Shadow of Saladin: ALC 22 Part 2 DFA Economy

[vicawoo]

Am I a bad player if I don't believe in choking cities? Maybe I'll never win the GOTM, but to me it just seems like too cheap a strategy.

It's ok as long as you don't have to worry about diplomatic repercussions. Good when you can isolate someone to steal land. Bad when someone else will steal it and someone else declares on you from behind.

 

[Cornhog]

Hah. I was going to post about my shadow game, but since yours is pretty damn similar there's no point.

I too stole Zara's initial worker. And I also put a warrior on that wooded hill. (I never chopped that forest; it held sentimental and historical value to me) Later I put a pair of archers on that mountain range. This kept him from expanding — although later he did breakout of the blockade by taking a barbarian city — and, just as importantly, it kept his workers inside the city. He didn't improve anything. That gave me a massive turn advantage over him. Of course it didn't do anything to slow down the Americans who ruthlessly stomped Khmer. I joined the war against Khmer but never sent any troops. I was only there for moral support.

The big difference in our games? I didn't rush Zara. Or anyone. I figured I had dealt him a blow that would set him back. So I peacefully expanded until my massive, drafted rifleman army attacked Zara in 1495 AD. Yep, that was my first "real" war the entire game. I had joined a couple wars against Khmer; plus there was the great Worker-Kidnapping War. My first real combat, however, occured in 1495. Then it was constant warfare to the end.

I was actually like 1,200 points behind the Americans who reached the peak of their power in 1610 AD. (I invaded in 1600 AD) Then I did the oversees invasion of the Aztecs to push me over the top. Our games looked eerily similar (except the Dutch never sprung up in mine).

My score could have easily been higher if I attacked earlier. I waited because I wanted to "leverage" Saladin. What I did was use spiritual to swap to nationhood every 15 turns or so and draft a new riflemen army. My last 4 or 5 games have been with protective leaders and I'm coming to realize how powerful drill 4 can be. So, I drafted a rifleman army every 15 turns. I won around 1905 and ended up with a 70,000+ score. I'm content.

I must defend the ALCs though. It is the All LEADER Challenge after all. The point is to learn how to use the different leaders and their traits more effectively. It gives players more experience with a myriad of situations that they can then put to use in their A-game. You gotta test your boundaries and see the extremes before you can incorporate that into your core game. For instance, I just recently learned to use specialists effectively after trying to run an exclusively SE economy. Plus, it's just fun to try out the new things instead of doing the optimal thing every time. Obsolete's wonderspam thing is a blast and it might be the easiest way to win.

So, when it comes to your DFA economy, I think of college. Sure, I coulda had better grades if I didn't **** around, but ****ing around is so much fun!

 

[Nares]

It is the All LEADER Challenge after all. The point is to learn how to use the different leaders and their traits more effectively.

For what it's worth, I recall Sis starting the series when most players rolled every game with Rome or England, and Vicky wasn't the favored choice for England.

There was an emphasis on playing with other "lesser" leaders, and trying to highlight their strengths. Of course general strategy has its place, but I think it's important to discuss some of the lesser known nuances of a particular leader, and there's really no better time to refresh yourself on them than just prior to the game with the map still unrevealed.

 

[WTBCzero]

The AI were pretty backwards in this game. Only the ones on the starting continent had a chance.

I got the impression that the player's position was changed. It had originally generated on either of the two other "landmasses," and someone swapped it with an AI on the primary landmass.

What gives you this idea?


I always assumed that someone generated the map, checked that Sisitul wasn't isolated (or lacking a resource for his UU) and then sent it on to Sisitul. I hope nothing else is being fiddled with...

 

[Nares]

What gives you this idea?

I was only kidding. But with all that land and all those resources, I figured it had to be a fluke. It just had the look of being that happy mono-religious land where all the AI love each other and tech off into space before you've even met them.

I think Sis rolls his own starts, aside from the one r_rolo1 provided him with while he was waiting on his new computer. I don't know what his policy is on isolation. I don't recall it ever being an issue.

 

[foobarred]

I do disagree about the utility of reading how to most maximize Camel Archers, however. I think it emphasizes red herrings which less experienced players will go for, having been trained to by ALCs. If they all approach the technique with a wizened view where it's simply adding one more tool to the toolbox, then all is well, but it is my view that months of ALCs have contributed to a shift of focus for many players. In practice, they actually believe that going to Guilds early to utilize Camel Archers an optimal strategy, rather than just something you'd resort to in almost inconceivable circumstances. I ask, if you train all the time to maximize your leader's traits and uniques are you really going to disregard it and maximize your position on the map? Or will you stick to what you know, and then come to the board expressing your confusion since you're doing it just like you read to?

I think we're on the same page. There are the basics and then there are esoteric tactics to be used when the situation calls for it. For example, I don't see myself beelining Engineering to build Citadels simply because I'm playing Spain.

Are there any benchmarks you use independent of the map that you use to gauge how well you're doing? For example, do you have a goal to get 4 cities in a certain number of turns or a particular tech, say Code of Laws by a particular year?

I generally think I'm doing well if I can travel on my main tech path grabbing a tech about every 4-5 turns up until Liberalism, but I'd like to have a more objective benchmark when things start going wrong. I want to more easily determine whether my game has a problem with the overall strategy and decision-making, or whether the problem lies with applying the fundamentals.

 

[madscientist]

Nares, this is not the first time you have acused a poster of altering or regenerating maps in posted walkthoughs. You did it with me on an RPC, numerous times regardless of how often I refuted. Now you say it again with Sis.

I'll speak for myself and say my games are on the up and up. As I can tell Sis games are on the up and up, and he has played a few isolated starts unless the isolated start takes the UU out of the game (Gilgamesh 1 I believe).

I do not understand you inability to accept these starts. It takes alot to get under my skin, but to be honest you do with these accusations. I put alot of time in my games, Sis puts even more into his (as he writes them up better than me) and I think the least we can expect is to be treated with a littel respect.

I appreciate your posts as they are informative and help to discussions of the strategy both in my RPCs and Sis's games, but I respectively ask you refrain from this nonesense.

 

[Kev]

Thanks LC for a very interesting monologue. I would certainly concur that I get hamstrung myself within games trying to leverage a given trait, UU, or UB. As a Deity+ Civ 2 player I have no problem with expansion, but the early attacks/diplomacy seem to give me some fits.

That being said, my thought is that a map like this one makes it very easy to "play the map". Given more even footing - or perhaps a map-generated disadvantage (like the first version of Saladin) - I would think that it would become more applicable to utilize a more unique strategy and/or to emphasize more a specific trait, UU, UB, etc.

Perhaps I'm off on that, but would your strategy that you (very deftly) applied to this map work the same on the first map that saw Sis' defeat?

 

[kazapp]

Thank you for stating out loud that this map is incredible.

I enjoy the ALC series very much, but I'm really pining for those rare starts where the map is actually below average. Winning then is, for me, exhibiting true skill (at a given difficulty level)!

 

[Cornhog]

I didn't really think this map was incredible. It was good, yeah, but it didn't blow my mind or anything. What made it so great? Because Zara could be choked? The starting location? (I actually moved twice like Sis) Or the combination of the two?

 

[Nares]

Nares, this is not the first time you have acused a poster of altering or regenerating maps in posted walkthoughs.

I'm sorry for accusing you. It was my mistake. I was unaware that the map generator was modified. In vanilla, three special resources was the limit; none of this 50% value for seafood garbage, or these multiple non-Calender resource starts. Your game was the first I was looking at since returning, without having picked up a copy.

I don't think it's in question that I'll speak before I think.

I was only kidding.

But if you'd care to read my response to WTBCzero, you'd notice that I wasn't formerly accusing Sis of modifying the map. If you'd care to develop a sense of humor, you might share in the laugh. The map certainly does seem very nice for the player, which typically isn't the case, and the "mainland" seems to be the typical "other continent" that finds you while you're still researching Compass.

If you don't see humor enough in that, then I can't help you.

 

[madscientist]

I'm sorry for accusing you. It was my mistake. I was unaware that the map generator was modified. In vanilla, three special resources was the limit; none of this 50% value for seafood garbage, or these multiple non-Calender resource starts. Your game was the first I was looking at since returning, without having picked up a copy.

I don't think it's in question that I'll speak before I think.



But if you'd care to read my response to WTBCzero, you'd notice that I wasn't formerly accusing Sis of modifying the map. If you'd care to develop a sense of humor, you might share in the laugh. The map certainly does seem very nice for the player, which typically isn't the case, and the "mainland" seems to be the typical "other continent" that finds you while you're still researching Compass.

If you don't see humor enough in that, then I can't help you.

OK, I'll let it go. Perhaps I was sensitive to the issue and the comment about Sis was harmless enough.

Thanks for the explaination. Hope you continue to post in teh RPCs!

 

[aelf]

The thing about specialised strategies (or gambits) is that if you pull them off, you can win big. And that's very fun. Only, you probably can't predict the results. And when you're one of the pioneers of a new gambit, you try it out without really knowing whether it benefits you in the end or not. I've done this a couple of times, sometimes combining it with responding to the prevailing situation but sometimes not exactly.

Moreover, once you've mastered some of these strategies, they get added to your personal library for you to pull out and use in the future in appropriate situations, which would be playing games as they are. However, when you are learning or experimenting, it's often not possible to create the ideal conditions, so you might just have to try and fit the strategy in. Someone here has also talked about learning being different from just playing a game.

What I do agree with, though, is the criticism (I'm not sure if it's intended) on the lack of focus. It might sound a little trite, but what I mean is not just setting goals, but actually deciding on how to reach them after they've been determined. People's opinions are important, but sometimes, as a public game poster, one has to resist the pressure or temptation to listen to everyone. It helps if you have your own concepts that you are confident of applying so you can cross-check the advice you get with them, sometimes critiqueing those concepts as well. Maybe I don't have a lot of problem with this because my readership is a lot more limited, and generally I get very sound advice that do not vary too much, but I'm sure there are a lot of times when I have had to snub people's advice.

Also, it seems that the lack of focus tends to be caused by, ironically, reactions to map conditions. It is easy to get sidetracked by settling another city on a semi-sweet spot or conquering a nicely placed barb city that is a little out of the way. These little deviations eventually hamper the strategies and might even affect the chances of victory.

So, if an ALC wants to explore a specialised strategy, I think it should go ahead. However, it has to stick to it and use the most reliable (at least hypothetically) means to achieve it. Temptations are great and many, but discipline is important.

 

[Daedal]

When I stumbled across the ALCs, it got me to start playing Civ again. Without them, Civ is just another typical TBS game with garbage AI wrapped in pretty graphics. The fact that every game can most optimally be won by leveraging the map to systematically destroy every other AI just goes to show that. Victory conditions? That's a load of .. . The only victory condition in Civ is to gain a ridiculous advantage through war and then decide whether it's quicker to wrap up the game by launching a space ship or an intercontinental invasion.

LC has done an excellent walkthrough of this map and it's always good to keep it in the back of your mind that Civ is primarily a war game, but if that's all you play it for I can't imagine what makes you play it again and again. To me, the only point of playing this game a second time is to try something new, whether I read about it on these forums or think it up myself. I guess that's why I'm only a monarch player, but I have fun playing the game and I think that's what counts the most.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Great points from aelf and Daedal. Although I could see the truth in Lord Chambers' arguments, there was something in his commentary on the ALCs that bothered me, but I couldn't put my finger on it. You guys just explained exactly what that something is.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Although I could see the truth in Lord Chambers' arguments, there was something in his commentary on the ALCs that bothered me

Conversely, there's a certain lack of strategy & tips in the commentary of some posters in Strategy & Tips. I think there's room for both types of players, ones more interested in overcoming challenges imposed by the AI and ones more interested in overcoming challenges imposed by themselves.

The only issue is when these strategies developed under self-imposed handicaps and tested on a level lower than that which would make them fail are then passed out as general advice when players come asking for help.

This is the essential point I don't think some regular posters here realize. There are essentially two types of people using Strategy and Tips, the regular contributors and the ones who need help. The ones who need help presume what is discussed here are optimal strategies as determined by experienced players. They aren't thinking advice they get is coming from people who just play to have fun under self-imposed handicaps, unless that is made clear. It is abundantly clear in the Role Playing Challenges for instance, where no impressionable newbie can construe strategies discussed there are 1 to 1 directly applicable to their general gameplay. And even if they do, and implement a strategy which mirrors the one used by Gandhi, when they encounter trouble and realize they didn’t have a Modern Armor unit they’re not going to come to the boards asking “what happened?”

People do read the ALCs and then come here with those kinds of posts. They sound something like &#8220;I was <leader> so running a <economy> and preparing to <leverage something> when <Civ4 reality struck>.&#8221; And it&#8217;s not Sisitul&#8217;s fault. Each ALC clearly states its goals in the original post to emphasize leader qualities. But this point gets lost as 50% of the board posts, continually suggesting how to utilize the leader traits and much less frequently gives advice which would conflict. Advice that conflicts bothers posters.

Misleading less experienced posters is especially easy with a leader like Saladin who has arguably fewer redeemable qualities than any other leader. What I&#8217;ve hoped to do by posting a shadow game where I disregarded those qualities is achieve a higher score than Sisiutil thus show players who might not know any better, that what is said in an ALC is not to be construed as gospel. Leverage (as it pertains to traits and unique) is not God. And in the ALC strategy discussion they can&#8217;t always expect a dialogue along the lines of &#8220;we could proceed with plan A, which is likely to be the more optimal one, but since we&#8217;re ALC we&#8217;ll proceed with plan B.&#8221; There are basic strategic concepts going unmentioned which will help their game more than getting Camel Archers early.

Quite often the decisions made in the ALC for achieving victory are optimal, but not always. That fact is apparent to many regular posters here. Is it apparent to the people who come to the board for help?

I think not. I could be way off base, but here&#8217;s my thread trying to address the issue.

 

[Nares]

They sound something like “I was <leader> so running a <economy> and preparing to <leverage something> when <Civ4 reality struck>.”

I don't know why you feel that some of the discussion is taken "as gospel."

Most of it I would consider "pre-game" discussion. Even during the initial turnsets, not enough is known to establish a longterm strategy based on the map.

Are there other examples you can provide? Or is this specifically in response to ALC 22?

 

[aelf]

Conversely, there's a certain lack of strategy & tips in the commentary of some posters in Strategy & Tips. I think there's room for both types of players, ones more interested in overcoming challenges imposed by the AI and ones more interested in overcoming challenges imposed by themselves...

I think the ALCs had quite good introductions that explained what the purpose of each thread was. I don't remember if it's still the case now. Sisiutil might have summarized them. But, anyway, I think that was sufficient to explain to people seeking help what they can expect to find there.

I agree with you, but I don't think this is such a problem. I think the real problem, though it might not be that serious, is the lack of focus (as I've said). What your OP has brought out is the need to focus. But I don't see how leveraging the map and resources to a good extent necessarily excludes playing to the leader's traits.

 

[pindicator]

When 400 people say to cottage everything, then 200 people say to farm everything, and Obsolete says build nothing but wonders, I default to mommy map.

This bit had me falling out of my chair in laughter. The entire post is well written, but this line is especially wonderful.

 

[Airefuego]

Brain ‘sploding nonsense break:
.

And in a long and excellent post, this was the shiniest gem of all.

Your original post is spot on correct - if rather brutal.

But full credit for Sisutil's ALCs: they are good for teaching new tricks and ideas, and also for letting observers put forward their own suggestions without the expectation that they will be judged too harshly... misplaced enthusiasm (and the odd wrong turn) are part of the ALCs' magic. And the random comments from the cheap seats are where a lot of the learning happens.

I think they encourage people to think - not "just do what I do."