Will there ever be a Civ V 'war academy'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
masonryan said:
Actually, you're still incorrect. You have only written two articles, hardly a good start to the academy; and you still seem bent on comming in here and continuing to argue, and not really backing up your statements with facts. Just your opinions of how Civ5's happiness is better than Civ3's corruption. Checkmate again.
Click to expand...
Hold up a second. Are you serious? Why am I even asking? I know you're serious. I guess I could hope.

This argument is absolutely ridiculous. Seriously. It's the absolute worst argument I have ever heard, for anything, ever. "You have only written two articles, hardly a good start to the [war] academy." Really? The War Academy is a collective effort of multiple authors, over a period of time, spanning subjects that touch on almost every aspect of the game. Are you actually suggesting that because Bandobras Took hasn't written hundreds of articles over the period of 4 months, he isn't actually working towards contributing to a War Academy.

All it takes to contribute to the War Academy is to write one article. One Article. Borandobras Took has written two. That is 200% of the effort required to contribute. The fact that there is even a strategy guide in existence at this point in time is amazing, considering the amount of patching and DLC that comes out on a regular basis.

To accuse someone of non-contribution, only to be provided proof in the form of articles (dated prior to the accusation, btw), and then argue that it's not enough is absolutely ludicrous and incorrect. To then announce "Checkmate" afterwards just makes it even worse of an argument- because it shows that you are changing the criterion of your argument as evidence is presented. There is no way to argue the point you present, because you have just proven that you are going to "refine your argument" as evidence is presented.

So tell me, how many articles must one person author before you consider it a legitimate submission to a War Academy? I would like to see a solid number, that you are 100% firm on, so that I can compare it to the Civ4 Academy. I want to see if that academy lives up to your "standard."
 
esemjay said:
Hold up a second. Are you serious? Why am I even asking? I know you're serious. I guess I could hope.

This argument is absolutely ridiculous. Seriously. It's the absolute worst argument I have ever heard, for anything, ever. "You have only written two articles, hardly a good start to the [war] academy." Really? The War Academy is a collective effort of multiple authors, over a period of time, spanning subjects that touch on almost every aspect of the game. Are you actually suggesting that because Bandobras Took hasn't written hundreds of articles over the period of 4 months, he isn't actually working towards contributing to a War Academy.

All it takes to contribute to the War Academy is to write one article. One Article. Borandobras Took has written two. That is 200% of the effort required to contribute. The fact that there is even a strategy guide in existence at this point in time is amazing, considering the amount of patching and DLC that comes out on a regular basis.

To accuse someone of non-contribution, only to be provided proof in the form of articles (dated prior to the accusation, btw), and then argue that it's not enough is absolutely ludicrous and incorrect. To then announce "Checkmate" afterwards just makes it even worse of an argument- because it shows that you are changing the criterion of your argument as evidence is presented. There is no way to argue the point you present, because you have just proven that you are going to "refine your argument" as evidence is presented.

So tell me, how many articles must one person author before you consider it a legitimate submission to a War Academy? I would like to see a solid number, that you are 100% firm on, so that I can compare it to the Civ4 Academy. I want to see if that academy lives up to your "standard."
Click to expand...

your as bad as him all you guys seem to want to do is argue instead of building the academy you two claim you want so bad, If I want to get a task done at my job I dont sit around crying about it like you guys do I just do it, heck if you spent half the time on a war academy as you do crying about how people dont like civ 5 and making powerpoint presentations about your game the academy would be done by now. dont you have to animate your next attack in civ 5 in powerpoint now.

Moderator Action: Discuss the topic, do not take personal jabs at other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
masonryan said:
your as bad as him all you guys seem to want to do is argue instead of building the academy you two claim you want so bad, If I want to get a task done at my job I dont sit around crying about it like you guys do I just do it, heck if you spent half the time on a war academy as you do crying about how people dont like civ 5 and making powerpoint presentations about your game the academy would be done by now. dont you have to animate your next attack in civ 5 in powerpoint now.
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read my building ratios strategy article, you would know that I pointed out that there were several flaws in the Civ 5 Building Tree design.

However, you didn't, as you're making abundantly clearer with each post.

It's time to summarize this thread so far.

Somebody asked if there was going to be a Civ 5 War Academy.

Somebody said Civ 5 was too stupid to merit a war academy, but failed to provide concrete examples of why.

I said that if Civ 3 deserved a War Academy, so did Civ 5.

People said Civ 3 was miles ahead of Civ 5.

I pointed out a few ways in which Civ 3 was inferior to Civ 5.

Now, please read this following part carefully:

Nobody has responded to, let alone discredited, any of my observations about Civ 3's flaws.

Nobody has brought forth any examples whatsoever of Civ 3 having a superior game design.

Nobody defending Civ 3's alleged superiority and/or complexity has actually added in any meaningful way to this discussion.

What they've done amounts to saying "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!"

Which, oddly enough, is my opinion of both Civ 3 and Civ 5's diplomacy model. :)

I would welcome examples that showed Civ 3 as meriting a War Academy where Civ 5 doesn't. Strangely enough, though, none have appeared.

Again, I've written two strategy articles for Civ 5. I'm updating them as needed. I'm putting in the work. How can you claim I'm not doing so just because I'm also posting here?
 
esemjay said:
Hold up a second. Are you serious? Why am I even asking? I know you're serious. I guess I could hope.

This argument is absolutely ridiculous. Seriously. It's the absolute worst argument I have ever heard, for anything, ever. "You have only written two articles, hardly a good start to the [war] academy." Really? The War Academy is a collective effort of multiple authors, over a period of time, spanning subjects that touch on almost every aspect of the game. Are you actually suggesting that because Bandobras Took hasn't written hundreds of articles over the period of 4 months, he isn't actually working towards contributing to a War Academy.

All it takes to contribute to the War Academy is to write one article. One Article. Borandobras Took has written two. That is 200% of the effort required to contribute. The fact that there is even a strategy guide in existence at this point in time is amazing, considering the amount of patching and DLC that comes out on a regular basis.

To accuse someone of non-contribution, only to be provided proof in the form of articles (dated prior to the accusation, btw), and then argue that it's not enough is absolutely ludicrous and incorrect. To then announce "Checkmate" afterwards just makes it even worse of an argument- because it shows that you are changing the criterion of your argument as evidence is presented. There is no way to argue the point you present, because you have just proven that you are going to "refine your argument" as evidence is presented.

So tell me, how many articles must one person author before you consider it a legitimate submission to a War Academy? I would like to see a solid number, that you are 100% firm on, so that I can compare it to the Civ4 Academy. I want to see if that academy lives up to your "standard."
Click to expand...

as are most of your arguments you just go off on people who dont like civ 5 all the time.
 
Bandobras Took said:
Here's a more in-depth explanation of why the corruption/waste model was horrendous in Civ 3 -- whether or not you could deal with it:

Essentially, corruption/waste in Civ 3 made cities less productive by a percentage based on:

1) the number of cities; and
2) the distance from the capitol.

Factor 2 led to the exploit of ring city placement, but there's no need to go into that here.

The theory was that these less productive cities would curb a person's urge to expand. This, however, was fallacious.

1) Troops, no matter where they were built, took support from the global treasury, while "free" troop support was counted on a per-city basis. Thus, any city, no matter how crappy, upped your available troop support, which allowed your core high-production cities to crank out troops.
2) There was no similar "free" building support -- no matter where a building was built, it cost the same maintenance, and upping the number of cities did not directly increase your ability to support infrastructure.
3) Cities could be set to build wealth, but not research. Thus, crappy cities could allow for even more unit support.

By making further cities less productive but still able to support larger military, the person who plops down cities is only encouraged to keep expanding -- and then taking cities by force -- because taking those cities supports fielding more troops, enabling more city taking. It's a nice, positive, upward spiral.

The corruption/waste model was horrendous because it did not accomplish its designed purpose, but instead pandered to the very thing it was meant to stop.

Here's a good suggestion for a War Academy article (and is, by the way, one of at least a few aspects of game design wherein Civ 5 is superior to Civ 3):

Optimal unit selection for a limited number of strategic resources.
Click to expand...

again this is your oppinion, but most people agree civ 5 is simple and dumbed down and not half the game civ 3 was.
 
cman2010 said:
again this is your oppinion, but most people agree civ 5 is simple and dumbed down and not half the game civ 3 was.
Click to expand...

You've said that before.

Numerous times.

You're still failing to provide actual examples that would furnish discussion. Note that you required further clarification on why I felt the corruption model to be horrendous, which I obligingly gave -- it punished builders, but did not equally punish warmongers.

I'd really like some examples rather than meaningless blanket statements.
 
Bandobras Took said:
If you had bothered to read my building ratios strategy article, you would know that I pointed out that there were several flaws in the Civ 5 Building Tree design.

However, you didn't, as you're making abundantly clearer with each post.
It's time to summarize this thread so far.

Somebody asked if there was going to be a Civ 5 War Academy.

Somebody said Civ 5 was too stupid to merit a war academy, but failed to provide concrete examples of why.

I said that if Civ 3 deserved a War Academy, so did Civ 5.

People said Civ 3 was miles ahead of Civ 5.

I pointed out a few ways in which Civ 3 was inferior to Civ 5.

Now, please read this following part carefully:

Nobody has responded to, let alone discredited, any of my observations about Civ 3's flaws.

Nobody has brought forth any examples whatsoever of Civ 3 having a superior game design.

Nobody defending Civ 3's alleged superiority and/or complexity has actually added in any meaningful way to this discussion.

What they've done amounts to saying "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!"

Which, oddly enough, is my opinion of both Civ 3 and Civ 5's diplomacy model. :)

I would welcome examples that showed Civ 3 as meriting a War Academy where Civ 5 doesn't. Strangely enough, though, none have appeared.

Again, I've written two strategy articles for Civ 5. I'm updating them as needed. I'm putting in the work. How can you claim I'm not doing so just because I'm also posting here?
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone wants to read your stratgy articles as you have displayed you have no knowlage of what a good game is, and I dont need an article to figure civ 5 out its simple.
Moderator Action: Don't insult other people.
 
cman2010 said:
as are most of your arguments you just go off on people who dont like civ 5 all the time.
Click to expand...
I'd like an example of me "going off" on someone because they dislike Civ5. Go fetch an example. You may find an example where I went off on someone because they attacked me, or because they joined a thread and successfully trolled me- but I think you'll have a pretty hard time finding an example of me raging at someone for disliking Civ5.

But, in the mean time, I'd like to see you try to find an example. Go ahead. I'll wait. :)

cman2010 said:
I dont think anyone wants to read your stratgy articles as you have displayed you have no knowlage of what a good game is, and I dont need an article to figure civ 5 out its simple.
Click to expand...

WRONG! The fact that there are positive replies proves this statement wrong. You're just trying to take a jab at the game, and at the author, at the same time.

However, I think the point you are trying to make was clear. "Civ5 is teh suxx!" Got it.

--------------

However, this next (previous) one, I'm going to decipher, then pick part one quasi-sentence at a time- and provide reference points to main thoughts so I don't have to type them multiple times.

1. Wanting a War Academy
masonryan said:
[You're] as bad as him. All you guys seem to want to do is argue, instead of building the [war] academy that you two claim you want so bad.
Click to expand...
1.1. I believe that throughout the entirety of this thread, I have been off-topic the entire time; rather than attributing a "yay or nay" to having a War Academy, I have been battling logical errors in flawed arguments.

1.2. That's right. I have not, even once, claimed to want a War Academy- let alone agreed to go create one. This statement is an outright, blatant lie. I'll even post all of the reference material you need to prove it. (See Fig 1.2.1)

Fig 1.2.1. All of Esemjay's Post in This Thread


2. On The Job
masonryan said:
If I want to get a task done at my job, I [don't] sit around crying about it like you guys do; I just do it.
Click to expand...
2.1 This statement is an obvious attempt to deflect the argument. I'm going to refer you to my above point (See Sec. 1), and then continue to wait for a hard, numerical figure for contribution to a War Academy to be a valid attempt. Until you provide that number, I will consider your argument forfeit.

3. Ad Hominem
masonryan said:
Heck if you spent half the time on a war academy as you do crying about how people [don't] like civ5,
Click to expand...
3.1. I'm going to refer you to (P2.1)

masonryan said:
and making powerpoint presentations about your game,
Click to expand...
3.2. I'm going to refer you to (P2.1)

3.3. I'm going to point out the fact that you have been trying to use the fact that I have a perishable, marketable, and complex skill that requires practice to flame me at every chance you have. Is this because you dislike technology, because you dislike people who perform skilled labor, or because you really just cannot provide an argument beyond personal attacks? (Waits in anticipation).

masonryan said:
the academy would be done by now.
Click to expand...
3.3.1. Highly doubt that; but I'm not looking to get more warnings- so I'm going to avoid telling you why.

masonryan said:
[Don't] you have to animate your next attack in civ 5 in powerpoint now.
Click to expand...
3.4. In the interests of maintaining a civil and level-headed approach to this argument- I'm just going to refer you to (P2.1, P3.3, & P3.3.1).

3.4.1. However, I feel that it is my duty to point out that your statement is, again, a blatant lie. Although, I'm certain it makes no difference to you- I would like to invite you and everyone else who reads this thread to open this PowerPoint presentation (<<LINK>>, and find One... Single... Instance... of animations anywhere. I'll even sweeten the deal. If you find even ONE animation in my file- I will uninstall Civilization5, turn off my internet, destroy my computer, and you will never hear from me again.

3.4.2. Why? Because I can tell you with 100% certainty, that there are no animations in the file. Why? Because I made it, and I keep it open for editing- in which case, animations complicate and clutter the slides. I cannot have the file open, and be able to view animations, simultaneously. These two facts would be plainly obvious if you (A) Knew anything about MS PowerPoint other than "It has slides", or (B) Looked past the first slides, and posted based on information rather than feeding from someone else's flames.

4. Conclusion

4.1 In the mean time, I'm still waiting for your actual counterargument. One that is logically sound, and involves fighting the argument rather than attacking the author. Can't we at least try to be civil?

Moderator Action: Please refrain from making posts like this, you can argue without demeaning the person you are arguing with.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
cman2010 said:
I dont think anyone wants to read your stratgy articles as you have displayed you have no knowlage of what a good game is, and I dont need an article to figure civ 5 out its simple.
Click to expand...

So, you claim that Civ 3 is more complex, yet completely fail to show it or even provide a link, along with every other proponent of Civ 3 in this thread.

If the responses of its proponents in this thread are any indication, then my analysis of Civ 3 seems to be spot on, since they've not demonstrated any capacity to contradict the least of my assertions.
 
esemjay said:
I'd like an example of me "going off" on someone because they dislike Civ5. Go fetch an example. You may find an example where I went off on someone because they attacked me, or because they joined a thread and successfully trolled me- but I think you'll have a pretty hard time finding an example of me raging at someone for disliking Civ5.
Click to expand...

this just proves my point you flame all the time. oh and I just saw the power point presentation you made for your attack in civ 5 wow dont get out of your moms basement much do you.

Moderator Action: Use the report post button if you think others are flaming you, and the comment about the basement is uncalled for.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Too many infractions have been handed out already in this thread. Since no one seems to get the hint...

Moderator Action: Thread closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mastrude
Civ V Calculator Nerds
Replies
0
Views
343
mastrude
mastrude
mastrude
I'd like to play Civ V...
Replies
0
Views
348
mastrude
mastrude
A
Thinking about bailing on Civ V for VI...
Replies
17
Views
3K
Licentia
Licentia
S
Is it Possible to Set Up Civ-V to play like Civ-III...?
Replies
5
Views
1K
aieeegrunt
aieeegrunt
R
Few questions about vox populi and more
Replies
1
Views
301
Yerltvachovicic
Yerltvachovicic
Top Bottom