Solving the CE/SE debate, showdown style

[frob2900]

Yes, another SE/CE thread, however without actually adding anything to the debate I was wondering, has anyone suggested the possibility of a multiplayer showdown?

A multiplayer game between one pure SE side and one CE side.. Both sides could keep their own thread narrating the progress of their game with a "scouts honor" agreement not to spy at each other..

I myself do not consider myself skilled enough to represent either side in a multiplayer standoff, but it could very well be extremely interesting and informative to see the premier representatives of each side battling it out for the title of "Most Awesome Economy"

Given the "quasi-flamewar" (well, perhaps thats a bit harsh ) atmosphere in some of the SE/CE threads it would certainly be a battle with high stakes! Of course a human vs. human game would not be representative of how a single-player game of Civ progresses, but still, does anyone find the concept interesting?

I suppose this question should be posted in the Multiplayer section, but since most of the debate has taken place here I thought it appropriate to post here instead..

 

[futurehermit]

A few problems:

1) Different players are not equally skilled

2) Different maps (or sections of the same map) lend themselves to different economies. Although I prefer to run a SE, I will run a CE if circumstances dictate.

We did a showdown awhile back using Peter and one saved game with some of us going SE and some CE. The goal was earliest space race while taking out at least one neighbour. CE put in the best time and since then it has been pretty clear to me that SE is better for domination and CE is better for space. Ultimately I think when going for space race that a transition economy is the strongest if you can time everything properly.

 

[frob2900]

Yeah, I lurked in the Peter thread, very interesting stuff. I agree exactly with your assessments, I generally use exactly that strategy breakdown, except even in the SE situation I'll run a few "cottage zones" for extra cash..

I suppose the skill level/map issues are tricky and would skew results so I suppose the game would be for entertainment but also for the interesting differences in thinking that would be presented in the threads as each side develops its specific strategy..

Perhaps also, it could provide an "aggression vent" for the most dedicated zealots on either side

A few problems:

1) Different players are not equally skilled

2) Different maps (or sections of the same map) lend themselves to different economies. Although I prefer to run a SE, I will run a CE if circumstances dictate.

We did a showdown awhile back using Peter and one saved game with some of us going SE and some CE. The goal was earliest space race while taking out at least one neighbour. CE put in the best time and since then it has been pretty clear to me that SE is better for domination and CE is better for space. Ultimately I think when going for space race that a transition economy is the strongest if you can time everything properly.

 

[Solo4114]

I think the two camps should just meet in an alley and fight it out once and for all.

That or meet in an alley and have a dance-off.

 

[futurehermit]

I'm pretty convinced that the two sides are fighting about two different things. The FE/SE crowd is talking about the power of that economy in launching you into the renaissance era for a strong shot at an early domination victory. The CE crowd is talking about the power of that economy in the latter 3 eras where the fully mature cottage tile becomes a powerhouse tile springing you toward a fast spacerace victory.

Both sides are correct in these arguments imo. If one wants to argue that CE is better for early domination win, I would argue against them. If one wants to argue that SE is better for early space win, I would argue against them.

If one wants to argue that a transition from SE to CE is the best case scenario for optimal space win, I would love to discuss that in detail.

Is one better than the other in all situations, with all leaders, all maps, all victory conditions? Definitely not. Is one better than the other in certain situations with certain leaders with certain maps and pursuing a certain victory condition? Absolutely.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

A few problems:

1) Different players are not equally skilled

2) Different maps (or sections of the same map) lend themselves to different economies. Although I prefer to run a SE, I will run a CE if circumstances dictate.

That pretty much covers it.

... except even in the SE situation I'll run a few "cottage zones" for extra cash.

I think to run a successful, conclusive SE v CE showdown, you'd need to fulfill at least a couple of these:

• Rules. Lots of rules. You will need rules on whether the CE can run any specialists or the SE can run any cottages and what the intended victory condition is just to start with.
  
  
• Games. Lots of games. Because difficulty, map size, resource availability and even neighboring civs can play a large role in how well your economy flourishes, you will need to play a lot of games with all types of variations to collect data from. This includes both MP and SP, imho.
  
  
• Contestants. Lots of contestants. Like futurehermit said, different people have different skill levels. You can't put a Brown Belt in Isshin Ryu up against a Master of Jiu Jutsu and then say Jiu Jutsu is better because the master pwns the poor Karate Kid. You will need competitors of all shapes and sizes to pool from.
  
  
• Deciding factor. What determines which economic model is better? Is it how fast you can win the game? How quickly you can achieve a certain victory? How many points you can acquire in the game? You will probably end up with another argument about how to interpret the data, too.

I like the idea of a showdown in theory, but I seriously doubt the ability of even the most devoted players in this forum of gathering the amount of evidence needed to make any conclusive hearing -- much less even make the hearing.

Good luck with this.


-- my 2

 

[DaveMcW]

SE loses multiplayer games, because they can't exploit the AIs for techs.

And the legendary "SE Cav Rush" comes up short when your opponents know how to build pikes.

 

[futurehermit]

^^^True, except in multiplayer the CE is VERY susceptible to being pillaged and human players do a much better job of pillaging than the AI...doesn't take long to rebuild a farm, but a town???

Although, I admit to running a CE when I play multiplayer because with fast turn timers, there isn't enough time to MM specialists.

Finally, the reason "exploiting" the AI for techs is so common (don't you trade when running a CE as well?) is that they tech so damn fast on higher levels. You have to do something to keep up. In multiplayer, everyone is on even keel so there is no need for that kind of thing.

p.s., there are all kinds of examples where the ai is stupid and doesn't build appropriate units. take hatty's war chariot rush. spears anyone? nope. what about cyrus' immortal rush? my personal favourite is the incan warrior rush. why does the ai keep building archers?

don't knock a strategy just because it is arguably one of the most effective against the ai who gets tons of bonuses. like i said, in multiplayer everything changes. you gonna build the oracle in mp? it's not my first priority since if someone axerushes me i'm dead. but in sp? sure, if it's an option, i'll go for it.

 

[Solo4114]

Nobody likes my dance-off idea?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Nobody likes my dance-off idea?

Don't get me wrong ... I like the idea.

I also support your decision should you go ahead with this plan.

I'll even help you wherever possible.

But knowing the 'economic climate' around here, it's going to take a LOT more than one game to convince anybody of anything.

EDIT: Hell, most people can't even agree on the fundamental, defining qualities of an SE / CE / TE (FE) / HE. So even before the games begin, the first obstacle is strictly defining each economy. Otherwise, I guarantee half the CE victories are going to be shot down saying "you used specialists in [insert city here] ... that's a Hybrid Economy" and half the SE victories are going to be shot down with "you cottaged your capital ... that's not a true SE."

If it matters, my definition of a "true SE" is one in which only the capital (if even) ever sees cottages. Likewise, a "true CE" is one in which only one city (the GP factory) utilizes specialists.

If you can hang with it ... more power to you.

 

[r_rolo1]

I'm with OTAKUjbski. The idea is good, but to get convincing results, we would need lots of tests and multiple shadows of the same game. I'm not a very talented player, but if you go ahead you can count me in .The problem is that in the end of the tests Civ XI will be on his 2nd expansion...

 

[Solo4114]

Personally, I think all the uproar about which is better is misplaced. They're both highly effective UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, but I don't think it's clear that EITHER is the "preferred method" in all circumstances.

 

[facistal]

I vote for the dance-off

But the point made by futurehermit is correct. If you are good at both than SE for war and early - CE for Space or late game. Plus the tranistion give those workers something to do

 

[DaveMcW]

If you get 50% of your income from specialists, you will lose in MP.

 

[JackOfClubs]

If it matters, my definition of a "true SE" is one in which only the capital (if even) ever sees cottages. Likewise, a "true CE" is one in which only one city (the GP factory) utilizes specialists.

This definition works for me, but you still need to mention civics. If I recall, this was the definition used for the Peter experiment mentioned earlier and there was still a controversy since the CE player used Representation and got a substantial portion of his research from the few specialists in the GP farm.

My feeling is that it is more productive to talk about when it is better to use SE or CE rather than which one is better in some general sense. But that has already been said, hasn't it?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

My feeling is that it is more productive to talk about when it is better to use SE or CE rather than which one is better in some general sense. But that has already been said, hasn't it?

This is what I have come to believe.

I think if a series of "SE vs. CE" showdown games are ever played, they'll prove just how true this is.

 

[frob2900]

Which is also why they would be very informative and educational, when commented and discussed. "Proving" a point is not everything..

This is what I have come to believe.

I think if a series of "SE vs. CE" showdown games are ever played, they'll prove just how true this is.

 

[mice]

Nobody likes my dance-off idea?

I vote for an old school 'walk off' like in Zoolander.

Back to the face off, as was said in a number of posts, it would take a lot of games on various maps and would prove very little that we don't already know. Jack of clubs got it right I believe

My feeling is that it is more productive to talk about when it is better to use SE or CE rather than which one is better in some general sense.

More entertaining I think would be a head to head battle of skill between two players on the same map.

In theMany Leaders Game we had any leader you like on the same map.

This means there can be a match between two players on the same map, any leader , no rules, earliest victory wins.

It would add nothing to the debate but could be a laugh, and a good test of individual skill. If anyone is interested I can set up a match.

 

[Mutineer]

Would not work.
Poeple like Dawid will cheat the same way like in that old monarch game, running SE for 3/4 of the game and then claiming they run CE.
He call his economy CE I think just in spite. IN reallyty he runs at best hubrid, at worst pure SE for first 2/3 of the game.

In addition many factors that valid in SP tend to be not valid in MP.
Saying that I was very successful in Pitboss game with my SE economy.
Had to drop the game due to playing host cheating.

I had resonable success with transition type of economy in continent/islands stile of MP. But on Blasing speed amount of MM killing SE, as I can not really do detail managment of more then 2-3 cities on this kind of speed.

 

[futurehermit]

Yes, blazing speed makes things difficult for MMing a SE. That's when I tend to drop down cottages just for the sake of convenience. But on slower speed, I prefer SE because humans are really good at pillaging.