The BEST Civ2 players!?
- Thread starter Thunderfall
- Start date
D
Dreadnought
Guest
I think that the Best CivII Player is going to have to be somone who is the master at everything. There are a lot of people that can beat the game on diety and do really well. But if you take all those people and put them up agianst each other you will find the best player.
------------------
"Nothing in the world can endure forever"
-Roman Citizen
------------------
"Nothing in the world can endure forever"
-Roman Citizen
Great idea.
We already have the Game of the Month and a Multiplayer ranking. Add some more and the player who scores best at all different types of play becomes:
The Ultimate Civ Player Of The Month! <IMG SRC="http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/exp/Might.gif" border=0>
[This message has been edited by Pedro (edited February 19, 2001).]
shadowdale
CFC Drunkard
That is exactly what I mean Pedro!!!
And that is why I think that we should nominate people for the "Best overall CIV player" because if we don't then the person is going to be chosen from some criteria that a selected few are going to decide, and that gives those few people the power to choose who ever they want.
------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.
Coolbook: Cunobelin Of Hippo, Håkan Eriksson, vladmir_illych_lenin, stellar converter, Stormerne.
And that is why I think that we should nominate people for the "Best overall CIV player" because if we don't then the person is going to be chosen from some criteria that a selected few are going to decide, and that gives those few people the power to choose who ever they want.
------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.
Coolbook: Cunobelin Of Hippo, Håkan Eriksson, vladmir_illych_lenin, stellar converter, Stormerne.
MrLeN
Prince
Save yourselved the touble...
...for I am the best Civ II player!
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
...for I am the best Civ II player!
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
vladmir_illych_lenin
King
there is no "best" civ2 player. Some are better at others in a certain field. No one can be good at everything in Civ.
He who masters civ is he who's name is Jehova.
He who masters civ is he who's name is Jehova.
MrLeN
Prince
Does that make the people that lost in the game Jehovas Witnesses?
Ooooh, so now I know where they came from.
MrLeN
P.S. *Nothing against Jehovas witnesses
*
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
Ooooh, so now I know where they came from.
MrLeN
P.S. *Nothing against Jehovas witnesses
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
vladmir_illych_lenin
King
Sid Meier is Jehova.
MrLeN
Prince
Now that is Blasphemous!
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
vladmir_illych_lenin
King
I'm going to start a religion that revolves around Civilization.
Jehova is Sid Meier,
Jesus is my civilization.
Judas is the zulus.
Moses is my caravel
The Hebrews are my settlers.
Okay, I better stop. I might upset someone.
Jehova is Sid Meier,
Jesus is my civilization.
Judas is the zulus.
Moses is my caravel
The Hebrews are my settlers.
Okay, I better stop. I might upset someone.
shadowdale
CFC Drunkard
Hey you guys, you all know that Civ isn't a religion - it's a way of life!!!
It's as simple as that.
We live and breath Civ.....
------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.
Coolbook: Cunobelin Of Hippo, Håkan Eriksson, vladmir_illych_lenin, stellar converter, Stormerne.
It's as simple as that.
We live and breath Civ.....
------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.
Coolbook: Cunobelin Of Hippo, Håkan Eriksson, vladmir_illych_lenin, stellar converter, Stormerne.
Leowind
Emperor
I have Gold edition, and I'd love to play MP, but my schedule and busy life prevents me from even attempting it. I have literally spent months completing a single game. I'm really going to be pushing it to play the GOTM#2. If somebody out there is willing to play an MP game for an hour or two here and there over the course of several weeks and match up with my schedule, I'd be willing...(just wait until GOTM#2 is over
MrLeN
Prince
This is my idea of finding a great well rounded player.
We need to set up a competition that not only finds out who is the best player playing against the AI, but also someone that can play against a Human mind well, in any given situation.
There are many aspects to civ and the biggest ones are attack, defence, the rate of technology growth, the ability to continuously expand, the ability to get wonders up before others, the ability to create trade routes early, and the knowhow to over run other civilizations, but the most important aspect is the ability to be able to do ALL of these things well enough to combat any given situation.
That is who we need to find. Someone that can adjust to ALL problems.
Consider the following three examples:
1- There are people that go straight for republic and only have 1 unit in each city for a thousand years. That is hardly a well rounded strategy and will not work unless you are alone on an island and/or out of harms way and even then you have a pretty good chance of losing a few cities. Yes you will probably have a tech lead and possibly alot of cities and a good population (possibly the highest) but what's the point if you are going to lose 1/3 of it or run the chance of losing all of it?
2-There are others that don't understand governments very well, and they don't really understand which techs they need to get to reach a certain advantage (which can play a huge role in determining who will be the winner). They don't watch any of the top 5 city screens or the demographics and are playing blind. They will have created a great mass of units and probably be 1/2 the population of the leading contender (which is usually the quick to republic expansionist), but if this person doesn't do something with these units they will be obsolete in time to come and will be kicked all over the map like a sick peasant.
3-Then there's the person that understands the concept of defence and has enough military to attack. This person can both attack the player from example number 1 (mr expansionist with barely any units at all) and defend against player number two (with the soon to be obsolete military power). This well rounded player would most likely have less techs than the expansionist and possibly a smaller amount of cities (but I would say only 20% less), but I can also tell you that this player will have some of the largest cities in the game (providing that he hasn't expanded too quick) and will be on a Monarchy government.
The well rounded player must cut down the expansionist by force at this point, or he will most innevitably fall behind just like the militarist innevitably will in time. The militarist is of little threat to the well rounded player but at this stage could do quite alot of damage to the expansionist. The expansionist is of no immediate threat to anyone at all. But the well rounded player with the medium population is the largest threat in the game to this point.
I would be backing the well rounded player on Monarchy in this game providing that he attacks the expansionist, he doesn't need to do anything with the militarist because the militarist is digging his 'own' grave.
If there are two expansionists and one well rounded player I still back the well rounded player (but he will have some trouble). If there are two well rounded players and one expansionist, the expensionist will be sure to die. If there are 2 militarists then the expansionist is dog meat and the well rounded player will still at the least (have some trouble) and if there are two well rounded players against a militarist, the militarist is dog meat.
My point is, we need to find someone that can play anyone and win consistently. The winner would be a proven well rounded player that doesn't rely on just expansion or just military. They will have earned their reputation by playing and winning a broad range of strategists. The person that is most able to win conistently (and not necessarily all the time) is the best CivII player. It is important that these players do not get to choose who they play against. Just say we have 15 people that would like to enter. We need to work out a system that everyone plays everyone at least once, which in that case would make 225 games in all, but if there are 15 people playing and complete 2 games per week, that makes 60 games in 1 week. After 3 weeks and 5 days it would be done
It would take a little longer if people can't play that much and a little less if they can play more, but on average that's how long it would take for 15 people to play each other if they were playing twice per week.
There would simply need to be a tally, and the person with the most wins at the end of that game is without any doubt the undesputed champion and no one could possibly doubt that for any reason what so ever.
So if you think your skills are well rounded enough to beat the majority of 15*(example) people then lets get the ball rolling.
I think that it is important to have ONLY 2 humans playing at any one time to avoid people holding hands, or ganging up which would completely destroy any accuracy as to who is the best player. I also think that it is important to have 2 AI's in the game to create some distraction for the RUT strategist (the strategist that only knows one way to play) such as the expansionists. I think that there should most definately be wonders in the game because you can hardly call yourself a well rounded civ player if you have won all these wins with half the game missing. Also I think there should be raging hordes, because a decent player will have little trouble fending off these little pestillences with a simple phalanx in each city, but once again it creates a distraction for the Republic expansionist with 1 warrior in each city (which is hardly well rounded). Obviously the space race is on, but I don't necessarily see a need for huts as this can definately cause a civ to get a great undeserved and un worked for lead. I don't see the barbarians as unfair because it is unlikely that you will lose 14*(example) games to barbarian invasions, and it is at least possible to do something about the barbarians by building a proper defence. On the other hand, there is no way you can stop another civ from gaining 2 settlers and a free tribe, which is pretty unfair. It is also highly important that the game be played on Deity level. How can you call yourself the best player in the world when you won it on prince or King level?
Here is a list of the settings that I have come up with:
1-Deity (yes)
2-Barbarians (yes)
3-Huts (possibly/open for debate)
4-Two Human and Two AI (for obvious reasons)
5-Woders (yes)
This game needs to be as fair and accurate as possible. It would have to be turn based and the same map would have to be used.
I have created a map called the GREATNESS map. It is set at 4000B.C. and is saved a a scenario file. The huts have been removed and all techs have been removed so that everyone (including the host) starts with NO techs, because in some games the host can start with 4 or 5 and that is rediculous. The map caters for 4 players Ideal for 2 human and 2 AI. All 4 land masses are completely 100% identical and the tiles and resourses are realistically placed. The maps are a perfect mirror image of each other, but 2 are upside down and 2 are the right way up. They are all placed exactly 100% the same sistance as each other (including starting location). The land mass is so accurate that I have painstakingly set it up so that EVEN the sea resouses on the cosat are IDENTICAL. There is NO fairer map in existance!
There is only one difference. The two bottom land masses have a tiny variation between the two top land masses. This is only the placement of the grassland squares with or without sheilds, and there is no possible way that this can be helped. So I must admit that it is 99.999% acurate, identical and fair. I would like you to have a look at the preview of the GREATNESS map which is located on my homepage. Go to the Civilization section and then Click on Greatness, and follow the instructions. Feel free do download the map. Thay map has been tested and proven and has shown to be a truly great layout.
Anyway, I think this is my longest post LOL. Before anyone startes telling me how sh*t my maps or ideas are, I would just like to emphasise that ALL of my idea have been carefully constructed and thaught out. Please give all I have said decent consideration. Thankyou, here is the link for <a href="http://members.optushome.com.au/mrlen/homepage/HOMEPAGE.html"target="new">(((GREATNESS)))</a>Oh, if you have time can you sign my guestbook? *hehe* I would appreciate it
MrLeN
P.S. Thankyou, cheers!
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
We need to set up a competition that not only finds out who is the best player playing against the AI, but also someone that can play against a Human mind well, in any given situation.
There are many aspects to civ and the biggest ones are attack, defence, the rate of technology growth, the ability to continuously expand, the ability to get wonders up before others, the ability to create trade routes early, and the knowhow to over run other civilizations, but the most important aspect is the ability to be able to do ALL of these things well enough to combat any given situation.
That is who we need to find. Someone that can adjust to ALL problems.
Consider the following three examples:
1- There are people that go straight for republic and only have 1 unit in each city for a thousand years. That is hardly a well rounded strategy and will not work unless you are alone on an island and/or out of harms way and even then you have a pretty good chance of losing a few cities. Yes you will probably have a tech lead and possibly alot of cities and a good population (possibly the highest) but what's the point if you are going to lose 1/3 of it or run the chance of losing all of it?
2-There are others that don't understand governments very well, and they don't really understand which techs they need to get to reach a certain advantage (which can play a huge role in determining who will be the winner). They don't watch any of the top 5 city screens or the demographics and are playing blind. They will have created a great mass of units and probably be 1/2 the population of the leading contender (which is usually the quick to republic expansionist), but if this person doesn't do something with these units they will be obsolete in time to come and will be kicked all over the map like a sick peasant.
3-Then there's the person that understands the concept of defence and has enough military to attack. This person can both attack the player from example number 1 (mr expansionist with barely any units at all) and defend against player number two (with the soon to be obsolete military power). This well rounded player would most likely have less techs than the expansionist and possibly a smaller amount of cities (but I would say only 20% less), but I can also tell you that this player will have some of the largest cities in the game (providing that he hasn't expanded too quick) and will be on a Monarchy government.
The well rounded player must cut down the expansionist by force at this point, or he will most innevitably fall behind just like the militarist innevitably will in time. The militarist is of little threat to the well rounded player but at this stage could do quite alot of damage to the expansionist. The expansionist is of no immediate threat to anyone at all. But the well rounded player with the medium population is the largest threat in the game to this point.
I would be backing the well rounded player on Monarchy in this game providing that he attacks the expansionist, he doesn't need to do anything with the militarist because the militarist is digging his 'own' grave.
If there are two expansionists and one well rounded player I still back the well rounded player (but he will have some trouble). If there are two well rounded players and one expansionist, the expensionist will be sure to die. If there are 2 militarists then the expansionist is dog meat and the well rounded player will still at the least (have some trouble) and if there are two well rounded players against a militarist, the militarist is dog meat.
My point is, we need to find someone that can play anyone and win consistently. The winner would be a proven well rounded player that doesn't rely on just expansion or just military. They will have earned their reputation by playing and winning a broad range of strategists. The person that is most able to win conistently (and not necessarily all the time) is the best CivII player. It is important that these players do not get to choose who they play against. Just say we have 15 people that would like to enter. We need to work out a system that everyone plays everyone at least once, which in that case would make 225 games in all, but if there are 15 people playing and complete 2 games per week, that makes 60 games in 1 week. After 3 weeks and 5 days it would be done
There would simply need to be a tally, and the person with the most wins at the end of that game is without any doubt the undesputed champion and no one could possibly doubt that for any reason what so ever.
So if you think your skills are well rounded enough to beat the majority of 15*(example) people then lets get the ball rolling.
I think that it is important to have ONLY 2 humans playing at any one time to avoid people holding hands, or ganging up which would completely destroy any accuracy as to who is the best player. I also think that it is important to have 2 AI's in the game to create some distraction for the RUT strategist (the strategist that only knows one way to play) such as the expansionists. I think that there should most definately be wonders in the game because you can hardly call yourself a well rounded civ player if you have won all these wins with half the game missing. Also I think there should be raging hordes, because a decent player will have little trouble fending off these little pestillences with a simple phalanx in each city, but once again it creates a distraction for the Republic expansionist with 1 warrior in each city (which is hardly well rounded). Obviously the space race is on, but I don't necessarily see a need for huts as this can definately cause a civ to get a great undeserved and un worked for lead. I don't see the barbarians as unfair because it is unlikely that you will lose 14*(example) games to barbarian invasions, and it is at least possible to do something about the barbarians by building a proper defence. On the other hand, there is no way you can stop another civ from gaining 2 settlers and a free tribe, which is pretty unfair. It is also highly important that the game be played on Deity level. How can you call yourself the best player in the world when you won it on prince or King level?
Here is a list of the settings that I have come up with:
1-Deity (yes)
2-Barbarians (yes)
3-Huts (possibly/open for debate)
4-Two Human and Two AI (for obvious reasons)
5-Woders (yes)
This game needs to be as fair and accurate as possible. It would have to be turn based and the same map would have to be used.
I have created a map called the GREATNESS map. It is set at 4000B.C. and is saved a a scenario file. The huts have been removed and all techs have been removed so that everyone (including the host) starts with NO techs, because in some games the host can start with 4 or 5 and that is rediculous. The map caters for 4 players Ideal for 2 human and 2 AI. All 4 land masses are completely 100% identical and the tiles and resourses are realistically placed. The maps are a perfect mirror image of each other, but 2 are upside down and 2 are the right way up. They are all placed exactly 100% the same sistance as each other (including starting location). The land mass is so accurate that I have painstakingly set it up so that EVEN the sea resouses on the cosat are IDENTICAL. There is NO fairer map in existance!
There is only one difference. The two bottom land masses have a tiny variation between the two top land masses. This is only the placement of the grassland squares with or without sheilds, and there is no possible way that this can be helped. So I must admit that it is 99.999% acurate, identical and fair. I would like you to have a look at the preview of the GREATNESS map which is located on my homepage. Go to the Civilization section and then Click on Greatness, and follow the instructions. Feel free do download the map. Thay map has been tested and proven and has shown to be a truly great layout.
Anyway, I think this is my longest post LOL. Before anyone startes telling me how sh*t my maps or ideas are, I would just like to emphasise that ALL of my idea have been carefully constructed and thaught out. Please give all I have said decent consideration. Thankyou, here is the link for <a href="http://members.optushome.com.au/mrlen/homepage/HOMEPAGE.html"target="new">(((GREATNESS)))</a>Oh, if you have time can you sign my guestbook? *hehe* I would appreciate it
MrLeN
P.S. Thankyou, cheers!
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
Leowind
Emperor
A large part of being a "well-rounded" player is being able to respond to the terrain and explore effectively. While the idea of a perfectly balanced map certainly has credit, I think playing on a pre-made map that everyone has knowledge of beforehand removes an important element of playing Civ. Players would simply develop strategies for this particular map, and then we're right back to the "rut" strategies you are trying to weed out. Everything else you say is great, but I think random maps are the only way to truly find the greatest player. Averaged over 250 games (whew, that's a lot!!) would largely eliminate the inherent unfairness of random starting locations.
MrLeN
Prince
Ok,your point is good
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
MrLeN
Prince
Actually, I just had a thaught. These random maps would have to be supplied by an unbiased overlooker, such as Thunderfall or maybe one of the mediators that do no wish to play. Someone that would distribute the maps. How about generating 15 different maps that no one has knowledge of, and everyone has to play once on each map? Hmmm, but then again, what's stopping people that have already played from passing the map on? I know one thing, we can't allow people to generate their own random map because they can just do what they like and we can't really tell. I guess at least if they look at the map they would at least not have had enough time to work out strategies properly. I don't know.
I have also had another thaught. Leowind, you said that...
It prompted me to realise that the same principle would work by having the huts in the game. I guess it would go something like this...
Actually, the only thing that was not stock standard in my original post was the removal of huts. I have come to think that the more people that are playing (and 15 would be heaps enough), the less 'ubfair' it would become to have them in the game. The hut are realy only an advatage/disadvantage with a one off game.
Anyway, I still think that my idea is pretty close to beaing perfect to find out who is the best CivII player. More suggestions?
MrLeN
P.S. We had better get a move on because when CivIII is out everyone is going to be getting that one *hehe* including me!, and i'll play it seven nights straight in the first week LOL <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/avatar.gif" border=0>
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
[This message has been edited by MrLeN (edited February 28, 2001).]
I have also had another thaught. Leowind, you said that...
It prompted me to realise that the same principle would work by having the huts in the game. I guess it would go something like this...
Actually, the only thing that was not stock standard in my original post was the removal of huts. I have come to think that the more people that are playing (and 15 would be heaps enough), the less 'ubfair' it would become to have them in the game. The hut are realy only an advatage/disadvantage with a one off game.
Anyway, I still think that my idea is pretty close to beaing perfect to find out who is the best CivII player. More suggestions?
MrLeN
P.S. We had better get a move on because when CivIII is out everyone is going to be getting that one *hehe* including me!, and i'll play it seven nights straight in the first week LOL <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/avatar.gif" border=0>
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
[This message has been edited by MrLeN (edited February 28, 2001).]
HIEROPHANT
Videogame God
i believe i am the greatest against humans and the computer.
Cimfindriel
Warlord
I think a tourney would be the best way to determine the greastest civ II player. A vote has inherent problems and is easily corruptible; voting for friends, not voting for people b/c you donot like them, and so on.
Also, I haven't a clue who is the best players on this forum. I, and any other who has just joined the forum or got involved in the civ community, would not have the first clue as to who we would nominate for the best player. I have a general idea who some of the best players are and look forward to playing some of them, but these people rarely play each other and agree on very little let alone a winner in "one" of their games.
My vote is for a tournament that test a number of skills with a point system. Have a non-multi game set up where people go in and those that come out with the best score, launch earliest, etc. gets x points. Also have a multi game and play elimination. Have it set up like a tennis tournament...only, the closer you are to the winner the more points you get...that way, it won't be so heavely weighted. I think this sounds like a fair and just way to determine the best Civ II player, and I would be more than happy to forfeit my chances at the title, which are slim
, to help out with its implementation.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>"Engarde you silly fool!
You are no match for my so fine
rapier!"
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition burns a picture to obtain the ashes.
- Chinese Proverb
Also, I haven't a clue who is the best players on this forum. I, and any other who has just joined the forum or got involved in the civ community, would not have the first clue as to who we would nominate for the best player. I have a general idea who some of the best players are and look forward to playing some of them, but these people rarely play each other and agree on very little let alone a winner in "one" of their games.
My vote is for a tournament that test a number of skills with a point system. Have a non-multi game set up where people go in and those that come out with the best score, launch earliest, etc. gets x points. Also have a multi game and play elimination. Have it set up like a tennis tournament...only, the closer you are to the winner the more points you get...that way, it won't be so heavely weighted. I think this sounds like a fair and just way to determine the best Civ II player, and I would be more than happy to forfeit my chances at the title, which are slim
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>"Engarde you silly fool!
You are no match for my so fine
rapier!"
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition burns a picture to obtain the ashes.
- Chinese Proverb
Similar threads
