Spiritual Trait

[yavoon]

Just wondering why you find MP impractical. Seen as a few of you have agreed that MP is in many ways a better test of skill, it's a shame you don't come and play. And now I will shamelessly plug the ladder at www.myleague.com/civ4players, which you must join if you want to play some quality games against (mostly ) quality players.

I have heard of others assessing saves. I am quite thorough in improving my game, but haven't used this method yet. Please give me an example of how you have used this method and how you have found it useful.

its impractical for me thats all=D.

I've used this to asess a lot of things. like to try and assertain how far in advance the AI makes a decision. or what it looks like when the AI is thinking about attacking. I remember there was a time when i was unsure when/how to use cavalry beeline/rifle beeline or grenadier/cannon beeline. that I used several attempts off the same save to test.

a lot of my how to best execute a war strategy is off of retries of saves.

its good for figuring out a mass trade. like say astronomy u can often get a ton from it. but the order/magnitude matters. so u have to be able to read the relations between the AI. because ur gna be picking up "u have traded w/ my worst enemy" as u go(unless ur everyone's worst enemy, but then u wont get much of anything).

 

[Holycannoli]

Careful in how voraciously you seek this. I had discovered a superlative strategy with another game (SMAC) which enabled beating the AI on the highest difficulty level with every faction through every victory condition. I also beat pretty much every player I had faced unless they countered with the same strategy...
...what, then, is the point of playing? Once this level has been acheived, you are merely going through the motions knowing full well that your superior tactic will prevail. There is no flavor; there is no critical thinking or problem-solving; you have effectively destroyed the game for yourself

That's when the game needs a patch. In most strategy games they try to avoid this. Once a strategy becomes too powerful and overwhelming it needs a nerf. It's bad for the game and does make it boring.

And yavoon, you really remind me of this guy. Admit you're wrong. Funny how more people in this thread are arguing against your opinion on strategies not being subjective than for. There's just no getting through to you; you are fully convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you are not open to the possibility that you might be wrong, and you're positive that you are clearly the superior arguer here. Basically, you have become annoying, and since there's no getting through that thick skull of yours I will no longer debate the subject. It has proven to be pointless.

As far as slavery, I never used it. I preferred building my population and working my cottages to whipping my population. But I'm experimenting with it now. Seems pretty powerful according to the first few pages of this thread. I've been playing as Montezuma lately (due to me having finished the wonderful novel Aztec, by Gary Jennings-highly recommended!) and Aztecs in Warlords seem designed to use slavery. So it seems a no-brainer to learn how to use slavery effectively as Montezuma.

Slavery + Spiritual + Sacrifical Altar = win I'm predicting. I only wish that sacrificial altars gave free priests; I mean they are religious buildings much more than they are civic buildings.

 

[yavoon]

That's when the game needs a patch. In most strategy games they try to avoid this. Once a strategy becomes too powerful and overwhelming it needs a nerf. It's bad for the game and does make it boring.

And yavoon, you really remind me of this guy. Admit you're wrong. Funny how more people in this thread are arguing against your opinion on strategies not being subjective than for. There's just no getting through to you; you are fully convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you are not open to the possibility that you might be wrong, and you're positive that you are clearly the superior arguer here. Basically, you have become annoying, and since there's no getting through that thick skull of yours I will no longer debate the subject. It has proven to be pointless.

As far as slavery, I never used it. I preferred building my population and working my cottages to whipping my population. But I'm experimenting with it now. Seems pretty powerful according to the first few pages of this thread. I've been playing as Montezuma lately (due to me having finished the wonderful novel Aztec, by Gary Jennings-highly recommended!) and Aztecs in Warlords seem designed to use slavery. So it seems a no-brainer to learn how to use slavery effectively as Montezuma.

Slavery + Spiritual + Sacrifical Altar = win I'm predicting. I only wish that sacrificial altars gave free priests; I mean they are religious buildings much more than they are civic buildings.

figures a person who doesn't know anything about concepts of strategy wouldn't use slavery, possibly the most powerful thing in the game.

and several ppl have agreed w/ me. I do confess it is puzzling why so many ppl hold such infantile views, but I see u hold other infantile views(like complaining that I continue to object even though "everyone" disagrees w/ me). so I suppose thats just the level I'm dealing w/.

u dont have to get it through ur head that effective strategy is not determined by preference, but it wont change reality.

 

[azzaman333]

u dont have to get it through ur head that effective strategy is not determined by preference, but it wont change reality.

Lets slow down for a second.

Effective strategies are NOT determined by preference, they are determined by the game mechanics.
On the other hand, some of the effective strategies dont work in certain situations, making them ineffective sometimes.

If you try and use an axeman rush when you have no copper or iron, it wont be effective. Also, if you use a chariot rush against an opponent with spearmen, it wont be effective. If you have a small army, it is not an effective strategy to try and conquer your neighbours. If you have a large army, it is not an effective strategy to stay at peace due to unit support issues.

See another point of veiw yet?

 

[yavoon]

Lets slow down for a second.

Effective strategies are NOT determined by preference, they are determined by the game mechanics.
On the other hand, some of the effective strategies dont work in certain situations, making them ineffective sometimes.

If you try and use an axeman rush when you have no copper or iron, it wont be effective. Also, if you use a chariot rush against an opponent with spearmen, it wont be effective. If you have a small army, it is not an effective strategy to try and conquer your neighbours. If you have a large army, it is not an effective strategy to stay at peace due to unit support issues.

See another point of veiw yet?

how is that another point of view? I agree that w/o copper and iron it would be hard to do an axe rush.....haha.

 

[angeleyes]

yavoon, If your opinion is that one strategie is stronger than another strategie, and you want to say that this is objective (a fact), than you have to prove it. If you can't prove this (and i'm sure you can't, that would be much to complicated), than your opinion isn't objective but subjective (preference).

 

[yavoon]

yavoon, If your opinion is that one strategie is stronger than another strategie, and you want to say that this is objective (a fact), than you have to prove it. If you can't prove this (and i'm sure you can't, that would be much to complicated), than your opinion isn't objective but subjective (preference).

my opinion isnt that one strategy is stronger than another strategy, its that in strategy games effective strategies are not determined by preference.

and no the default setting for strategies in a game is not "its preference unless u prove it." this isnt the justice system where innocent is equivalent to preference.

 

[Arlborn]

I play for fun, hardly uses slavery(only in emergency or if city is starveing anyway and has enough happiness) and love philo/cultural traits, hate space race and always goes to cultural and diplomatic victory(Im a defender not a war-freak), that is my way of haveing fun, sorry

Everyone has their own strategies to archive what they want haveing fun, if everybody only use hte same strategy and never change, my god, why would we being playing anyway?

Just my two cents ^^

 

[pholkhero]

and ur last paragraph is patently false, equal potency is in no way a definition, a requirement or even a concept of strategy games. infact in game theory often strategy games develop dominant strategies.

boy i wish i had seen this thread two days ago, but in an effort to beat a dead horse ~ the purpose of civilization, esp. civ4, is the elimination of "one right way" considerations. if there weren't multilple and equally viable paths to victory, to paraphrase someone else, it would cease to be a strategy game, and become a puzzle, one which would be solved in the same way each time.

 

[yavoon]

boy i wish i had seen this thread two days ago, but in an effort to beat a dead horse ~ the purpose of civilization, esp. civ4, is the elimination of "one right way" considerations. if there weren't multilple and equally viable paths to victory, to paraphrase someone else, it would cease to be a strategy game, and become a puzzle, one which would be solved in the same way each time.

thats just not true. sorry.

 

[pholkhero]

no, sorry to you, friend, but if there's one path to victory, then where's the strategy lie?? the burden of proof is on you since the majority consensus on the board is that there are many varied and equal paths to victory ~ a simple glimpse at the GOTMs is enough to show that.

strategy IS based on preference ~ preference being defined as acidsatyr did ~ individual knowledge ~ if it's my PREFERENCE to conquer the world, then my strategy naturally follows suit....if it's my PREFERENCE to out-culture everyone, then my strategy changes to fit that.

You're just trolling up this thread making obtuse comments and trying verbally slam those who disagree with you, all the while, i'm sure, increasing your own sense of self-importance. again, the burden is on YOU to prove your statements since so many here disagree with you. we;re all waiting for it, but you prefer to attack arguments rather than prove your own ~

 

[yavoon]

no, sorry to you, friend, but if there's one path to victory, then where's the strategy lie?? the burden of proof is on you since the majority consensus on the board is that there are many varied and equal paths to victory ~ a simple glimpse at the GOTMs is enough to show that.

strategy IS based on preference ~ preference being defined as acidsatyr did ~ individual knowledge ~ if it's my PREFERENCE to conquer the world, then my strategy naturally follows suit....if it's my PREFERENCE to out-culture everyone, then my strategy changes to fit that.

You're just trolling up this thread making obtuse comments and trying verbally slam those who disagree with you, all the while, i'm sure, increasing your own sense of self-importance. again, the burden is on YOU to prove your statements since so many here disagree with you. we;re all waiting for it, but you prefer to attack arguments rather than prove your own ~

the strategy lies in finding better paths to victory, ur whole argument is a false argument and in no way even addresses, much less contradicts what I've been saying. and victory conditions are also NOT based on preference. if the goal of the game is to win the victory conditions can be weighed against each other. now u can chose to do something stupid and sub optimal, thats fine. but that does not make it effective strategy, that just indicates ur futzing around and like to watch the pretty units move around.

and I am "verbally slamming" those who disagree w/ me, because they are fundamentally and grossly wrong. and the mere idea of effective strategy being about preference is so horribly off course that I wonder if u've ever even done something competitive in ur entire life.

as for "proving my own argument." how do u wish me to prove that effective strategy is not a matter of preference? to me ITS OBVIOUS. if effective strategy was a matter of preference then u could ANYTHING u wanted and it would all work out equally as well. we can easily see that is not the case, therefore effective strategy is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be a matter of preference. ever, and ur ideas to the contrary are horrendously and absurdly wrong and show a basic lack of understanding of concepts in strategy games.

and if ur incapable of understanding that here's an example. if effective strategy was a matter of preference then I could prefer to open w/ worker/worker/worker/worker/worker/worker/worker and it would be just as effective as any other opening, because I would prefer it to be! see isnt preference great!

 

[pholkhero]

god, what a pompous ass you are, but you are quite good at killing strawmen. thanks for reminding me why i stay on the SG subforum.

look, if you were right, then there'd be only one right opening in Civ ~ if that's the case, what is it? if you don't know, please provide a basis for testing your hypothesis b/c despite the things you believe are "obvious" not everyone is as enlightened as you seem to think you are...

ahh, **** it ~ you're right, o great yavoon, i've never done anything competitive in my life. Thank you for showing me the light. What a great and holy MAN you are, and your powerful arguments have shamed me.

:where's-the-jerk-off-smiley:

 

[yavoon]

god, what a pompous ass you are, but you are quite good at killing strawmen. thanks for reminding me why i stay on the SG subforum.

look, if you were right, then there'd be only one right opening in Civ ~ if that's the case, what is it? if you don't know, please provide a basis for testing your hypothesis b/c despite the things you believe are "obvious" not even is as enlightened as you seem to think you are...

ahh, **** it ~ you're right, o great yavoon, i've never done anything competitive in my life. Thank you for showing me the light. What a great and holy MAN you are, and your powerful arguments have shamed me.

:where's-the-jerk-off-smiley:

thats completely and totally false. the idea that because strategies are objective does not itself imply that we know the perfect strategy. its perfectly ok to disagree about which strategy is better, but it is fundamentally wrong to imply that the difference between two strategies is a matter of preference.

u may continue to prove the many and hilarious ways in which u r wrong.

 

[acidsatyr]

I don't think you understand whats the point here.
Not every strategy is an effective strategy. We all know from our personal experience that strategy in your example is not an effective strategy.
On the other hand there are other strategies that could all be effective at this point in the game, but since a game of civ contains an uncertainty factor (the unknown world), it is not clear which one of those effective strategies will be the most effective one. This is where our personal preference comes into play. Maybe building barracs before second worker will prove to be a better choice than building that worker first. Or, we don't know in what turn example will Togu declare war on us. This is uncertain. And this is where a game of civ differs from a game of chess. This is why one strategy is not always the best strategy, and sometimes it IS a personall choice which of the two strategies is better.
You still didn't give any valid argument really. But if it's all so obvious to you than it's all good.

 

[lobster]

Somehow reading all the above "discussions" remind me of this thread, this guy, and quantum mechanics.

 

[yavoon]

I don't think you understand whats the point here.
Not every strategy is an effective strategy. We all know from our personal experience that strategy in your example is not an effective strategy.
On the other hand there are other strategies that could all be effective at this point in the game, but since a game of civ contains an uncertainty factor (the unknown world), it is not clear which one of those effective strategies will be the most effective one. This is where our personal preference comes into play. Maybe building barracs before second worker will prove to be a better choice than building that worker first. Or, we don't know in what turn example will Togu declare war on us. This is uncertain. And this is where a game of civ differs from a game of chess. This is why one strategy is not always the best strategy, and sometimes it IS a personall choice which of the two strategies is better.
You still didn't give any valid argument really. But if it's all so obvious to you than it's all good.

the example was so I didnt have to worry about idiots arguing it was effective. the same theory applies to any comparison of two strategies, it just becomes harder to tell the difference, and u need to be a better and more insightful player.

the mere fact u lack the ability to determine it does not mean there is not a difference. AND IT CERTAINLY does not mean that it becomes a matter of "preference." it is never a matter of preference, no matter how incapable u think u r of determining the difference.

and strategies are regularly formulated around uncertainties, ur implication that uncertainty implies it becomes a matter of preference is just as faulty as ur prior position that we have to know the perfect strategy or its a matter of preference. but we do seem to be making progress.

 

[pholkhero]

god, you're like a car wreck ~ i can't help coming back.

look, as far as i'm concerned, from watching AcidSatry in SGs, he's proved his bona fides as far as his ability. have you?

 

[Arlborn]

Why we just dont leave yavoon alone with his Great theories? Maybe hew can write a book about it if we leave him alone ^^ mo
de
Perhaps there is a perfect strategy for each different terrain, AI, reasources and all kinds of variety and randomness of the start of the game, who knows? who will ever know? I play to have fun, so God please dont let me find out a so called perfect strategy ra
tor
Just 1 only thing of all the things that I dont understand of your posts man, there is 5 ways(is it 5? whatever dont wanna to look for that now lo) to wun the game, I mean, 5 differents objectives that you can use to win..So are you telling me they all use the same sstrategy? Seems odd to me..Anyway anwya dont answer my question! Go make your book plz plz

 

[yavoon]

Why we just dont leave yavoon alone with his Great theories? Maybe hew can write a book about it if we leave him alone ^^ mo
de
Perhaps there is a perfect strategy for each different terrain, AI, reasources and all kinds of variety and randomness of the start of the game, who knows? who will ever know? I play to have fun, so God please dont let me find out a so called perfect strategy ra
tor
Just 1 only thing of all the things that I dont understand of your posts man, there is 5 ways(is it 5? whatever dont wanna to look for that now lo) to wun the game, I mean, 5 differents objectives that you can use to win..So are you telling me they all use the same sstrategy? Seems odd to me..Anyway anwya dont answer my question! Go make your book plz plz

as long as the goal of the gamee is to win it is perfectly reasonable to compare objectively all victory conditions, as they pertain to the achievement of the goal.

and its not my great theory, the basic idea of objectively viewing and discerning strategies for their effectiveness is not some "pet idea" of mine. it is a basic and undeniable tennet of strategy gaming.