getting the GW or the Mids. So if you are unable to play with the GW or the Mids, what do you do from there? You play like a normal person not having them.

    I'm currently playing most of my games with Incan (CE) and Egypt (CE), although Ind + Mids would be better in a lot of cases (if not all!), but as noted, I don't like the Mids.

    EDIT: BY FAR, the free credit report song is the worst of all times....the one at the Fair Ground......Shoot me now!
     
  3. Levgre

    Levgre King

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    904
    I love the mids, assuming I have stone.

    +3 happiness in all cities means you don't need monarchy, and don't need garrisons.

    Great engineer for sure, if you hold off on other GP points in that city until then (use that city for hammers, run scientists in other ones).

    Tech literature since you don't need to tech monarchy, build/rush Great Library for +12 base beakers (21 with academy+lib) and all those valuable great scientists (don't even need to be philosophical for those GSs anymore).

    Just have to build 1-2 cities before you start, so they can take over fueling your expansion. And of course you play to map, if the map is very crowded Mids are probably not worth it, and focusing hammers on war is better, and just tech monarchy.
     
  4. assass1n

    assass1n Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    275
    Location:
    Pune,India
    @30+
    Something helps a certain strategy so you consider it a crutch ??
    why play as the Incas then I feel that the Quechuas are a crutch too
    your arguments are not valid about the mids as they are Expensive
    500 hammers (epic) without stone is equivalent to 15 forests (10 with Maths) and what do they give +3 beakers to SPECIALISTS and you need the food to run them and you can divert those hammers to 10 axes and take over another cap
     
  5. 30+

    30+ Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    I would still need monarchy...via trade of course because happy caps for me are 4/3. 7 happiness with a lack of other happiness resources just aint
    cutting it.

    Even that much sweeter with a Philo leader and Pacifism. Pulling in 100 GPP in the mid BCs is nice.

    I have no problem using my UU or UB. If you played with the Incans you would be able to use the quechua as well and whoever had more skill with the civilization would always play better. GW and Mids are not UU or UB and have the potential to drastically change the outlook of an entire game, not just an era.

    That's absurd. Although I do believe they are expensive (another reason not to build them), their are plenty of arguments which could be used to rationalize someones choice to build them. In lot's of cases there will be stone, or they will be Industrious, and you won't always get 10 Axes for the price to build them. Further, people who do like the Mids can easily argue that the benefit gained from your entire empire will be much greater than 1 or 2 cities (even with a capital) gained from the axes gained by not building them.

    Keep in mind as mentioned, I do not like the Mids and refuse to use them regardless what the circumstance are, but to be quite honest, your statement about them is preposterous. It's pretty amusing actually, lol :). So out of touch that you actually have me arguing with you when we both believe the Mids are not worth it, regardless of why.
     
  6. noto2

    noto2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    dude, leave him alone. So he likes to go for the mids, it's a favourite strategy of his. Many people have a favourite strategy. You probably don't realize it, but rushing to catapults and attacking someone is also a strategy, and if you do it all the time it's just the same as chopping out the mids every time. Or getting a religion and the oracle every time is another example. Personally, I don't play this way. I try to do radically different strategies every game. One game I'll wonderspam and settle great people, next game I'll war, war, war and go state property, next game I'll cottage spam and go US for a space win. I do it because I would get bored of the game quickly if I played two similar games back to back. It's the variation that keeps me playing. That said, I've certainly noticed that some strategies are much easier to win with than others (attacking with catapults, for example). I can understand someone repeating a strong strategy.
     
  7. assass1n

    assass1n Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    275
    Location:
    Pune,India
    @30+
    What I want to say is that you shouldn't brand something as a crutch just because the effects can be great because early game hammers are hard to come by and even with stone they are still expensive
     
  8. noto2

    noto2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    wait, you're arguing with a guy who thinks the only valid way of winning the game is through warfare.
     
  9. mirthadir

    mirthadir Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,194
    30+:

    The inca are a crutch; get over it.

    The quecha makes conquests viable that otherwise wouldn't be. It is, by far, more game altering. It certainly changes the outlook of the game when you kill Shaka when he has only archers in his cap compared to having to having to take down shock axes or deal with an early inbound stack of doom. Having lots of great land will make the game vastly different. In warlords it is even more of a crutch.

    I mean seriously let's look at this in economic terms. Being conservative let's say you lose 6 quecha to take down an enemy cap. That is 90 :hammers: by your numbers that should net you 20 :commerce: per turn. Thus over 100 turns you've gotten a return of 22.2 :commerce: : 1 :hammers:. Now let's take the mids 250 :hammers: being cheap; getting that type of return would require 19 specs to be run. How on earth you can say that the mids are a crutch while the quecha is not is beyond me. Of course you repetively advocate for a strategy that is horrible in BTS on higher difficulties without ever mentioning that you pretty much only play only early UU rushes on Warlords so I shouldn''t expect much from you.
     
  10. 30+

    30+ Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    I'm simply trying to be neutral. Just because I think something is a crutch doesn't mean someone else won't disagree and prefer building it. That's why you notice I don't like the Mids, ever, but at the same time 100% see why someone else would like them.........hence I defended them although I do not value them.

    At least when I describe them as I crutch I give a more reasonable definition of why imo they are. Assassin simply tries to bring in some bogus Hammer game against them. He forgets that an Industrious civilization with stone and with chopping could literally finish the mids in 6-7 turns. Where would his argument stand against the Mids then? You would have 5 cities x 3 extra tiles (happiness) = 15 extra tiles being worked + double the research from every specialist, etc etc etc. Mids would be far superior to his hammer argument then. Besides, it takes more skill to run a SE w/out the Mids.

    We've had this discussion before mirthadir, and you're already aware I've been very emphatic that I don't quechua rush in over 90% of my games and that I like the Ind/Fin trait combo. But once again, anyone who uses the same Civilization and whoever has the > skill will always score better, etc. Some people think Cyrus is a crutch with immortals. The list can go on forever. At the end of the day the person with the > skill with whomever you choose to use will have better results. Play a GOTM game and everyone has the same tools at their disposal.

    Anytime you wanna play a game with any race Mirthadir and post the results just let me know. I don't base my Civ skills around the quechua or any single unit :) as you seem to think. Your stuck on that for whatever reason. I guess it's what you try to rationalize to yourself anytime I post a comment. Hell, I'm talking about SE bulbing and you still find a way (piss poor at that ^^) attempting to dismiss anything I say by bringing up the Quechua! LOL. I would suggest getting over that :).

    @ noto

    Yes that's true ^^. I put much more skill involved in winning by domination or conquest than the other conditions. The other conditions allow someone to be vastly behind in score, land, power scale, etc, and still win. Try winning on a Huge map by domination compared to winning on the same map via Culture. Domination would require 40+ cities while a Cultural Victory would only require 6 (if). Honestly, which is more difficult? Managing and planning a 40+ city empire or a 6 city empire? Culture/SpaceRace/Diplomacy normally come to this; hitting enter until you achieve victory.

    On a last note for now, You Don't Need the Mids to run a SE. That was the point earlier. Now if someone wants discuss settling, bulbing, SE, Mids (which all fit into the OP topic) then let's do it. I'd love to hear why some people think using the Mids is a must when using a SE......or why you don't think they are necessary and how using them or not using them fits into a settled or bulbed strategy.
     
  11. mirthadir

    mirthadir Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,194
    I fail to see how everyone having the same tools with the same civ means that it isn't a crutch while everyone having a shot at the mids (which are not always worth it) isn't. The truth is early rushes on warlords are a crutch in the sense that they teach you bad habits which are not applicable outside of that version with those units. A non-arbitrary definition of crutch would be something required for a player to play "at their level"; something they always have to use and cannot play around. This can be wonders, early UU rushes, barb settings, map types, etc. whatever is done so that you play the strat and not the map.

    Just think about how it would be if every civ was massing units for an early rush and going to come knocking on your door with a high powered UU in the mid BCs. How often do you think you'd get the better end of that trade?

    And we've had this discussion before, the person with more skill more reliably wins (due to hedging and other effects I delineated before and you ignored); they do not have better results (early win date, higher scores, etc.) garunteed.

    I don't know if you quecha rush, only that whenever you make a claim your proof seems to rest on the Inca with and impractical amount of early land.

    Because you are wrong; bulbing a SE conquest economy works ludicriously well in warlords: the AI gets high pop for you doesn't go for a cultural win, and underdefends, the culture slider is accessible early, and yout tech leads are easier to leverage (i.e. cav come way too early relative to their power), and of course the warlords AI is noticeably worse about playing the lib race (the BTS one still sucks at it, but is an order of magnitude better at beating you to lib).

    The fact is outside of your "crutch" style of play, bulbing is not always the best option. If you have to fight an early war that garuntees a lib loss, if you have no trading partners, and if you are generating non-GSc GPs then the dynamics change.

    Really mate, why on earth would you expect one strategy based off handful of civs, to be universally the best overall?

    I've done both (though I don't play terribly much on huge due to the amount of time it takes to crunch AI turns). Conquest has been markedly easier (if more time consuming). Because AI-AI conflict increases with the square of the number of civs; there are better odds of backwards civs kicking around to kill, get more land, exploit, and then whack the tech leaders. Likewise due to AI deficiencies it is trivial for you to nerf a distant AI, they however suck at returning the favor. In addition the odds of finding a nice tech trading partner like MM go up substantially. Resource distribution and management are also easier on a big map (human performance relative to the AI) All told I find huge maps to be easier because it is easier to get the relations I want with the AIs, get the land I need to leverage to eventually outtech the AI and leverage a terminal tech/production lead.

    For example; I ran Elizabeth with peaceful expansion in the BCs, bribed Shaka and Monty to start WWI in the early ADs with a philo trade (off bulbs). At lib I ran redcoats/trebs and killed off one of the Frenchies while teching to Communism. Took the Kremlin, teched out to rocketry/fission, spammed a few GM missions, and promptly nuked away the worlds U. After that it was mop up. In contrast culture is just a bit harder, religion spread on large maps is crap and getting all your cathedrals is MUCH harder. Getting multiple wonders in one city is far harder (as the odds of there being more IND AIs with resources increases and the odds that some AI picks your wonder over another goes up as well), and turning up the culture slider essentially dooms your economy (unless you run SE with Sistine; normal SE of course gives the AI many more turns to make it to space). Even tried and true tricks like getting a DP to protect you are less viable.

    In general the AI is easier to deal with and leverage the larger you are with the more military you have. As far as hitting enter until you win, only with braindead Warlords AIs. As you start to fall down in power the AI smells blood and you either have to manage diplomacy to keep them from declaring, or actually fight wars at major production (because at least one of your best city slots is only making culture) and tech disadvantage. Then of course there is the problem that in BTS the AIs ACTUALLY TRY to win via culture; so you will have competition for wonders that the Warlords AI shunned. Many of my culture victories required me to detour into a: raze a major city, make peace, and then go back to gaining culture.

    Certainly on warlords with its moronic AIs culture is a gimme win, but for those playing BTS it is actually harder on the highest difficulties than domination.

    The real cheese win is not culture or space (both of which the AI is actually better at than domination prevention); but diplomatic wins. As shoddy as the Warlords tactical AI was, its diplomatic one was worse. Saddly this has only changed in degree, not kind in BTS.
     
  12. Nissin

    Nissin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44
    I see you guys are at it again. Settling and light bulbing both have their place. Neither are right or wrong. Quechua's can be a crutch. I don't know anyone who plays Warlords anymore 30+. Buy the game or get out? I am an Immortal and Deity player and think the AI for those levels is far easier in BTS though and to be honest they tech extremely slow. The great thing about BTS is the addition of new and fresh items which enhance game play. Who cares that the higher levels are easier. It's a better game now and not impossible to beat at Deity. 30+, you cant fairly judge BTS until you own it.
     
  13. mirthadir

    mirthadir Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,194
    Could you bother reading the exchange with comprehension instead of playing to a golden mean fallacy? I've already stated that that both are viable under various circumstances and even gone so far as to state when that is.

    Personally, I found Warlords to be easier. The AI was far more predictable and it was far easier to abuse early rushes, the AIs moronic tendencies with growing huge with little defenses was also far easier to take down. There was almost always one clearly optimal path that worked well to shoe horn your leader and map into.
     
  14. Nissin

    Nissin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44
    Ok mir. I'll leave you guys be and let you get back to your feud. It just seems that both of you guys always state your way is the correct way, end of story and even go as far to say "because you are wrong" when neither one of you are right or both of you have a good point of view. I bet a lot of people think the quechua is a crutch just like I know a lot of people think warlords is more difficult on the higher levels.

    Anyways, I'm sure people can tell when someone has good advice or is just causing waves. Have fun!
     
  15. CivCorpse

    CivCorpse Supreme Overlord of All

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,930
    RE: Warlords vs. BtS being harder. I lost on Warlords Diety...I lose on BtS Diety.

    RE: Crutchs. They have their place. When I move up a level I usually play Rome, Epic speed standard size. Then Marathon large then Marathon Huge. Why? Because by using a "crutch" I can basically go up 1/2 a level at first while learning the differences in gameplay. My current "crutch" is The Great Wall. Though I consider that a strategy rather than a crutch. It requires sacrifices beyond just hammers built. It requires burning through your hut gold researching techs you wouldn't normally prioritize. How often do you make your 2nd or 3rd tech Masonry?
    I agree that running an SE w/o the Mids requires more skill. But to be honest a skilled player uses everything at his/her disposal. Deliberately avoiding a benefit of your civ/leader because you think it is too easy is suboptimal play. If you don't go for the best early wonders and you don't Quecha rush, then why do you play HC in the vast majority of your games?
     
  16. mirthadir

    mirthadir Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,194
    Gods, can you lay on the golden mean fallacy more heavily? All opinions are not created equal and some people's point of view does not mesh with reality. 30+ makes factual claims about the relative strength of strats; he made exclusive always claims such that a single counter example proves him to be in error according to the rules of formal logic. Even more fun he makes universal absolutist claims about strategy against an AI he's never played and reveals many gaping holes in his comprehension of basic game mechanics (which seems to be because he, by his own admission, plays a fairly monotonous playstyle with only a handful of leaders) of the version he does play.

    The truth is, I don't have "a way" I do rigorous analysis and it isn't me talking, it is the math. If you say that x is "always" better than y; then you should be man enough to retract when a counter example is shown. When my numbers are shown to be wrong, I change "my" position.

    Quite frankly he gives bad advise if you apply it on high level BTS play and never bothers to tell people that he has never played against the AI the people to which he replies are seeking to defeat. When it gets pointed out that many of his tricks are no longer valid, and indeed that most of his strategy advise consists of attacking known weakspots in the warlords AIs, we are invariably treated

    The whole point of having a strategy forum is for people who want to learn how to improve their play to get good information that is applicable to them. If you leave something unqualified then it should be good information for general forum reader. If you only play a certain way and lack experience with the dominant AI you should not be making univeralist claims to people who may not be aware of those facts. Certainly, the honest thing to do is to be up front that you only play a limited selection of the game.
     
  17. Yesod

    Yesod Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Messages:
    278
    :lol:

    He said "gods"...:mischief:
     
  18. noto2

    noto2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    Wow, that's frakked up
     
  19. noto2

    noto2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    Oh, but you were talking about ease of victory types. Well, I disagree that warfare takes more skill. If anything, it's the other way around. I win more than half of my monarch games when using a warlike strategy...actually, I win the vast majority of the time. When pursuing a peaceful building strategy though...meh...sometimes I get it sometimes I don't. I find the AI bonuses add up to such an incredible level in the late game that it's just so hard to beat them. Firaxis made the game a little lame actually in that regard in that the AI gets era bonuses. That's why the AI is so easy to beat up before the industrial age. By the modern age it has turned into a monster, which is why it's usually much easier to win the game before anyone even builds a factory.
     
  20. Stolen Rutters

    Stolen Rutters Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,100
    Location:
    Michigan
    I will settle a great person if I have nothing for it to do. For me, it's a secondary choice.

    Example: I get a great artist, and I can't use it for a golden age, I'll settle near the border. (For instance, I'm saving a great merchant or great engineer for a corp, I can't risk losing them for a 3-great-person golden age... I love corps. I found myself delaying a diplo victory just so I could use corps! Sorry artist, you're settling down.)
     

Share This Page