Emperor level needs a rethink.

[Aeson]

I feel that doing so would seriously affect my enjoyment of the game, as I'm micromanaging less and less (both save games I've posted, I'm letting the AI govern my cities (set at happiness and production) - and they haven't a clue most of the time).

That's perfectly understandable.

Emperor is a high difficulty level though, and the point of having higher difficulty levels is to present a challenge to the player. Using governors is setting yourself at the level of the AI's play, without having the AI's production or trade advantages, and with the corruption penalty for the higher level. Given that you want to play peacefully, thus negating any advantage you could get militarily, you should lose to the AI.

It's not due to a problem with Emperor level, it's due to the self-imposed constraints of your playstyle. I think a couple of basic changes to that playstyle will allow you to compete on Emperor, peacefully and without using tactics which you feel are too exploitative. I don't know if you'll find them fun or not though. It's one of the more micro-management necessary ways to play at high difficulty levels, and reads like a book.

Population Management:

The governors should never be used (as would apply to your playstyle, there are rare situations where they are helpful). This will allow you to have your cities much larger and more productive at every point through the game. Automating Workers is out too.

Food is king. Entremont's position (nicely moved to the coast to give access to the bonus grassland BTW ) is perfect for a 5 food per turn increase, which will allow 2 turn growth up to size 6 with a Granary. So build the Granary as early as possible. Also, you need quite a bit of terrain improvements in this position to get up to speed, so I would build a Worker right off. It will be a non-Granary Worker, but with short chop times and mined bonus grassland, you can still build the Granary about as fast as otherwise. It ends up being almost a free Worker, which is huge at that stage of the game.

I would build Warrior, Worker, Granary at that start. Your build queue can include more Warriors, but get the Granary built soon. The Worker is probably always a good idea with this much food. You can chop Forests to catch up with any shields put into Warriors. At least one of the Forests needs to be saved though (make it one on the river so you get more commerce when using it) until a Plains can be mined later. This will be the 'after growth shields' tile that gets used every other turn, but won't impact food intake.

Entremont can easily be +5 food at size 2-6, and have 6-8 production at sizes 4-6, perfect for building Settlers in 4 turns. If you don't want to micromanage things as much, stay on the 'even' portions of the city sizes... empty Granary at 4 when you start the Settler, empty at 6 when you finish it. More efficient is to start half full at 4, finish half full at 6. This gives you 2 'after growth shield' tile uses per Settler, and will free up a bonus grassland for other use (only applies if you have overlap there though). It also will give you slightly more commerce.

Using Entremont this way will allow you to expand faster than the AI. Using your city spacing, there will be room for others set up similarly. At least one of these should be dedicated to Workers. Two (one which can also add Settlers) would be better at the start.

These are the most important cities you've built, and some comments on them:

Lugdunum - If you move this SW (1) a tile it can be a Settler factory too. You can move Alesia SW (1) a tile as well if you don't want overlap, but would hurt Alesia's production (2 bonus Grassland) and food (fish). Where it is, you can use it as Workers only until the government change. Probably best to keep it where it is, and use it as the Worker factory in no-overlap cases.

Richborough - Will work as a Settler factory before the desert cities are built in, Workers or a Courthouse after. Would be a decent place to build those deser' city Settlers at, then make the switch to Workers. If you move Richborough a tile NE (9) it gives you access to another bonus Grassland tile early on (or was it Forest?). Will overlap 'OCP' style with Lugdunum though.

Cataractonium - You didn't chop either Game forest. Chop at least one of them to help build a Granary. If you chop both, and build on the river between them (granted overlap with Richborough) the city will be a good site for a Worker factory. If you don't build on the river, you will need to Irrigate one of the Game tiles to get +5 food per turn.

Alesia - a good city site, but shouldn't be built first with an Agricultural civ. Keep on the River for the first 2-3 new cities. That extra food, dedicated to Workers, will help you get Alesia stronger, faster, than it would built first even. Alesia would be a good choice for a Barracks city because it's growth will be slow and it has decent production.

'Defense':

As you've noted in another thread, the RNG shouldn't be trusted with your cities. This means defense needs to be more pro-active, and much more fluid, than relying on Spears/Pikes. Gallic Swordsmen, Horsemen, and later Knights, are very good 'defenders'. GS are Spears which can counterattack and move 6 tiles on roads. They only cost as much as 2 Spears. This means wherever the AI shows up, you can get all your GS there to deal with them before your cities are threatened. Keep most of them centered in your empire, with only a few on the boarders. Border guards can be mostly Spears/Pikes, but you probably only need 1 or 2 per city at most. Against the AI it is usually possible to get by without any Spears/Pikes (or a very few to gaurd border Mountains and Hills), and rely almost entirely on Swords/Horses to kill anything entering your borders. I tend to go a few games between Spearmen builds.

If you want to be safe though, build Catapults. Ping down tough enemy units before hitting with GS or Horsemen. Just a few Catapults will allow you to build significantly less GS or Horsemen and do the same job. With mostly Cats and GS', you can be pretty much invulnerable and still make good use of the Republic.

Governments:

Definitely go with Republic here. At the latest you should be able to have it 50 turns after Philosophy. I find it better to get Philosophy, Code of Laws, trade those off to an AI, then research Literacy (which you can almost always get first), build Libraries, and then the AI will probably have researched Republic, making it cheaper for you to do so. With the higher population later, Libraries and/or AI's with it, you can end up getting it a little faster than going straight for it right after Philosophy. Sometimes you can even trade for it, but it will cost a lot of gold + Literacy.

Don't worry too much about helping the AI's to Republic. It tends to be easier to fight an AI who's in a Republic if it comes to that, and your neighbors will be able to help you keep up with the powers on the other continents.

Happiness:

Probably the biggest difference between Monarch and Emperor is the one citizen born content. This makes using the Luxury slider paramount. An entertainer gives no food, no production, and no commerce. An unhappy laborer, made content using the Luxury slider, will pay for it's own happiness, and give you food and production. In a representative government, or on the river, you'll even make more commerce. No contest in non-corrupt cities. Use the luxury slider to facilitate growth. In corrupt cities, use the best food tiles and make as many specialists (taxmen or scientists) as possible.

Garrisons:

Get a Barracks city with 5 production running quickly, and leave it on Warriors (or Spearmen if you really must ). If the city is going to hit it's population limit, build a Worker instead, then back to Warriors. With +2 food and +5 production, this city will build 4 Warriors and a Worker, or 2 Spearmen and a Worker every ten turns. Use the Warriors for Garrisons everywhere but the front line. By itself it can keep you safe and your cities full of garrisons if you have it up and running quickly. If you find yourself at war, start upgrading Warriors. Once you get to Republic, you'll want to get rid of just about all your city garrisons except on the borders. A centralized force of fast moving attacking units can protect your coasts and augment your border garrisons.

Workers:

With 2 2 turn Worker factories, you should never have to work an unimproved tile, or move anywhere that doesn't already have roads. You'll end up with a surplus of Workers, which is a very good thing. Even +5 food per turn cities grow slowly once you get above 6 population. So build your population into 10 food Workers, and add them to cities as 20-40 food each. Pretty good investment on 10 shields, especially as they can improve the tiles they'll end up working as Laborers. You will be able to get your core cities to size 12 in the BC's if you want to. (Sometimes you have to hold back due to Luxury scarcity)

When improving tiles early on, make sure you get the ones that are needed done first, even if you end up wasting a Worker turn or two. For instance, Entremont building a Worker as the second turn would be perfect to add to the Worker just starting a road on the bonus Grassland. Irrigate/Road the wheat tile as the first improvement of course. After that, the sequence would be:

Turn 1: Worker1 moves to bonus Grassland
Turn 2: Worker1 starts road (3 turns), Worker 2 produced, moves to bonus Grassland
Turn 3: Worker2 starts helping with road (1 turn)
Turn 4: Worker1 and 2 start mine (3 turns)
Turn 7: Mine finished.

This gives you a second workable tile ASAP, which your +4 food city will need very quickly. It wastes a Worker turn (Worker2 moving onto an unroaded tile) to do so, but probably worth it as it will get your Granary up and running faster. Once you get caught up in tile improvements needed by Laborers though, always build the road with 1 Worker (exceptions with resources).

Late Expansion:

The Celtic map allows for expansion very late into the game. Keep a Settler factory going, build some Galleys from a Harbor city (Alesia or Verulamium would both work well), and Settle as much of that area as possible. If you get a Leader later in the game, you can make it productive by building the FP or Palace down there (might only want to try this once the FP is fixed though, it's hard to make it work right now). Otherwise, Irrigate everything and make Specialists. Will raise your free units, give you more power in the AI's eyes, keep the AI's from getting too big, grab resources (especially Luxuries in this case), build Workers, and add some tax or research to your civ.

Defending those cities will be more problematic, but you can look at them as expendible, and if/when the AI does attack them, trade their core for your 'worthless' cities that are drawing them away from the important ones.

Research:

I don't like the Celt's starting techs, not much that can be researched right off that the AI's won't already have once you get it. The Wheel is a decent choice to go full bore for, and you can get it relatively quickly because you'll be building up a big city at the start. Mysticism is a 'hut' tech, the first one an AI will get second teir in most cases. I went for the Alphabet at 50 turns, as a failsafe in case there was no one with Alphabet on the continent, and ended up trading for it on turn 30. Either way on this map you're screwed it seems like (Aztecs and Vikings got The Wheel and Mysticism very early in my game), but once you trade for Alphabet you can still get Writing and Philosophy first.

You can stay ahead of/even with the other continent even without a strong tech partner. People always say that research isn't possible on Emperor, but it is, and with the population boom you can pull off on this map (I was at 26-28% of world population basically from turn 20 on) you research power is tremendous. Especially if you grab the Ivory and Spices to the south, and set up a trade route with the Vikings (build roads for them if you have to) for Wines so you can bring the Luxury rate down a bit.

Exploration:

Very important! 950AD and there are still parts of your continent (unsettled) that you don't see. You can see the free Ivory down there, which is one of the main things to be looking for. When you see something important, grab it if it's free! An early Curragh or two will show even more opportunities. Two islands you can reach safely with Galleys, and plenty of time to Settle those islands.

I sometimes postpone exploration a bit to build a Granary (like in this case), but it needs to be done as quickly as possible. The Luxury slider helps a lot, as you can send out your first few Warriors and rely on it to keep your people working.

As an Agricultural civ, follow the rivers when possible. Find city sites, but also keep in mind the cardinal direction you are going. Making contacts are still key.

Diplomacy:

Checking the AI every turn will pay off. If one AI has something and another doesn't, you can only play middleman if you recognize the opportunity. Early game, if the AI puts a Worker in their capital, it's a huge opportunity. A starting tech can usually get 2 Workers.

This is one I don't think most people like doing, but over the course of a game it will be worth several techs and thousands of gold. Check the AI as often as you can without ruining your fun.

Huts:

Leave them alone around you when you aren't expansionist. There are some exceptions, like if you haven't built any military yet. Emperor barbs aren't too bad, but will still hurt, and huts give out barbs more often than not. You can often save the huts around you for a bit, build up enough military, and then open them. If you do happen to get a tech, it will be a better one for waiting too.

Make contact first. If you send a Warrior in a direction to make contact, avoid huts until he makes it, or you figure out no one is around. You need to find out if someone is there most importantly, anything you can expect from a hut pales in comparison. If you make contact feel free to start opening huts. Especially if you find a hut on their borders, or on good defensive terrain. If you get barbs on the AI's borders, check them the next few turns! They put their Workers in their capitol when barbs are threatening.

Preferences:

This may seem silly, but I've checked well over a thousand games for the GOTM over at Civfanatics, and I can tell you that by and large the players who are most successful use certain preference settings. Some of them are obviously 'powergamer' settings, like turning off animations and such, which detract from the feel of the game when used, but add to the ability to spend all your time micromanaging things. Those aren't the ones I'm talking about though.

Turn on 'Always wait at end of turns'. This is important. It gives you time to check all your cities, make sure the luxury slider is set correctly, change laborers around, contact the AI's and see what they have, ect. You can do this most of the time without it, but then you always have to keep in mind if you have another unit still active when moving each one. The fact that you can't hit shift-d for diplomacy when a Worker is active (why oh why did they make shift-d for cleanup?) really makes diplomacy much more frustrating unless it's done at the end of turn. When you get those Worker factories up and running you'll notice this a lot. Workers that finish jobs in one turn usually mean you want to re-assign a Laborer, which is best done after the job is complete so you can see the effects instead of having to calculate it out.

Also set 'Always build previously built unit' and 'Ask for build orders after unit construction' to on. These are just to remind you what cities are doing, and keep you focused on 'important' cities. It really helps. Your Worker and Settler factories probably need to have Laborers re-assigned every other turn (if not every turn in some cases), and so getting that popup every other turn keeps you aware of the city and it's needs. Same with the Barracks city which needs to change to a Worker every time it would end up hitting the population limit (actually, a turn before then).

Wonders:

The way you build cities, I think it would be a good idea for you to focus on building the Pyramids. On Emperor the AI tends to build the Pyramids around 1000BC. You can hit 1100BC most of the time. This one, I'd say you can finish the Pyramids by around 1300BC if you really go for it, but pushing too hard does hurt. Build a city with high production capacity, and then add some workers from a Worker factory (after improving the tiles of course). I would build the Settler for the wonder city before the Granary in this case.

The Pyramids will allow you to forgo building all but 1 Granary (the first one), and won't really hurt your expansion too much as it's more a military city (high production) you'll be converting to an early Wonder city. If by chance you miss the Pyramids, you should be to Literacy by about the same time, and can build the GL. Don't rely on it for tech, it's culture and keeping an AI from coasting themselves. The Oracle is also decent for cultural games. Artemis is probably something to avoid unless you're going ICS early.

[Aeson]

After seeing your game, and hearing how you like to play, I decided to go back and play 'your' way as much as possible, and show how it can be effective (even dominant) on these settings, using the tips above. I built the Pyramids, which you might not want to do on this map because it triggers the GA for the Celts, but it shows the basic wonder building principle.

The Oracle would have been easy of course (Aztecs built it the turn after they lost the Pyramid race). I think I can get 4 Wonders (Pyramids, Mausollos, Great Library, Hanging Gardens) in that city, definitely should be able to get Mausollos and the GL if you want them.

Try this start again, and build your first city W (4) of Lugdunum. You could build it with no overlap, but you lose out on one bonus Grassland, which does hurt it's production. I always thought playing 'builder' was to put cities in the best spots, while trying to avoid overlap when possible. Either way should work for you though.

You'll probably get Barbs from the hut once Alesia's borders expand, so open that hut with a Warrior ASAP after founding it. That way you won't lose much except some gold when they sack the city. I got barbs, and one sacked the city (I gave all but 2 gold to the Aztecs first), the other attacked my Warrior, not denting it, and the third I killed the next turn.

Rotate Entremont between Settlers and Workers until you get a second Worker factory going. Mostly Workers though. Fitting in a couple Warrior builds to let it grow to size 5 before starting the Settlers works too, and gives you another 2 Warriors for garrison and/or exploring. Once you have enough tiles to work all of them at size 7, you can build a Temple, but it's not required. I fit in a Curraugh to go exploring, along with 3 Warriors. One to replace one of Alesia's that was lost to barbs, and two garrisons.

Focus your Workers to improving Alesia into a production powerhouse. Irrigate the FP's so you can use Forests, mine the bonus Grasslands, and add Workers to the city when there are improved terrain tiles that you can use. The only time to make sure you don't add Workers is when the city is about to grow to size 7. Adding a Worker then will lose you food.

Build 2 Warriors first in Alesia, then build a Temple to expand the borders and get access to the bonus Grasslands. If you can, arrange it chop the plains Forest as part of the Temple build. The way the barbs popped out of my hut made it so the Worker couldn't move that way, and I would have gotten 6 shields from the chop instead of the 9, so I called it off. You can mine the Plains later and they're just as good as the Forest. Make sure the remaining Forests are roaded before they are used so that the Luxury slider won't need to be so overworked.

Research Masonry from the start, full bore. It will say 50 turns, but you will get it faster (~32 turns). Also, your treasury will be nil or close to it when the Barbs sack your city. You can get Masonry before you finish the Temple and a couple Warrior garrisons. The Warriors can go exploring for a bit as the luxury rate to keep Entremont productive, and the Temple, will keep them in line. Then start building the Pyramids.

I met the Vikings a little after getting Masonry, and was able to trade Masonry+CB+Pottery to them for Alphabet and 20g (10g of which I had just given them as a gift). Then I got BW+WC+40g (what I gifted them before the Barbs) from the Aztecs for Alphabet and Masonry. Started on Writing (31 turns) at 80% (20% Lux). If I was doing it over again, I wouldn't have traded for BW and WC, as the Aztecs are in a very strong position and would be the main competition for the Pyramids (think I beat them by ~5 turns).

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

If you get the Pyramids (a very good chance on this map), I guarantee that Russia won't be anywhere near as strong as they ended up the first time. You'll be a bit slow expanding early on, and a bit slower on research, but your population will be very very high by the end of the BC's. Then just keep on building Wonders in your Wonder city, or use it as a Settler factory to catch back up with the expansion.

Here's the example game. Could build the Pyramids sooner, but it might keep you from winning the Philosophy race. I waited to build up Alesia to size 10 through most of the build.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt
22 turns after my save (your posted save) you’re two required techs away from the Industrial Age, and your infrastructure means that, if you’ve been playing it out as you apparently did before, those two techs will take you approximately 100 turns to research on your own.

What part of my game are you misuderstanding Catt? It could take me until the end of the game to get into the industrial era, but I bet I'm still ahead of both the Aztecs and Vikings.

My entire game was finished as soon as I met the Russians. Sorry - as soon as they met me. Are you deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that they are miles ahead of everybody in my game?

This is true whether you come out of anarchy into Republic, Monarchy, or Feudalism. If you undertake some “dodgy” moves like disbanding most of your spears and pikes, and selling off a bunch of improvements, and then taking control of your citizens to eliminate entertainers in favor of scientists and taxmen, you might get that total time down to around 40 - 50 turns.

Disbanding troops that were built for a purpose other than that is not in my book a 'dodgy' move. The research is not all that important now. At game start, I decided that I only needed burial, literature, construction, monotheism and education not too long after some of the others got them. Unfortunately, it would seem the Russians had all that probably before 1AD.

Turning off research and fighting instead might be your best bet, but again this is supposed to be a “peace” game.

Yawn. This game was no more than a test to see if rushbuilding culture improvements with the Celts was a viable idea. It probably is, it's just that the Russians ruined it for me.

In my save, if I never build another culture improvement, and none of my existing culture improvements hits the 1000 year mark and doubles output, I’ll have quite a bit more culture than you do by the time I reach 950 AD, the date of your save. Considering that I’ll also complete quite a few universities before then (and I am far too lazy to see if I have any doubling coming up soon), I think it is safe to assume that I’ll exceed your total culture by a wide margin when I get to 950 AD.

Congratulations Catt. You found yourself in the position where you weren't miles behind in tech, mainly due to the Aztecs not pummelling the Vikings in your game. Superb bit of diplomatic work there - I assume you'll claim this show of non-force by the Aztecs towards the Vikings in your game was all down to your brilliant diplomatic moves.

So you built those 56 spears and pikes, and a bunch of regular warriors, for your Aztec campaign? And did so in a few turns? And you felt the best tactical use of such units was to fortify them in groups of 2 or 3 in cities 20+ tiles from the Aztec border?

In case you haven't figured it out yet, Monarchy allows 3 policing units in a city. This means I can get by without the luxury slider under a Monarchy, and also have some semblance of a defensive military. In your game, you are so weak that if the Aztecs do attack, you're finished.

Those Pikes on the frontline did a pretty good job when I was at war. Maybe you missed the rather large Aztec army coming back from almost destroying the Vikings?

In your pure peacemonger game, the fastest way to Construction was conquering the neighboring GL rather than researching, and you’re in the late AD years?

Pure peacemonger? It was a test designed to see how agr/rel could do on culture.

You have completely failed to grasp a fairly major point here Catt. I choose exactly how to play the game at the start, and events outwith my control (for example - huge Aztecs mauling Vikings which isn't happening in your game) forced me to rethink my strategy. It would have worked too if the Russians hadn't ran away with the game.

Really? Nothing? You couldn’t have gifted techs and gold to the Russians’ neighbors if you thought the Russians were growing too strong? I’m sure bringing a neighbor up to Chivalry against the Russians might have slowed the Russian dominance on the other continent?

How many ships did you sink again? 15-20? That's a lot of shields Catt. Imagine if I'd had wasted all those shields trying to get across the Ocean first, only to find that the Russians were miles ahead. Do you think the Russian position appeared over the course of 1-2 turns? It shows all the signs of popping early settlers and getting many techs in the huts they open. In your game, it would seem they got a little less lucky. Can you not work this out for yourself or are deceiving yourself?

But you want to play culture and peace! You’re nowhere near the tech lead (despite temporary position), and you’ll only fall back rapidly from here. Your tech position comes only because you went on the offensive – something your entire playstyle is supposed to disavow! Absent the Great Library built near your border (within easy reach), you’re still in the ancient age in the 900’s AD

And the others on my continent aren't much further ahead than me. Did the Aztecs declare war on the Vikings 3 times in your game, drawing them to near destruction? No. When I compare our games, it would seem that they are almost identical in city placement - The main difference is the Vikings don't hold all those cities they built, and the Aztecs do. The Vikings gave nothing to this game. It was a 5-civ continent vs a 2-civ continent. When the 5-civ continent has a lucky expansionist race, it'll always be a tech monster. If you've ever been stuck by yourself on an island, you'll know how easy it is to fall behind in tech. I practically was, because the Aztecs got the GL and didn't need to trade anything.

I’ll repeat from above -- you couldn’t have gifted techs and gold to the Russians’ neighbors if you thought the Russians were growing too strong? I’m sure bringing a neighbor up to Chivalry against the Russians might have slowed the Russian dominance on the other continent?

What year did you make it across the Ocean Catt?

It’s not about a better position – it’s about playing peacefully or not. That said, your military is no help – what are all those spears and pikes going to do for you if the Russians come? Fortify bravely in cities? Your military is all defense; the little offense you have is south. Forget what your military advisor says – you’re weak as hell militarily, and the retreating Aztec forces that you faced just before making peace and posting the save, testify to it.

I chose to end that war simply because in order to rescue anything from this game I needed to switch to republic and kill off at least 1/2 my units. It is pretty obvious that the Aztecs are not my main threat.

Hey! – there’s an interesting challenge. Please play on from your 950 AD save and post a later save showing how you “swept through the whole continent” and please pay particular attention to how you did so “easily.” I’d love to see that AAR. Please post it.

Nah, I'm too busy winning every large map game I play with varying amounts of ease. It's pretty true what somebody else said - the Large maps aren't all that bad. Easier, but not too bad a game.

I’m usually a fairly good-natured poster (at least I like to think so), and I would almost never launch into a harsh critique of another’s posted game even if they asked, but:


Following that quote you attempt to reject any and all advice offered (revisit asleepatthewheel’s lone attempt to offer feedback and your responses and then your reposnse to my post offering a mild critique!). All your energy is spent on disputing the advice!

I think you're talking out of your arse Catt. From your own save game, I see nothing that suggests you are any better than me at the game. Wildly different styles of play, but no better. You have completely and utterly failed to even admit that the Russians are in an incredibly overpowering position - even though everyone looking at the map can see that they have run away with the game from year 1. That is the only possible explanation for them to be so far ahead of everyone - they aren't just miles ahead of me, they are miles ahead of everyone. Instead, you offer up your opinion that I could somehow have changed their fortunes by wasting 400+ shields on sinking ships - that's complete bullshit.

My goodness! Wait until Aeosn posts some results. He went to the effort to actually colonize the south; and he's a much better player than most (including me, without question). I suspect he has more self-control than I am displaying now, and will post results in a neutral manner rather than calling you on your BS statements throughout this thread.
Catt

Actually, I already figured that Aeson is far superior to you or me at this game. However, instead of assuming vast superiority, he has made some valid points about the map and game in general and hasn't brought himself down by pretending that the Russians could have been stopped in my game. That frankly, is why I'm more likely to listen to him than a hot air balloon like yourself. BTW - thats my first personal insult and it's your incredible (false) sense of superiority that's brought it on.

Tiny things can make all the difference in a game. Getting to a tech one turn before or after the AI can have ramifications all game. You either don't realise this or are deliberately not mentioning it.

Tell you what Catt - I've seen more than enough of your effort on this game to be completely unimpressed. After Christmas and New Year, we'll get somebody to post a map - any size, level, civs, whatever, and then we'll see. BTW - I'll be playing with a bit of care and effort so I hope you're up for it.

[Dominae]

Wowzers, those are big posts Aeson!

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Aeson
Emperor is a high difficulty level though, and the point of having higher difficulty levels is to present a challenge to the player. Using governors is setting yourself at the level of the AI's play, without having the AI's production or trade advantages, and with the corruption penalty for the higher level. Given that you want to play peacefully, thus negating any advantage you could get militarily, you should lose to the AI.

I generally win, even with the constraints. Or at least on a large map I seem to (although in my last MP game I got backstabbed by the Persians - and 78 Immortals + 10 Archers!). It's really only on the huge maps that I feel the game is a chore at this level.

Population Management:

The governors should never be used (as would apply to your playstyle, there are rare situations where they are helpful). This will allow you to have your cities much larger and more productive at every point through the game. Automating Workers is out too.

Never automate workers for sure. They are even more clueless than governers. Getting back to managing my pop will take a little longer, as I've grown fat and lazy letting the governers do it.

I'll read the rest of this and download the save later, going to do some shopping now.

[vmxa1]

Aeson you did a great job of putting the 411 down for ancient era play.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Aeson
This may seem silly, but I've checked well over a thousand games for the GOTM over at Civfanatics, and I can tell you that by and large the players who are most successful use certain preference settings...
Turn on 'Always wait at end of turns'. This is important.

This is the first thing I noticed when I loaded up Jeem's Large map French game!

You can train yourself to do everything that needs to be done before the last unit's move is complete, but it's just really annoying. In my games, all the really important stuff happens after I see the "Hit Enter or Spacebar to end the turn" message.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Aeson
You'll probably get Barbs from the hut once Alesia's borders expand, so open that hut with a Warrior ASAP after founding it. That way you won't lose much except some gold when they sack the city. I got barbs, and one sacked the city (I gave all but 2 gold to the Aztecs first), the other attacked my Warrior, not denting it, and the third I killed the next turn.

Why all but 2 Gold? I assume if you have no Gold the Barbs will always hit your production. But you could have gifted the Aztecs 9 Gold, too. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but sums under 10 Gold do nothing to improve an AI's Attitude toward you. So, unless you had over 10 Gold at the time, giving the Aztecs 8 Gold was for no reason other than protecting it from destruction by the Barbs. Right?


Dominae

[Aeson]

At the time I had 45 gold. Sold CB to the Aztecs for 35, kinda without thinking. Wanted to keep the tech rate high on my continent, but could have affected the trade with the Vikings later. Still getting used to the new trait distribution too... when I see the Aztecs without a 'religious' tech, I sell it to them cheap thinking they'd be going for it anyways. Was halfway through the Pyramids build before realizing it was going to trigger my GA as well!

I decided to keep two gold because it was somewhat likely (1 in ~10?) that more than one barb would spawn next to the city. I should have kept 3 gold just to make sure, but at most I was going to lose 4 shields on the Warrior and so I wasn't too worried about the off-chance that all 3 barbs spawned next to the city. (1 in 56?) Not really sure on the odds calculations, but 2 is more likely than 3 in any case.

Any barbs that didn't spawn next to the city were likely to just wander off or attack my warrior, and I'd have at least a turn to raise the 1g again.

[Aeson]

Um... ignore my last confused post about barbs! I was mixing up that occasion with another where the hut was opened by a cultural expansion.

In this case, I opened the hut, got the barbs, and then gave away all but 2 gold. That was because 1 barb was set to sack my treasury, and I was running a -1 gpt deficit due to research. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Dominae

This is the first thing I noticed when I loaded up Jeem's Large map French game!

You can train yourself to do everything that needs to be done before the last unit's move is complete, but it's just really annoying. In my games, all the really important stuff happens after I see the "Hit Enter or Spacebar to end the turn" message.


Dominae

I'm not sure what you mean here Dominae. If you don't move a unit at all during the turn, the game pauses until you hit enter anway. I usually press w for the first unit, check out all my cities are doing what they're meant to be (with governers on, this is pretty prudent ) and only when I know I'm finished for the turn do I move the waiting unit.

Am I missing something, or is it just a round-about way of doing stuff?

[vmxa1]

I think that is what Dom is saying. If you are use to it, you can deal with it. It is easier to get burnt than using wait at end.
It is very easy to go around moving units and forget to hold one back and boom your turn is over and some things never got done.

I know as I load lots of games from here and run into that situation all the time.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Aeson
I would build Warrior, Worker, Granary at that start. Your build queue can include more Warriors, but get the Granary built soon. The Worker is probably always a good idea with this much food. You can chop Forests to catch up with any shields put into Warriors. At least one of the Forests needs to be saved though (make it one on the river so you get more commerce when using it) until a Plains can be mined later. This will be the 'after growth shields' tile that gets used every other turn, but won't impact food intake.

I'm not sure, but I think I went warrior, warrior, settler, temple, settler, settler, granary, settler, settler, settler with this game. I was trying to get those temples built asap just for the culture, and opting for fast cities (building temples fast) at the expense of overall growth in my capital.

'Defense':

As you've noted in another thread, the RNG shouldn't be trusted with your cities. This means defense needs to be more pro-active, and much more fluid, than relying on Spears/Pikes. Gallic Swordsmen, Horsemen, and later Knights, are very good 'defenders'. GS are Spears which can counterattack and move 6 tiles on roads. They only cost as much as 2 Spears. This means wherever the AI shows up, you can get all your GS there to deal with them before your cities are threatened. Keep most of them centered in your empire, with only a few on the boarders. Border guards can be mostly Spears/Pikes, but you probably only need 1 or 2 per city at most. Against the AI it is usually possible to get by without any Spears/Pikes (or a very few to gaurd border Mountains and Hills), and rely almost entirely on Swords/Horses to kill anything entering your borders. I tend to go a few games between Spearmen builds.

My defence usually starts with nothing but warriors everywhere. Over the course of the game, I'll build a barracks somewhere that has built everything else, then start to throw out spears. I started a little faster in this game because the Aztecs were making me quite nervous and had already shown themselves willing to backstab the Vikings at any opportunity.

I tend to upgrade via money rather than building new units, so building those spears saves me a lot of production later on. The only reason I've upgraded so fast to Pikes is because of the Aztec army running around close to my south, and I knew I was about to attack them.

If you check the map, you'll see my only source of Iron is very close to the Aztec/Viking border. A lot of the worker effort went into building that road so I could get GS's.

If you want to be safe though, build Catapults. Ping down tough enemy units before hitting with GS or Horsemen. Just a few Catapults will allow you to build significantly less GS or Horsemen and do the same job. With mostly Cats and GS', you can be pretty much invulnerable and still make good use of the Republic.

My main problem was the Jungle terrain in the south of my empire. I figured that by building walls and upgrading to pikes then allowing myself to be attacked, my odds were a bit better than attacking his swords and pikes in Jungle with my GS's. What actually happened is they never got near to my cities - I think the AI broke down a bit considering the main Aztec army placement was almost smack in the middle between me and the Vikings.

Governments:

Definitely go with Republic here. At the latest you should be able to have it 50 turns after Philosophy. I find it better to get Philosophy, Code of Laws, trade those off to an AI, then research Literacy (which you can almost always get first), build Libraries, and then the AI will probably have researched Republic, making it cheaper for you to do so.

I've got first to Philosophy in just about every other game I've played, but nowhere near it here. I'm assuming the Russians must have popped a lot of tech early on in my game. The trades I did manage took me closer to Monarchy, and by that stage I was already pretty much set on attacking the Aztecs and capturing the GL anyway.

With the higher population later, Libraries and/or AI's with it, you can end up getting it a little faster than going straight for it right after Philosophy. Sometimes you can even trade for it, but it will cost a lot of gold + Literacy.

I generally find the AI wants at least 3 techs for any Government.

Happiness:

Probably the biggest difference between Monarch and Emperor is the one citizen born content. This makes using the Luxury slider paramount. An entertainer gives no food, no production, and no commerce. An unhappy laborer, made content using the Luxury slider, will pay for it's own happiness, and give you food and production. In a representative government, or on the river, you'll even make more commerce. No contest in non-corrupt cities. Use the luxury slider to facilitate growth. In corrupt cities, use the best food tiles and make as many specialists (taxmen or scientists) as possible.

I probably should, but I'm just so lazy. I'm also quite content for my 'unhappy' cities to grow slower (or not at all) until I've built a temple, colloseum etc. This is a throwback to me allowing the governers to dictate happiness. It's by no means the most efficient way to play, but it's hassle-free. Even in the old civ1, anytime somebody got unhappy, I just removed a worker from the fields and took the entertainer rather than use the luxury slider. I'm gonna try and use it more in future.

Exploration:

Very important! 950AD and there are still parts of your continent (unsettled) that you don't see. You can see the free Ivory down there, which is one of the main things to be looking for. When you see something important, grab it if it's free! An early Curragh or two will show even more opportunities. Two islands you can reach safely with Galleys, and plenty of time to Settle those islands.

I got really unlucky with barb galleys in this game, as you can probably tell by looking at my half-finished exploration. I feel that the huge map is less open to sinking ships dodgy tactics (Catt's example of losing 15-20 would seem to support that in this case) so I generally don't bother trying to get across the Ocean when playing a huge map. Fact is, if I'm not first to Navigation I'm probably having a crap game anyway. I should have made more effort to explore in this game, but everything just went to complete crap somewhere along the line.

Diplomacy:

Checking the AI every turn will pay off. If one AI has something and another doesn't, you can only play middleman if you recognize the opportunity. Early game, if the AI puts a Worker in their capital, it's a huge opportunity. A starting tech can usually get 2 Workers.

Yep, I've noticed that. A bit too gamey for me personally - I have taken them before and usually get 1 when I trade out alphabet for something like pottery - but I wouldn't check every turn just to steal them away - it puts the AI at a massive disadvantage also remember.

This is one I don't think most people like doing, but over the course of a game it will be worth several techs and thousands of gold. Check the AI as often as you can without ruining your fun.

What I usually do is take my chance if it represents itself in the normal course of the game (first contact for example). I think that's a happy medium.

Turn on 'Always wait at end of turns'. This is important. It gives you time to check all your cities, make sure the luxury slider is set correctly, change laborers around, contact the AI's and see what they have, ect. You can do this most of the time without it, but then you always have to keep in mind if you have another unit still active when moving each one.

Heh, I guess we all get into our little methods. Like I said earlier, I press 'w' for my first unit and do everything else before it moves!

The fact that you can't hit shift-d for diplomacy when a Worker is active (why oh why did they make shift-d for cleanup?) really makes diplomacy much more frustrating unless it's done at the end of turn.

I usually just press 'd' on the panel at bottom right.

Also set 'Always build previously built unit' and 'Ask for build orders after unit construction' to on. These are just to remind you what cities are doing, and keep you focused on 'important' cities.

I used to have this on, but it slowed the game down on my old pc. I could probably stick it back on.

The way you build cities, I think it would be a good idea for you to focus on building the Pyramids. On Emperor the AI tends to build the Pyramids around 1000BC. You can hit 1100BC most of the time. This one, I'd say you can finish the Pyramids by around 1300BC if you really go for it, but pushing too hard does hurt. Build a city with high production capacity, and then add some workers from a Worker factory (after improving the tiles of course). I would build the Settler for the wonder city before the Granary in this case.

I've never had the Pyramids in any game of Civ3. It's nigh on impossible without worker-factories and using the lux slider. Again, it sort of forces me into using luxuries and that's probably why I never even attempt to build it. Anyway, I want it changed to let me pick my Government again, like in civ1.

[Jeem]

Just something I wanted to say :-

As a civ player, this is the first I've actually got really into the forum side of things, so anything I know about the game is what I've learned by an incredible amount of game playing by myself - no reading about others experiences from forums and copying them etc.

One mistake I've been making in c3c is going for Monarchy in preference to the Republic early on - this stems from the old Polytheism trade that has now been made fairly redundant.

I feel that I'm probably playing the game the way the majority of players (who don't frequent forums) do. By that I mean the choices of which exploits etc to use. Most non-forum players probably play at a lower level than emperor, and certainly on smaller maps.

So (Catt is going to love this, I'm sure) - I think I need to shift the goalposts again.

Emperor level, on a huge map, played 'normally' is proving to be one hell of a challenge in a lot of games. Maybe that's the way it should be, but my original point was 'Now that Sid level has been added, I feel the game could be a bit friendlier to Emperor level players'.

In other words, do a few minor tweaks to turn current demi-god into emperor as it is now (as Aeson said, playing my way I *should* lose most games at emperor), and change the current emperor to be a little less harsh to the mere mortal.

If Aeson thinks I should be losing most games at Emperor level, based on my preferences, then that's probably a good indication of why I'm struggling more on Huge maps than on any other. Based on my own personal preferences, the AI has too many advantages on a huge map.

I'm not sure where that leaves me. Monarch level is unplayable on any map because I find it so easy. I'll probably move up to demi-god on a large map and look forward to telling you all about it in my next thread - "Demi-god on a large map needs a rethink".

Thing is, I just know Aeson has got me started on the long road to micro-management hell. Cheers for that!

[Jeem]

Oh, and BTW Catt - I do think your ressurecting of this thread was 'driven by less than pristine motives'.

I was prepared to let this one go, just like I've let the 4-roll thread go. I mentioned in that thread that I wouldn't carry on any disagreements there onto other threads.

Your reaction to my suggestion that your game and mine were pretty similar to a point suggests to me that the whole point of ressurecting this thread was to in some way demean me - if you look at what I said there is no reason for your reaction. I only brought up the comparisons because of the way you assumed your game was going so much better because I had played it like a muppet (which I did, in all honesty - I didn't need you or anyone else telling me that). However, I doubt very much that Aesus would be all that impressed by your own effort. If it didn't impress me, I don't see it impressing him.

Your whole attitude has been poor towards me ever since the 4-roll thread. Rather than turn it into a regular feature, I'd rather we got on a bit better. That starts with you getting of your high-horse and me being a bit less defensive towards criticism. I'll leave it up to you.

Unless Aeson wants to educate us some more (please do btw!), I'm happy to see the end of this thread. Don't confuse my discussions with him on various points as being 'me refusing to listen to any other viewpoint'.

[Arrian]

Everyone has to choose the extent to which they will adapt their playstyle to improve. Personally, I remain a Monarch player precisely because there are things I do not like to do to play on a higher level and acheive the same level of success I'm used to - mostly to do with city spacing, but also wonder building and other things.

However, I recognize that it is my playstyle, coupled with my expectations, that results in difficulties up on Emperor.

That was Catt's point to you. And I fail to see how he was in the wrong here. This probably also stems from the fact that I've known Catt on these forums for a while, and have known him to be a reasonable and knowledgeable poster.

In other words, I think you've misjudged his intention and character. Probably because of, as you put it, your defensiveness towards criticism.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Hey, we've all got our hotpoints, pet peeves, peccadillos (sp?), and idiosyncracies.

Jeem may be combative at times, but this has led to some interesting discussions. And I made a promise to myself a LOOONG time ago not to argue with Catt the Lawyer. I hope you guys can cool it a little bit, review, and LEARN.

Let's settle down and play a little C3C/BETA.

And Aeson, sweet jay-sus, where did that treatise come from? WOW. If it's OK with you, I am going to link to it in the Winning Early thread.

[Aeson]

Well, I think I've just about said all I know. (that was a very long post ).

I feel for you on the point that there are gaps in the difficulty spectrum, and being inbetween them in prefered playstyle does take some of the enjoyment out of the game. Emperor-Deity gap was always a problem for most of us, which got us the new difficulty level of Demi-god. So maybe if enough people want a Monarch-Emperor level it will happen.

Otherwise, if it really is a big deal, perhaps just edit one of the difficulty levels you never play to give Monarch AI bonuses and use Emperor corruption, or vice versa.

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

It seems the new patch helps the player a bit. Only played part of a game with it (continued this one as it's an interesting map/playstyle combination), but corruption is a little less of a problem so far with the new patch. The gpt bug being fixed means the AI won't have such huge treasuries.

Here's my game up to now, just about to finish The Republic. Grabbed the Pyramids, Mausollos, The Great Library, and Zeus so far. Good chance at The Great Wall and Hanging Gardens, no shot at Artemis I'm afraid, and the cascade from it will likely hit Sun Tzu at least (really the only danger I see for The Great Wall and Hanging Gardens). I could have cut into my expansion a lot and gotten the Collosus or Lighthouse for sure, but both would have been impossible. Aztecs will love having traded me that Ivory later!.

Aztecs are expanding much faster than they did the first time around, and it seems to have kicked in when I switched to the beta patch. Probably just coincidence. I'm going to hold back Literature as long as possible this time to keep the AI's culture down.

Playing this way will require the trimming of at least one civ for Cultural victory I think. Not to keep their culture down so much as to get some extra room for new cities. I'm almost 1000 culture back where I was before building Artemis in the other game already.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Arrian
In other words, I think you've misjudged his intention and character. Probably because of, as you put it, your defensiveness towards criticism.

-Arrian

That's your viewpoint and your welcome to it Arrian. I feel I've been pretty open to suggestion from other quarters (esp Aeson's excellent gameplay tips) and somehow, only Catt has managed to get me slightly irritated.

I'm quite convinced there is a clash of personalities involved. That requires two people, not one. Perhaps Catt is used to people fawning over him and meekly accepting all his 'head banging' posts, but I am not that type of person. That is what I personally believe is happening here.

There are ways to criticise, and ways not to criticise. Aeson has it figured perfectly. Catt has it figured poorly, if not at all.

[Theseus]

Nah, I've seen Catt posting for a long time, and this really hasn't been indicative of his style. You've just been rubbing him the wrong way (me TOO, at times, as I've posted!).

Not the end of the world. Again, Jeem, your contributions are great... but... ah, I've said it already.

You are, however, specifically disallowed from (this is historical 'poly stuff): 1) b*tching about culture flipping; 2) claiming to have invented the Horse Rush in MP; or 3) posting anything in 733t.

Edit: Oh, and one more: Claiming to reliably get GLs in the first 30 turns of every game.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Everyone has to choose the extent to which they will adapt their playstyle to improve. Personally, I remain a Monarch player precisely because there are things I do not like to do to play on a higher level and acheive the same level of success I'm used to - mostly to do with city spacing, but also wonder building and other things.

However, I recognize that it is my playstyle, coupled with my expectations, that results in difficulties up on Emperor.

If I may say so, I think there is a very close comparison here between us. I can see your point on Monarch vs Emperor because the gap is absolutely massive IMO. It seems to me that the game gets serious at Emperor level. Seriously out of whack in many respects.

I know what you mean about wonders. Early wonders are a pipe dream on Emperor, save a good start or some serious 'hard' playing by the player. The only reason I play Emperor is because I find Monarch to be just too easy. As I mentioned much earlier in this thread, you can often get a more enjoyable game on Monarch.

I think Aeson's point in adding a level between Monarch and Emperor is a good one. Then again, it's not that much different from my first statement on this thread - now that Sid has been added, perhaps a rebalancing of all the levels could be in order? If you find one too easy, up to the next.

I dunno the exact stats on the changes between levels, but it seems to me that the difference between Monarch and Emperor is the biggest by far. Emperor level is where the early unhappiness kicks in - that's a major difference in itself. The corruption problems add a further difference. Then there's the AI build bonus, which makes the Culture game a nigh-impossibility without utilising exploits.

My biggest problem with Emperor is actually the 'fun factor' in the early game. The AI is too willing to trade, too powerful in military and infrastructure in the ancient era. But, if I can make it to the Industrial era, I'm going to win. It seems that the early game is all about survival - missing out on wonders, expanding asap etc. This hurts a cultural/builder game played 'normally'. I can see why a Monarch level player would be content to stick with it, because you don't feel that the early era is all about getting through it in one piece. Is this a fair comment?

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Nah, I've seen Catt posting for a long time, and this really hasn't been indicative of his style. You've just been rubbing him the wrong way (me TOO, at times, as I've posted!).

I appreciate that. This whole thing started because of others comments on the 4-roll thread, and the fact that we both see the game in a different way. I got really defensive on that thread because I was subjected to a myriad of negative posts - not by Catt originally, but by others. However, that whole thread turned into me vs Catt and by then it was getting too close to personalities for me.

That's why I tried to put an end to it. I did try - it's there for all to see. I thought that was that until Catt ressurected this thread again. I am not going to meekly fall into line everytime Catt disagrees with me and I really do think that by flipping back a page, you will see that Catt's reaction to my 'pretty similar game' comment was OTT.

You are, however, specifically disallowed from (this is historical 'poly stuff): 1) b*tching about culture flipping; 2) claiming to have invented the Horse Rush in MP; or 3) posting anything in 733t.

Didn't I already tell you that I was the grand-daddy of the 12-archer-vs-3-pikemen-behind-walls-rush?

[Theseus]

Yep, you get that one.

Henceforth: 'Jeeming'.

An absurd force against seemingly insurmountable odds, yet with an actually better-than-expected chance of winning ( :smirk: Applicable in a *variety* of situations. ).

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Yep, you get that one.

Henceforth: 'Jeeming'.

An absurd force against seemingly insurmountable odds, yet with an actually better-than-expected chance of winning ( :smirk: Applicable in a *variety* of situations. ).

I'm still claiming it. Don't anyone even try to argue it was their idea first!

Next in line is the Musketeer/Mountain tactic. In this one, you play the French and the AI ignores your units until Cav you so long as you never, ever leave the mountain. I think there is a real potential for French/Mountain starts and very late game GA's here.

[vmxa1]

Jeem I would bet that if you started to use pumps and camps, you would soon be able to get a few ancient wonders. I find it is not hard to get at least one and often two.

This is without any prebuild type moves, other than a handfull of turns. If you created a coastal city as the 2nd or 3rd city, you can usually get colossus and one main wonder (pyramids or Gl).

If you want Pyramids, you need to have the tech as your start tech or it gets very hard. Slap down a mine on a shield grassland and have a forrest, that will get you rolling. If you can hook up one lux, then you have to consider getting a temple to allow more citizens working.
You should be able to have 5 workers yielding 10 shields plus the city square.

One camp can really keep the AI off your back or at least make it wish it had left you alone. The second city is best for a camp, but the 3rd will work.

BTW if you do not like Emp, you will really hate Demi. 2 extra defenders, 1 extra offensive unit, 1 extra type 1 and 2 units (workers and settlers). 4 extra free support units, 1 more bonus for each city and on and on. Note these are only in comparison to Emp stuff. So it is 9 troops and 3 workers/settlers to start.

Very nasty if you are next to one of the civs that can get archers as starting units.

[dexters]

Nice discussion. I'm just going to comment on the thread starter post and give my 2 cents.

I think the whole AI bonus scheme needs a rethink (too late for Civ3, but hopefully for Civ4). A mild AI bonus on the harder levels is ok, but currently, on the highest difficulty, the AI bonuses are just insane and forces humans to play insanely strange gambits and strategies designed to beat the AI bonus and not the AI itself.

That's why I was scratching my head with Firaxis when they decided to add Sid level difficulty. It's no longer about having a vicious AI go toe to toe with the human player it feels much more like one of those one dude vs. an army of millions games where the order of the day is attrition and more attrition and the only gameplay is thinning down the enemy troops until you get to the final castle and then kill some more troops.

What is really needed is some sort of autopatcher system (hopefully for Civ4) that allows Firaxis to upload small tweaks and updates to the AI from time to time, and feed the AI new moves. And perhaps even go the opposite and allow the game to upload player moves that Firaxis can then sort out and study to see if there are oft used (unreported) moves that exploit AI weaknesses and then fix those. Constant improvement to make the AI genuinely more difficult and smarter, and not simply give it an overwhelming numbers advantage is really what we need in the next generation.

[Catt]

Emperor level, on a huge map, played 'normally' is proving to be one hell of a challenge in a lot of games. Maybe that's the way it should be, but my original point was 'Now that Sid level has been added, I feel the game could be a bit friendlier to Emperor level players'.

In other words, do a few minor tweaks to turn current demi-god into emperor as it is now (as Aeson said, playing my way I *should* lose most games at emperor), and change the current emperor to be a little less harsh to the mere mortal.

That’s all I’ve been asking for in each of my posts – that you actually address your own thesis – they very topic of this thread. This is the first time you’ve actually addressed the thread topic in a very long time.

Based on my own personal preferences, the AI has too many advantages on a huge map.

I don’t know what that means, but someone else can probe; I think I’ve had enough of this topic.

Oh, and BTW Catt - I do think your ressurecting of this thread was 'driven by less than pristine motives'.

I was prepared to let this one go, just like I've let the 4-roll thread go. I mentioned in that thread that I wouldn't carry on any disagreements there onto other threads.

Your reaction to my suggestion that your game and mine were pretty similar to a point suggests to me that the whole point of ressurecting this thread was to in some way demean me - if you look at what I said there is no reason for your reaction.

Sorry you feel that way. I’m not going to engage in any further long quote & counterquote bits, but here is a summary of our discussion, from my viewpoint: Jeem posts opinion. Others weigh in with differing views. Jeem holds his ground. Jeem then opines that others’ views are not applicable because extensive huge map play is required prior to offering an opinion. Facing further dissenting opinion, Jeem posts a save game saying in effect: this game proves that peaceful play is impossible at Emperor on a huge map. Jeem also posts a 4000 BC save of the same game saying play this first and then I’ll listen to you. So Catt actually plays the game. Catt posts his intermediate results, with very little commentary on his game. A good portion of that post deals only with the thread topic – emperor “brokenness” for a peaceful player – and Catt’s opinion on that topic (after he’d “paid his entry fee” by playing the game). Catt did not comment on Jeem’s game at all (indeed hadn't even looked at it yet). Jeem asks for a save. Catt posts it. Jeem views Catt’s save and posts comments. Catt believes Jeem’s conclusions are wildly off the mark and responds with his own comparison of relative position; but Catt again reiterates that the thread topic is “peaceful emperor – doable or not.” Jeem continues with dissection of both games and misstates numerous actual ingame facts. Catt interprets Jeem’s post as implicitly arguing that actually playing a peaceful, huge map, emperor game, even one posted as “play this or there’s no point in discussing,” to a position of ingame leadership doesn’t actually have any bearing on the thread topic – it musn’t, because Jeem doesn’t ever address the thread topic. Catt’s interest is perked when Jeem quote’s Catt’s fundamental point and challenge – that peaceful play on emperor huge map was achieved – but dumbfounded when Jeem’s response has nothing, nothing to do with the quote or the thread topic – it is another comparison of Jeem’s results. Catt posts again specifically on the thread topic and nothing more. Catt finally responds to Jeem’s interpretation of his own game, and corrects misstatements. Catt repeatedly points out that the point is peaceful play on emperor huge, and that a multitude of Jeem’s commentary has nothing to do with that topic. Catt, for the third or fourth time, posts his request for Jeem to actually address the thread topic instead of save games. Jeem responds with a long post (to counter Catt’s long posts ) – but again, never addresses the fundamental point; Jeem is still focusing on saved games and has nothing to say about his own thread topic and the very reason Catt actually spent any time playing the damn game in the first place.

Rereading the thread now, I still don’t think I’m reading it from a very skewed perspective – yours and others’ views may differ.

If my goal was to demean you, I would’ve posted a save, provided numerous comparisons between your game and mine, and clamored on loudly about how you screwed up X, Y, or Z. I didn’t – I posted a very brief summary of the state of my game, a paragraph on how I expected the game to play out, and a paragraph of similar length on how, if at all, my previously expressed opinions on the thread topic had changed now that I had “passed the test” by actually playing your huge map game. You asked for the save; you commented on the games; you focused exclusively on the games and various approaches / tactics / strategies / ingame AI curiousities. I only responded when I felt you were either: (i) off the mark with your conclusions about the difference between games; or (ii) clearly misstated actual facts.

I'd rather we got on a bit better. That starts with you getting of your high-horse and me being a bit less defensive towards criticism.

Sorry, I’ll try to be more sensitive to sounding as if I’m on a high horse.

Perhaps Catt is used to people fawning over him and meekly accepting all his 'head banging' posts, but I am not that type of person. That is what I personally believe is happening here.

I am going to try this one last time (after trying it several times, unsuccessfully, in the 4-roll thread). If you want to get on better with me then actually address arguments, opinions, and facts (particularly those that are on-topic). Making comments about a poster (me or anyone else) or his/her “motives,” especially when the only information you have to rely on is your own “guess” as to what might underlie another’s opinion, is both intellectually immature and thoroughly insulting. And that’s just for ordinary comments on those subjects – making insulting comments about a poster or “suspected motives” is just about the worst f*cking stink bomb you can drop into a discussion. I’ll jump on you or others who behave this way in the future; if that makes it seem as if I’m on a high horse then so be it – I have no intention of putting up with that sort of bullsh*t just to come off as Mr. Nice Guy and Humble Pie wrapped into one.

Catt

[dexters]

I don't want to butt into a debate but I want to make a comment about Catt's character.

I've been a regular on and off for a good 2+ years now and Catt is one of the most agreeable and helpful posters you can come across.

On one occasion, there was the appearance that we were arguing indirectly across several threads and I got a nice PM IN my box explaining that whatever disagreements we had were not personal and welcomed me back (this was after my return after C3C's release last month)

Disagreements happen, egos gets bruised. Sometimes we may have spoken too soon only to discover we might be wrong. Whatever the case here (and I don't know the specifics) lets work this out without having to attack the person. And judging from the passion of your posts Jeem , poly certainly has a nice poster in its community. Dont' let this disagreement with Catt sour you on the rest on the community and coming here.


... and Merry Christmas.

[Jeem]

{donning my best anti-defensiveness hat}

Originally posted by Catt
That’s all I’ve been asking for in each of my posts – that you actually address your own thesis – they very topic of this thread. This is the first time you’ve actually addressed the thread topic in a very long time.

I was going to start this paragraph with - 'Actually Catt, ...' but decided that was probably too combatitive.

However, I have to say that this thread has metamorphed into something well beyond my original point. There are parts in it that have nothing to do with my original point, from both you and myself. For instance, you repeatedly questioned my Celt game on the basis that I was trying out a 'cultural peacenik' game when in fact I didn't say that was the point. When I reiterated many times that this was a pure test game (which started on another thread), you continued with the 'culture, peacenik' point.

On the other hand, my reasons for posting the Celt save were purely to show just how mental the AI can get on huge maps at emperor level. I should have made that clearer, but instead got embroiled in more nonsense that detracted from my initial point.

I did not comment on your game except to ask your opinion on the (what seems to me) wasted shields on galley sinking. I offered a comment to another poster that there really isn't a huge deal of difference in our games, save one or two major differences in the way the AI played it out. Anyone checking both maps will see that we have both placed our cities in almost identical fashion - the AI has also placed it's cities in almost identical fashion too.

I don't believe your response to that was merited. You stated that you rarely give criticism of other posters games unless asked, but in this case you ripped into my game and offered 'advice' that was neither valid (for my game) nor asked for. I responded by pointing out some hard stats about both game positions, and you responded with theoretical discussion of how the games would compare at a future date.

If my goal was to demean you, I would’ve posted a save, provided numerous comparisons between your game and mine, and clamored on loudly about how you screwed up X, Y, or Z.

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. You posted a save, and clamored on loudly about how I screwed up X,Y and Z. You didn't provide any comparisons because at that stage they would have been seen to be unfavourable. That's just my PoV, and that's why *I* posted some comparisons.

...If at all, my previously expressed opinions on the thread topic had changed now that I had “passed the test” by actually playing your huge map game.

Well, you actually held me to task regarding my 'culture peacenik' game that I was supposedly playing, even though I'd pointed out that it was nothing more than a test on agr/rel civs and rush building culture improvements ASAP. There was nothing said about the differences from level-level, and at this stage I had long forgotten what the original post was meant to be about.

You asked for the save; you commented on the games; you focused exclusively on the games and various approaches / tactics / strategies / ingame AI curiousities. I only responded when I felt you were either: (i) off the mark with your conclusions about the difference between games; or (ii) clearly misstated actual facts.

Nah. You haven't once mentioned that the Russians are all but unstoppable in this game. The whole point of me posting this save game in this thread was to show how the Russians went ape, and how it can happen in Huge map games (but I stated I wasn't saying it was a typical huge map game more than once.)

Sorry, I’ll try to be more sensitive to sounding as if I’m on a high horse.

In order to address this, you first need to admit to it. I am well aware of my many faults Catt, and this in turn helps me to notice others' even when they do not.

I am going to try this one last time (after trying it several times, unsuccessfully, in the 4-roll thread). If you want to get on better with me then actually address arguments, opinions, and facts (particularly those that are on-topic). Making comments about a poster (me or anyone else) or his/her “motives,” especially when the only information you have to rely on is your own “guess” as to what might underlie another’s opinion, is both intellectually immature and thoroughly insulting. And that’s just for ordinary comments on those subjects – making insulting comments about a poster or “suspected motives” is just about the worst f*cking stink bomb you can drop into a discussion.

You were the one who brought up the 'less than pristine motives' part Catt - not me. In my experience, anyone who starts a point mentioning this does have less than pristine motives at heart - otherwise, why bother? It must have entered your own mind that this was the case, otherwise you wouldn't have stated it first.

I’ll jump on you or others who behave this way in the future; if that makes it seem as if I’m on a high horse then so be it – I have no intention of putting up with that sort of bullsh*t just to come off as Mr. Nice Guy and Humble Pie wrapped into one.

Catt

Glad to hear it. I'm sure the 'dark side of Catt' is providing much enjoyment for others here who don't usually see you acting in this fashion. I'm pretty sure they can make up their own minds regardless of chest-beating though, so I'll leave it to them to do so.

I have little or no interest in continuing with this shite Catt. You're a good poster when you don't get too irate with a bit of banter and I'll continue to treat each post you make on it's own merits. Can you do the same with me? I've already made it clear that is my preference. If not, then hell-mend you because if you think you can be stubborn and lawyery, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Merry Christmas everyone!

[Jeem]

First of all Dexters - I agree with your 'dynamic patch' idea. There is no reason why Firaxis can't fine tune the game further on the request from players who play the game at certain levels. It's not like they're getting paid to play Civ3 all day, is it? Or are they?

Originally posted by dexters
I don't want to butt into a debate but I want to make a comment about Catt's character.

I've been a regular on and off for a good 2+ years now and Catt is one of the most agreeable and helpful posters you can come across.

I've heard it so many times I can hardly disagree with it. However, this leaves only a few choices as to why Catt has been somewhat less than comely towards me in this (and the 4-roll) thread.

1) Catt has suffered a brain tumour, and is actually now 'Evil Catt'.

2) I am just a total ***** not worthy of discussion (this one will get a few votes for sure)

3) Neither of us is perfect, and there is a (minor, imo) personality clash involved.

And judging from the passion of your posts Jeem , poly certainly has a nice poster in its community. Dont' let this disagreement with Catt sour you on the rest on the community and coming here.

Heh. I keep getting this same message too! People enjoy reading my posts because at best I'm wholehearted and extremely good at lawyering points. At worst, I'm entertaining.

Has it been know for other 'opinionated' posters to dissapear from this forum in the past? I ask because of the number of times the same point - "Don't bugger off, regardless of what happens" has been brought up more than a few times.