|
| Thread: civilization 3 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
posted October 27, 2005 05:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Dear Russ,
I was talking about facts, while you were describing just stories on all the above posts. I find it really pointless on getting along to a conversation that you don't want to be a conversation.
blah, blah, blah, I am very cool, I propose facts, while all you talk is b**it, I am better than you, blah blah blah, you are stupid, so I don't want to talk to you, blah, blah, blah. Very mature.
Quote:
I even asked you to propose me some kind of techniques for Civ3
Please quote the post where you did this. For some reason the only thing I noticed in your excessively polite post was you saying how full of s**t I am, please correct me if I am wrong and if I missed a constructive bit in your post.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 29, 2005 03:01 PM |
|
|
I've got Civ4 now. 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted October 29, 2005 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Dear Russ,
I was talking about facts, while you were describing just stories on all the above posts. I find it really pointless on getting along to a conversation that you don't want to be a conversation.
blah, blah, blah, I am very cool, I propose facts, while all you talk is b**it, I am better than you, blah blah blah, you are stupid, so I don't want to talk to you, blah, blah, blah. Very mature.
Quote:
I even asked you to propose me some kind of techniques for Civ3
Please quote the post where you did this. For some reason the only thing I noticed in your excessively polite post was you saying how full of s**t I am, please correct me if I am wrong and if I missed a constructive bit in your post.
Russ,
Your final post made me re-read many parts of our conversation mainly because I don't want to irritate people as I expect people not irritating me. Anyway, let's say I re-read some posts for my own reasons.
~~> On the 11th (eleventh) post of the 1st (first) page, which is number 4 in the row of my posts, my final paragraph contained:
Quote:
You can try convincing me, but I don't think it is the case.
Now, on that post I described the way I choose when I want to get a high-score on Civ2 on deity (among top10 on the Internet ...). Moreover, I briefly described an idea which turned out to work on Civ3. I did all these in order to give you the example and urge you to describe me your ways of playing and enlighten me primarily for Civ3. Another proof of that is on the 14th (fourteenth) post of the 1st (first) page, which is number 6 in the row of my posts:
Quote:
Quote:
Russ: Well, either way, if you think you have civ 3 figured out - play Teturkan:Test of Time with prebuilt cities as one of european civilizations on deity difficulty.
I recommend playing ...
dimis: I don't have figured it out with Civ3. That's why I am still talking to you!
Don't you think I still expect you to tell me about your game playing which is going to shed light on my ignorance on many features of Civ3? At least that's what I expected; but nothing like that happened.
A simple reference for what follows: The ingredients that shape your score in Civ2, if I don't forget anything on the following list, are:
1) Number of people in your empire.
2) Number of happy people in your empire.
3) Scientific Advances.
4) No pollution (the less pollution you have, the more will be your score).
5) Years in peace with your neighbours.
As for the misunderstanding, I think it can be located on the following:
I said that there are two routes to finish the game (actually, there are four: +peaceful retirement at 2020 +loss/abandon game):
1) Conquest.
2) Space-ship landing.
The 'problems' that conquest victories have are two: The first one is that no matter how early you achieve a conquest on a map, you can not achieve a high-score as high as I described (same thing applies on early spacehip landing). The second one, is that as I have said on a previous post, conquest urges you to go for high-score, since you can colonize the entire map and place cities on optimal locations (which rarely happens on AI's cities). For that reason this type of 'conquest' victories actually leaves alive one city from the final tribe of your opponents that you are going to face. The second part of this type of victory is to colonize the entire map. Now, I believe that it is a matter of taste of how you would like to achieve that. According to my game-playing style this has the immediate consequence of following the route I described on an earlier post (go for Statue of Liberty before 1000AD). The reason is that in the end the highscore will also take into account the level of your scientific advances. And this is why I prefer my strategy instead of an early conquest that you describe: At around (at most) 1600-1700AD (when conquest will be over) I have more tech/sci-advances mainly because until around 1000AD (when I declare war to anybody on my passage) more civilizations were searching for technologies plus the fact that the exchange of knowledge has speeded up that process. (This also explains the need of many civilizations in order to accomplish high-scores or even early victories.) As a result, in the long run (by year 2019), I possess more Future Techologies and hence I boost my high-score. Another reason I choose my strategy instead of the early conquest that you describe is the following: I have far more 'healthy' cities which implies better production rates (at any statistical ingredient) at any time. (Not to mention a side-effect of that: Managing cities and setting your goals is an easier task.) This is the reason why Fundamentalism at that time is a good idea (again, it is not good because I say so, but because it has proved its worthyness on Internet). Now, if you were facing someone that refutes this idea without giving you a single clue on what seems to be better or why this idea is crap and at the same time you hold a good high-score based on that idea, would you tolerate it and let him judge it without a single argument on a public board? Would you?
Anyway, early conquests (as the ones you described and something that I never did) are very intriguing. The problem is that you can not judge entirely players skills and strategies for various reasons. First one, is that conquest is a function of the map and hence the same player on different maps following the same strategy can have diverse scores. Moreover, even if the map is fixed, starting locations of various tribes can affect the time and score the player receives mainly because it can diverse the timing of the conquest. Another problem that Civ2 had on that, is that you can only 'have the word' of the player achieving early conquest on no reloads. Of course, the player can be lucky from time to time when exploring new areas (and a good player can indeed have a good heuristic on doing that job), however, I do not accept for him to be that lucky so that he always goes on exploring on the right direction. And since conversations on these topics tend to reach nowhere (actually tend to reach matters concerning luck), I tend to avoid them. However, on Heroes, this is entirely different. If you want a proof, say, on breaking in the middle on Jebus by a particular number of week, you can be the ally of the claimer and simply watch him achieving that!
I hope you had answers. I am now withdrawn from this thread since one of us has to give an end on this. Perhaps we 'll meet again discussing the same matters on a future Civ2 (or even Civ4) thread, hopefully with better mood.
- Dimis -
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted November 01, 2005 05:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't have figured it out with Civ3. That's why I am still talking to you! Yet, this game held sometime my greatest expectations. Unfortunately, it turned out that could not attract my attention. I hope Civ4 can do that, yet I strongly doubt about that. As for playing. No sorry. No way. If I am to play Civilization, it will be 2 again and again and again and again and .... and again and again ...
Don't you think I still expect you to tell me about your game playing which is going to shed light on my ignorance on many features of Civ3? At least that's what I expected; but nothing like that happened.
No, it does not mean you want me to show you my playing style. Especially, "As for playing. No sorry. No way." part.
I didn't waste my time reading the 2-nd part of your post which appears to have you talking about how smart you are and how full of s**t I am. I'll just agree with you if that makes you happy. You are very very cool and you are always right.
Btw, here is an example of how a constructive post asking for an advice looks like since the whole concept of being constructive is so distant for you:
Quote:
Tell me your opinions about this game, and any tactics are welcome too.
(This was quoted from the X-COM thread.)
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted November 01, 2005 05:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I've got Civ4 now.
Is it any good? I was reading about it on the official site where they were talking how cool it is and how much better it is than the previous versions, but is all of that actually true? Or is it just a bunch of marketing stuff to make people buy it?
And what about the AI turns? Are they still taking forever once you move into A.D. with 16 or more civs?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 02, 2005 10:10 AM |
|
|
I haven't noticed the A.I. turns as much.
When I first saw screen shots it looked boxy and dodgy graphics-wise but when I played it it was so good.
Although gameplay wise, it hasn't changed all that much. I think they've just added alot, and changed the battles. And the whole concept of religion.
I haven't played it alot, but one of the things I hope they've fixed is moving a large amount of troops at once easily. In Civ3 you needed a leader to do that and they're hard to come by.
Actually in this game, leaders are who you choose when you start the game, like instead of just having Abraham Lincoln when you choose america this time you get to pick out of George Washington or Franklin Roosevelt, and when you're playing the other people it changed depending on who's leading them.
And the leaders in Civ3 terms are now called heroes or something, not sure, and they're easier to come by like you get all the famous figures in history.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
ADAM
Hero of Order
The RoboMod
|
|
posted April 01, 2007 04:21 AM |
|
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted April 01, 2007 04:56 AM |
|
|
Get up Russty!!!
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
| |
|
|
