The Agressive/Protective Open Game Showdown

[Jet]

Agg vs. Pro is a subtle enough distinction that the map, and differences between players, are going to blow away differences between the traits. Stuff like Financial affecting the play style pales in comparison.

You see more differences in the "Strategic Challenge"-style micro games where the time frame is shorter and people replay it. The epic bakeoffs are not so illuminating, but they're still fun. It's all good. I might play (maybe) just because Huts and Events are on, as God intended. And it's Hemispheres!

I also think Agg is better and really don't think many people disagree. I'm inclined to try Wangdhi just to balance it out. Or I guess Wangsoka would be more apt.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I see no problem doing these things, but that's a little beyond my fine-tuning abilities. Feel free to post another game setup, my only suggestion is to make it a real CIV game with a real supplemental trait. Perhaps Russia (Mounted UU) or Germany (Armored UU) would be better with late UBs. Supplemental trait could be expansive, Industrious, Spiritual.

I'd add to that you should probably

(a) let this one run its course, so that the other issues shake out, and
(b) let this one run its course, so that the field isn't unnecessarily divided.
(c) go with SPI

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'd add to that you should probably

(a) let this one run its course, so that the other issues shake out, and
(b) let this one run its course, so that the field isn't unnecessarily divided.
(c) go with SPI

Agreed on all points.

 

[vicawoo]

Since this is the internet, I should unhelpfully point out that you can't spell Agressive without gg.

Huts, well, with a sufficiently large sample size won't matter. There's always going to be a lot of noise, due to player differences among other things.

And there has to be some rubric for measuring performance, whether it be win date, score, or resources/empire size/tech.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Since this is the internet, I should unhelpfully point out that you can't spell Agressive without gg.

Huts, well, with a sufficiently large sample size won't matter. There's always going to be a lot of noise, due to player differences among other things.

And there has to be some rubric for measuring performance, whether it be win date, score, or resources/empire size/tech.

Ideally a rubric merely identifies when a trait comes into use and to what extent...might be hard to quantify however.

RNG screw noise will be very hard to eliminate even with a sample size we'll never get.

 

[stopstopp]

Ah come on, .7z? I can't open that.

 

[Sportyatuncw06]

SO I am only a prince level player, and I never play PRO, but I think Pro has more synergy with FIN than AGG does. My rational for this is due to the gameplay change I would make going from AGG to PRO. If PRO I would be more likely to REX and with AGG I would favor and early RUSH. PRO would lead to a defensive strategy with emphasis on economy and wonders and religion, while I would almost abandon those with AGG. I think ORG works well with AGG because it lends itself to empire building. (Not saying FIN isn't good with AGG, just think ORG is optimal)

I think this will be an interesting thread and I look forward to seeing what plays out. I think having ruberic to measure performance would be a good idea to note not just which is better or worse but why. There are always trade offs in civ and for an average player like myself learning the intricies of each trait ,and leader, and UU and so on is vital to moving up in dificulty.

 

[pi-r8]

IMO both traits are so negligible in most situations that it will be tough to see any difference between them. It might be interesting to see a game where someone attacks you early, I'd like to see which is more useful for holding off an early invastion.

 

[oranje willem]

IMO both traits are so negligible in most situations that it will be tough to see any difference between them. It might be interesting to see a game where someone attacks you early, I'd like to see which is more useful for holding off an early invastion.

It depends on the resources available. If you have copper then aggressive axeman will stop almost anything, if you don't you are better of with protective archers of course.

 

[madscientist]

Ah come on, .7z? I can't open that.

Sorry about this, my computing skills are more limited! Perhaps someone here can download the files, then reload them as something more appropriate???

 

[Negator_UK]

I'll have a go, but I'll wait until arguments about the map are settled.

I agree that a comparison is probably best without huts (and events).

Fin looks like a good secondary trait, bearing in mind both leaders have it - yes there are better ones, but all the traits are supposed to be worth something.

I agree with mad that the game should be a real game of Civ, no Sid or weird WB stuff.

 

[lymond]

Sorry about this, my computing skills are more limited! Perhaps someone here can download the files, then reload them as something more appropriate???

I'm pretty sure WinRar will extract 7z files. You can download for free.

 

[Mutineer]

Fin does not have mach synergy with aggressive or protective.

I do not know, events suppose to depends on how we playing and part of balancing.

Switching off events just make game easier and disturbing possible even base balancing of the traits.

Hats on other hand are purely random and there balance depends only on starting units.

(scouts have a bit more chance to benefit from hats.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Fin does not have mach synergy with aggressive or protective.

I do not know, events suppose to depends on how we playing and part of balancing.

Switching off events just make game easier and disturbing possible even base balancing of the traits.

Hats on other hand are purely random and there balance depends only on starting units.

(scouts have a bit more chance to benefit from hats.

Events are only minimally based on player actions. Random-aspect outcomes from events are FAR greater than huts on average (especially if we use a regular save and not a worldbuilder save), unless you're playing below noble maybe. Just what we need, protective winning out because of tower shields or "all axes start with shock" or something. You've got to be kidding, implying that these things are dependent upon player actions in any meaningful way. Good job! You teched BW, the other player would NEVER have thought to tech BW !

That events might affect trait balance is a load of bull turd and you had better at least attempt to defend that position if you're going to drop such a pile o crap on us .

You have yet to find any way to actually prove that events are, on average, harder than having them off...probably because you can't do it. I honestly don't know if they're easier or harder, but that's definitely not the scope of this comparison. What they ARE for SURE, however, is random (their name is kind of a tip). Why would we deliberately add noise to an analysis?

Your unproven assertion that events are harder in the first place is irrelevant even if it were true for this game!

 

[madscientist]

IMHO

Events can change this type of game dramatically, such as the free combat I prmotion to Crossbows or free shock promotion to melee.

Huts are different and I view them as an AI vs. Human issue. The AI starts off with more units thus they get more huts, thus no huts favors the human. They MAY have an effect here because given the right time they may pop an important tech, like Bronze Working.

I agree, Huts/events should have been turned off.

As far as how to measure which is better, I would simply like to see how people play this out. Does Protective help defend coastal cities adequately? How good is Drill IV in the attack? Are Protective or Agressive drafted units better? Can you leverage faster walls/castles with protective to a tech (earlier trade route) or espionage (delay economics) advantage? Can you rush someone with fast Barracks on Agressive? It's more of a "Let's see what you can do"

 

[UWHabs]

I don't think this is meant to be the be-all and end-all of comparisons, since as mentioned, the presence or not of close copper/horse/iron changes lots of dynamics.

You could easily spell out a map where protective > aggressive - just give no close minerals, vast, expansive land, and raging barbs with no chance of GW (give Louis BFC stone, for example).

Of course, just as easily, you can get a game where aggressive >> protective. Give the BFC copper, set it up so you basically never need to build an archer (peaceful neighbours, no barbs, etc...).

But as long as the map is an "average" map with no obvious advantage one way or the other, it's still interesting to see how the traits come in to play.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I didn't think to check the saves for this: fixed or random seed reloading? Does it matter for this sort of comparison game? Which I suppose is another way of asking "are players expected to make multiple attempts?"

 

[semirami]

You can start "custom scenario" and disable huts/events, or whatever you like.

 

[mirthadir]

I'm really not sure what this would prove. Outside of a rush or an early DoW neither trait is going to matter for a long time (maybe agg will get some play with maces). Fin India is pretty much begging for acres of cottage spam, tech to lib, and then fight whichever gunpowder war looks easiest (which may well be cannons for both). The S/N ratio here looks like it will be terrible.

 

[Mutineer]

Events are only minimally based on player actions. Random-aspect outcomes from events are FAR greater than huts on average (especially if we use a regular save and not a worldbuilder save), unless you're playing below noble maybe. Just what we need, protective winning out because of tower shields or "all axes start with shock" or something. You've got to be kidding, implying that these things are dependent upon player actions in any meaningful way. Good job! You teched BW, the other player would NEVER have thought to tech BW !

That events might affect trait balance is a load of bull turd and you had better at least attempt to defend that position if you're going to drop such a pile o crap on us .

You have yet to find any way to actually prove that events are, on average, harder than having them off...probably because you can't do it. I honestly don't know if they're easier or harder, but that's definitely not the scope of this comparison. What they ARE for SURE, however, is random (their name is kind of a tip). Why would we deliberately add noise to an analysis?

Your unproven assertion that events are harder in the first place is irrelevant even if it were true for this game!

well, I see you fall down to personal attacks. Goodjob

Ofcouse my assertion has no meaning for you, as you always switch events off. So, it is actually YOUR opinion that is based on no experience what so ever.

I will give you just one example of balancing effect of events.

Slave revolts.. How many times they disrupt my wanders building plans.. or research plans... ( when you capital going to revolt)

which make me mach more careful when switching to slavery.