The Difference Between Good and Great Players - Page 7

Ming · July 23, 2002, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
And Deity is definitely for rookies.

Hmmmm... one could argue that those that don't play deity may be more the rookies since they can't seem to handle happiness problems

rah · July 23, 2002, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
And Deity is definitely for rookies.

And I bet you think Raging hoards is for rookies too.

Deity Dude · July 23, 2002, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
All you have to do is take one look at deity dude to realize that only complete morons play deity.

Welcome back Eyes. I really missed you around here

War4ever · July 23, 2002, 22:38

funny thing about king on any settings.......... no defence.....makes the explorer strat very viable

HappySunShine · July 23, 2002, 23:12

Defense is an option on King. Deity it isn't an option. Expansion is an option on king, Deity you are forceed into low amounts of cities. Deity you must have happy wonders, King you don't have to have happy wonders. ANd anyone who says you don't need happy wonders to win is full of ****. If you think you can win without happy wonders we'll play and I will take the happy wonders and you can play without and we'll see how long you last. Deity every city counts. If 1 city isn't in a highly productive spot it becomes a hindrance rather than an asset...remind you of civilization 3? Civilization 3 is all the aspects of deity taken to a whole new level. If a guy starts with a whale and a pheasant in his city and I start with grassland and forest, with no resources nearby, there isn't a thing I can do about it. I can't expand too far due to corruption, and if I do expand outward I can't build too many inbetween due to the riot factor. Deity forces you into one form of play, just like civilization 3 forces you into one form of play. And if you can't figure out the true use of explorers then you're too stupid to be playing this game. Taking undefended cities is just a bonus.

Alexander's Horse · July 23, 2002, 23:31

You don't need happy wonders to win at deity level. They help a lot but actually if you play without them you build a much stronger civ along the way.

Deity 1x1x and raging hoardes seem to stop these blowhards in their tracks. They are the settings a lot of us play.

War4ever · July 24, 2002, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Deity 1x1x and raging hoardes seem to stop these blowhards in their tracks.

i play those settings

oedo · July 24, 2002, 04:12

eyes, if you haven´t noticed yet, there are other ways keeping your civ happy. for example you can build temples, cathedrals and collosseums, which have the same effect like Mike´s and a similar effect like Bach´s. compared to the income of gold you can get by trade routes they aren´t even expensive.
they´re also some other ways like choosing fundamentalism, where you won´t suffer any happiness problems at all. sorry I have to bother you with this basic knowledge, but you really don´t seem to know it yet.

after all skipping the happiness-wonders-tech-path in order to research other techs faster can be a good choice in some games. me, for example, I oftenly don´t waste a thought on building the gardens anymore in my games, although it used to be my favorite some time ago.

and finally, being able to build an happiness wonder is also a matter of strategy. (maybe except the gardens, in this point you may be right, this is mainly a matter of luck).

concerning the issue of lucky starts and unlucky starts. in the league, I´m currently playing in (http://www.civ2liga.de/portal.php), we invented a restart rule, which allows every player to demand exactly one restart until 3500BC.
concerning lucky huts and unlucky huts, I think this more a matter of the right strategy. blindly taking every hut you can get in any situation is certainly the wrong strategy.

atawa · July 24, 2002, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
Expansion is an option on king

HappySunShine · July 24, 2002, 12:38

Atawa by option I mean you are allowed to expand, Deity you aren't allowed to expand.

For the rest of you, I assume you read my post thoroughly so I can only conclude you are challenging me to a diety 1x1x Raging hordes game where you don't get any happy wonders and I'll take all the happy wonders. So tell me, when do you want to play?

rah · July 24, 2002, 13:32

*sigh* I think it's obvious who ISN"T reading the posts. I don't read anywhere here that anyone said that happy wonders aren't good. They're just saying they aren't the end all, and have learned some things to do when they don't get them. Personally, it's great to have HG, but in MP games with decent players you're not always going to get it. You'd better have another plan ready. (one that isn't simply quiting)
I do better when I have it, but I have also kicked butt in games where I had no happy wonders.

RAH

HappySunShine · July 24, 2002, 15:37

yes happy wonders are the end all. If I get the happy wonders and you don't the game is over. Anyone who says otherwise is a complete moron. You won't win the game unless you get happy wonders and I'm willing to prove it against anyone.

oedo · July 24, 2002, 16:54

ok, I think this is worth a try. if you can spare some time at the weekend come to the civ2.de chat. you will find me there. we can play a 1x1x deity game then. I won´t try building HG, oracle, mike´s, bach´s, sol, cure for cancer or woman suffrage in this game.
but I want to avoid that you only abuse this rule just in order to beat me to other wonders. that´s why I demand 4 wonders for myself, one in each era. which means you won´t build any of these four.

map will be med size and no large continent. the rest is on you.

edit: oh, and what do you think about the following restart rule: everyone can demand an unlimited number of restarts before 3500BC? and no starting techs of course.

Hydey · July 24, 2002, 18:12

Oedo, you better add in to use the normal rules.txt

some people have been known to change theirs without telling their opponent.

oedo · July 24, 2002, 18:18

hehe, that´s a valid point.
however, the rules.txt eyes used to play decreased unhappiness. so it wouldn´t be him who gets an advantage out of it.

but of course: rules.txt as delivered by microprose.

HappySunShine · July 24, 2002, 19:49

ok, it's your funeral. Species/woke tried the exact same thing and he got spanked. He never made it to even AD.

Alexander's Horse · July 24, 2002, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
ok, it's your funeral. Species/woke tried the exact same thing and he got spanked. He never made it to even AD.

Why would anyone play you? You've been caught cheating and admitted to it. You have all the charm of a neck brace and a personality which seems to have been deprived of oxygen at birth.

I mean, why bother? Raz beat you for Christ's sake - he usually get beaten by the barbs.

War4ever · July 24, 2002, 20:53

but AH tha was luck....

Deity Dude · July 24, 2002, 22:23

The whole proposition that eyes puts forward is another smokescreen to put down settings he doesn't like.

Who said happiness wonders were an all or nothing proposition. If someone does get all the happiness wonders I would assume they are dominating the game and would win anyways (i.e. their domination allowed them to get the wonders)

In most games I play, I usually get SOME of them (NOT ALL but NOT NONE)

Eyes statement is about as valid as saying "Chess is all about Queens and Rooks because if I am the only one who has them I will win."

Leading to:

"I'll play anyone here a game of chess where I am the only one with Queens and Rooks and I bet I win."

Then leading to the next logical point:

"Chess is for rookies, Checkers is the true game of skill"

Enough of the Eyes logic and back to reality.

The real questions are:

What happens in the games where the wonders are spread out evenly because the players and starts are somewhat even.

If someone does manage to get all the happiness wonders how did they get in such a dominant position to achieve that.

Eyes no need for you to discuss these questions. They are for us rookies.

War4ever · July 24, 2002, 22:41

Good points DD......thats why alot of people hate duels...the game ends up being arcade civ.....someone generally has an easy road to victory....and despite the best atttempts of your opposition, coming back is a most difficult task.

games of four or more and not usually as lopsided.....though it often turns into a duel if people of the same skill level are not involved.

the best games i have ever played are the ones where everyone is still in the game after one session. this used to be far more common, but alas now, were all so specialized in our abilities that a moehill is often turned into a mountain.

in a four player game i will take pyramids and Suns and be totaly happy.....

i don't need a happy wonder to win in a four player game (its easier) but not necessary

SlowwHand · July 25, 2002, 09:08

Duels suck.
Another point I'll make is that in a way, Adam Smith's can be used to the same end as "Happiness Wonders".

Hydey · July 25, 2002, 09:23

Better let Eyes have adams as well then, so its a fair game

HappySunShine · July 25, 2002, 11:58

The only people that hate duels are the ones that suck at them. I think it's pretty obvious that you suck at anything that has to do with civ2 slow. And no, Adam smith's can't be considered as a happy wonder.

oedo · July 25, 2002, 12:09

giving away 7 wonders is more than enough. the wonders I require for myself will be Lighthouse, Magellan, Leo´s and Hoover Dam. of course I expect somewhat fair mapsettings. a map with one large continent and only few or even no ocean squares is certainly not what I´m thinking of. after all the meaning this game is to proove eye´s or my theory about happiness wonders.

I also had to rethink the restart rule. an unlimited number of restarts will only cause, that we will demand restarts until we both start on kicky terrain. but restarting over and over again, that´s definetly the least thing I want. I think 3 restarts for each of us will do as well.

eyes, I will be online on saturday evening (afternoon for you). you can meet me at http://www.civ2.net/cgi/chat.pl then. also you can get me through ICQ, I reinstalled it two days ago. maybe you still have me on your list.

SlowwHand · July 25, 2002, 12:10

I said it could be used to the same effect, Nimrod.
If one isn't paying for improvements, science and/or luxuries have more flexibility.

SlowwHand · July 25, 2002, 12:11

And Hoover's is an excellent choice, Oedo.

atawa · July 25, 2002, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
The only people that hate duels are the ones that suck at them.

Nah, if I want to play a 1 on 1 game I'll go play chess or Go.

This game wasnt designed for duels.

rah · July 26, 2002, 08:18

Agreed, it's much much more fun and dynamic with more. While I would love to play with seven, it takes way too long. Four seems to be the optimal number for me.

RAH
Duels are either for late night play or for those that can't find more people that want to play with them.

SlowwHand · July 26, 2002, 08:44

Duels have not a thing to do with building a Civ.

jes · July 26, 2002, 17:01

oedo, wat für ne komplizierte regel, aber sei's drum. warum hast du nicht einfach ein spiel ohne wunder angeboten?

eyes, evry good diety-player in germany can beat u without a happy wonder, the rookie-thing is from yes-terday.

if u wonna lose twice, we can play a game without any wonder, wow, how nice youll lose