Your SID level experiences - Page 8

Drachen · February 8, 2004, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Yeah. Lt. Col. jimmytrick

I downloaded your 1285AD save and you're doing great. Looks like the military is in good hands! Could you let me know the settings?

Drachen · February 8, 2004, 21:29

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

I feel that intentionally excluding certain traits is cooking. Such as selecting civs other than scientific, so there are no free era techs. Such as selecting a large pangea and excluding expansionist civs (and you being an exp civ). And yes this is map dependent in some cases. I wouldn't feel like I was cheating if I chose non exp on an 80% archipelago. I would if it were a pangea. I personally find seafaring to be great on any map, so if I excluded it intentionally it would lessen the victory for me.

Also I feel choosing civs based on their UU can be cooking, such as I don't want to deal with ancient defensive UUs. etc

In both of these situations, the reverse is also true, you can choose civs that would make the game much harder on you. I imagine a game with all ancient UUs would be more difficult than a game where you would see the americans and russians etc where their units on't come into play until much later in the game.

Certain maps and traits go well together and taking those traits for yourself while denying them to your rivals will probably help you. I just don’t think the differences are large enough to make games illegitimate and I’m not convinced a set of limits is needed. That’s certainly open to further debate, but as a practical matter how would you define appropriate limits? If you’d care to develop a set of rules or a flowchart we can see what people think and I can live with a set of accepted options if that’s what most players think is appropriate for getting a legitimate Sid win.

asleepathewheel · February 8, 2004, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Drachen
I just don’t think the differences are large enough to make games illegitimate and I’m not convinced a set of limits is needed. That’s certainly open to further debate, but as a practical matter how would you define appropriate limits? If you’d care to develop a set of rules or a flowchart we can see what people think and I can live with a set of accepted options if that’s what most players think is appropriate for getting a legitimate Sid win.

For me, the hand picking of opponents sets off alarm bells. I can only see three reasons why you would pick an opponent rather than it be random: you want to make it harder on yourself; you want to fight an opponent you don't see often or just enjoy going up against; or you want to make things easier on yourself. I'm all for the first two. Challenge and variety is what makes the game fun. What I'm not in favor of is the selection of opponents in a way that would greatly aid your game. Such as the human being the only seafaring civ on an 80% archipelago or the only expansionist on a pangaea. Another trick is selecting non-commercial civs to try to improve your odds of getting philosophy. Maybe this is all an illusion, that I'm seeing things, but why else slant the opponent selection one way or another. Of course, I'm speaking on larger maps, where you have 10 or more opponents, smaller maps agianst a few enemies can't be as representative.

What I'm trying to get at, is that you can pick civs in a way so as to make things easier on yourself. Otherwise you would fit into the two other categories I mentioned, which I wouldn't have a problem with. hell I don't care who you are up against or what the majority thinks on these matters, its impressive enough, mighty impressive to win on Sid (and even hold your own as vmxa1 has) no matter what the options are (excluding of course elimination mode

) I just want people to be upfront about why they chose certain opponents.

And before you ask, no I haven't won on Sid, but I have quite losing games many times.

Capt Dizle · February 8, 2004, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Drachen

I downloaded your 1285AD save and you're doing great. Looks like the military is in good hands! Could you let me know the settings?

I mistakenly posted at Civfanatics that this was a 16 civ game, but that was wrong. It was twelve. That would maket a large map. It was a random game, I played a random civ and all the conditions were random. AI agressiveness was normal. All victory conditions were on except the wonder condition. That is about all I can tell you.

In this game at 1285 AD the Hittites have about 71,000 culture and must get to 130,000 to win. I will have to watch this very closely. The most culture in a city is around 6,600 IIRC.

I do not think anyone will come up with a foolproof way to win on Sid level everytime.

Drachen · February 9, 2004, 02:04

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

For me, the hand picking of opponents sets off alarm bells. I can only see three reasons why you would pick an opponent rather than it be random: you want to make it harder on yourself; you want to fight an opponent you don't see often or just enjoy going up against; or you want to make things easier on yourself. I'm all for the first two. Challenge and variety is what makes the game fun. What I'm not in favor of is the selection of opponents in a way that would greatly aid your game. Such as the human being the only seafaring civ on an 80% archipelago or the only expansionist on a pangaea. Another trick is selecting non-commercial civs to try to improve your odds of getting philosophy. Maybe this is all an illusion, that I'm seeing things, but why else slant the opponent selection one way or another. Of course, I'm speaking on larger maps, where you have 10 or more opponents, smaller maps agianst a few enemies can't be as representative.

Asleepathewheel;

You make a cogent and powerful defense of your point of view and you seem to have covered the bases when it comes to why a player would pick a group of opponents but I think that a similar argument could be made for just about any of the options that can be selected for such as the tribe you’ll play, climate, barbs…you name it. We’re talking about what constitutes a legitimate, “non-cooked”, Sid win and if your argument prevails then it seems to me that default rules and random everything else would be the only set of settings that would be beyond question as to legitimacy. This is at a level of AI advantage so strong that the main Poly thread discussing it hasn’t seen a posted win in months of play. Do we really want to set the bar that high?

Drachen · February 9, 2004, 02:08

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick

I mistakenly posted at Civfanatics that this was a 16 civ game, but that was wrong. It was twelve. That would maket a large map. It was a random game, I played a random civ and all the conditions were random. AI agressiveness was normal. All victory conditions were on except the wonder condition. That is about all I can tell you.

In this game at 1285 AD the Hittites have about 71,000 culture and must get to 130,000 to win. I will have to watch this very closely. The most culture in a city is around 6,600 IIRC.

I do not think anyone will come up with a foolproof way to win on Sid level everytime.

If you win this then it seems there won't be much question about the legitamacy. Thanks for letting us know the settings and keep us posted. It's the strongest game I've seen.

Drachen · February 9, 2004, 02:18

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

What I'm trying to get at, is that you can pick civs in a way so as to make things easier on yourself. Otherwise you would fit into the two other categories I mentioned, which I wouldn't have a problem with. hell I don't care who you are up against or what the majority thinks on these matters, its impressive enough, mighty impressive to win on Sid (and even hold your own as vmxa1 has) no matter what the options are (excluding of course elimination mode

) I just want people to be upfront about why they chose certain opponents.

And before you ask, no I haven't won on Sid, but I have quite losing games many times.

Your point is well taken but the main thrust of my arguments is to develop a general understanding of settings that would need no explanation.

Capt Dizle · February 9, 2004, 02:41

It is a good discussion. I saw a posted Sid win at Civfanatics, space ship in about 1612 AD. Archipelago large with only 8 civs and no cultural flips or cultural victory. This was a fine win, but clearly the conditions were set up a little easier than might be the norm.

Drachen · February 9, 2004, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
It is a good discussion. I saw a posted Sid win at Civfanatics, space ship in about 1612 AD. Archipelago large with only 8 civs and no cultural flips or cultural victory. This was a fine win, but clearly the conditions were set up a little easier than might be the norm.

A link a link my kingdom for a link.

and...would you care to chime in as to legitimate settings?

DrSpike · February 9, 2004, 05:33

What's the formula for working out steal price if you want to do it safely?

Aeson · February 9, 2004, 07:53

The problem with selecting civs is less compared to the problem with random civs IMO. The whole point (to the cooking debate) is being able to play a game which is comparable to other player's games. If you start next to Greece and Carthage on Sid, your game is going to be very different than someone else who doesn't.

If you 'allow' picking of civs, then sure the player can pick civs that will be easier to deal with. At least then though, all players will have that opportunity. It won't be based on luck like with random opponents. This is why in the HOF it's allowed. For the purpose of comparison of games, luck needs to be as little a factor as possible. Just state what the settings were, and understand that the view of the game is going to be weighted by them.

To claim to have mastered a difficulty though, I think a player needs to show they can win consistantly from difficult starts. Sid probably won't ever be beat that way, and even Deity never really was IMO. The AI starting advantages are enough to guarantee if things go bad early, you will lose unless extraordinarily lucky.

Drachen · February 9, 2004, 11:48

Perhaps we should just use the Hall of Fame rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=75976) and see about a victory condition change if Sid can't be beat in a couple of months or so?

Capt Dizle · February 9, 2004, 12:01

Aeson I have to disagree with you here for maybe the first time ever.

In a game that strove mightily to even the playing field between human and computer AI, Civ3 fails spectacularly in one area...providing consistent starting positions. Mastering a level within a game would be better defined as finding the correct strategic methods and perfecting the execution of those methods. The fact that Diety level + in Civ3 will not consistently beaten reflects design factors that mitigates skill rather than celebrates it.

That being said I am no Aeson, Sir Pleb or Qitai. The fact that few of the great players have posted much about Sid level is puzzling and may mean that the luck factor is overwhelmng. Still, in the end, we will develop strategies for Sid. And in doing so we will have once again defeated Firaxis and their inflated ego.

My limited play on the Sid level tends to point towards a simple extension of the Diety theme. The inability to play sucessfully outside of the one dimensional whomp whomp of the military shows once again how truely linear the gameplay is.

Capt Dizle · February 9, 2004, 12:04

Drachen >

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=77928

vmxa1 · February 9, 2004, 15:31

I would suspect that beating Sid on regular basis is not likely with no special setup. My interest was just to see what to expect. I figured that if I beat it all it would would reguire a fair amount of luck as I was not going to "cook" the map. I would learn nothing from that.

I have been hoping to see some of the better players post a run to see what was possible. So that has not happened, but maybe later. I just want to see what it would take and I suspect it will not be to my liking anyway. I will not be willing to MM all cities at all times, or make special efforts to be on a good footing. I may be willing to do a non stop troops build, but not more than once.

So if it turns out those are the techniques required, then I will pass.

vmxa1 · February 9, 2004, 15:32

Thanks for the link JT.

Drachen · February 9, 2004, 16:31

Ah ha...the missing link. Many thanks.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2004, 11:37

Drachen,

That space race victory looks pretty good to me now. My game is clearly a loss, but I will continue to play. A simple calculation shows that I must cripple the Hittites in order to prevent them from getting a cultural win long before I could possibly get to any win condition.

By placing a spy I have learned that Fascist Mursillis has a fully railed continent defended by 34 frigates, 383 infantry, 165 cavalry, 169 guerillas, 42 3man chariots and 250 older units of various types. Of course he has only one artillery piece.

That is over a thousand units. I have about 150. It would seem that I am a tad short of having enough to deal with that.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2004, 12:38

Maybe I need a little help with this cultural win thing. I have never won by overall culture. I seem to remember that it requires a 2-1 ratio. Is that correct and if so, does this ratio only apply to a human play or can one AI block the victory of another in this manner?

Drachen · February 10, 2004, 13:13

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Maybe I need a little help with this cultural win thing. I have never won by overall culture. I seem to remember that it requires a 2-1 ratio. Is that correct and if so, does this ratio only apply to a human play or can one AI block the victory of another in this manner?

It seems likely that even the AIs have to have a 2 to 1 ratio although I've never been in position to observe it since I’ve never experienced a cultural win or loss. One of those things I was going to get to one of these days. I’d continue with your game if I were doing as well as you and hope that were the case. My Dutch game is too far gone to salvage though and so I’m going to start fresh with some new strategies based partly upon what you and Minstrel we’re able to accomplish. It’s going to be based on HOF rules but I want to see if a non whomp strat is feasible. Once a builder always a builder I guess, although I am convinced that whomping is the most consistent way to win on Deity. Good luck in any case.

vmxa1 · February 10, 2004, 13:35

Yes they need the same conditions. Twice the next largest cultural civ and over the required value for the map size (100K for std maps). 20K in a single city for all map sizes.

It is so much harder with all the additional ancient wonders. It will be very hard to hold the culture down. I would think that it would require islands. Otherwise one civ can get real big quickly and build wonder after wonder in the middle ages.

asleepathewheel · February 10, 2004, 13:41

Do you feel that it is more likely for the AI to reach 100k on Standard, 130k on large, or 160k on huge? (and be 2x the nearest competitor)

To me it seems less likely to get the 160k than the 100, just because it seems to be largely wonder driven. But I'm not sure.

vmxa1 · February 10, 2004, 13:44

Very frightening JT. Over 1000 units, that is what is so scaring. One KAI can lose a couple dozen units a turn and replace them with ease in the industrial age.

Maybe a pangea with all the civs having to face each other would work better, not sure.

The game on CFC pointed out what we talked about already. Namely if you use something like all islands with a lot less civs.

That game had a large map with only 8 civs. In that case you can delay the AI from contacts, large land holdings and hence slower research.

It may be that some form of hedge may be needed to win. I am pretty sure it is beyond my skills on a std map with normal settings, even if I get a super start.

I will be looking forward to someone leading the way.

vmxa1 · February 10, 2004, 13:48

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Do you feel that it is more likely for the AI to reach 100k on Standard, 130k on large, or 160k on huge? (and be 2x the nearest competitor)

To me it seems less likely to get the 160k than the 100, just because it seems to be largely wonder driven. But I'm not sure.

I am not sure. I suspect it harder as the map gets larger. The wonders will yield the same output. They will have a larger OCN and hence more cities. Those cities may or may not have temples/libs and Uni's. At some point I would think they would not build all of them in the extra cities.

I have to confess, I do not play much on larg or huge, so it just a guess.

ThePlagueRat · February 10, 2004, 14:04

I just tried the Sword of the Samurai scenario at Sid level and normal aggression. I was Oda Nobunaga and went straight on for bushis (3.2.1) That did not work very well.

No tech lead, Mori Motonari got bushis and yamabushis really fast, and I'm dead...

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2004, 14:32

If the AI is required the 2:1 ratio then I might never have to worry about an overall culture loss in this game as I have two super civs, Hittites and the Dutch. As for single city culture, yes, I might have to find a way to strike and destroy a city or two. I am wondering about a unit cap coming into play.

I also have to worry about the UN.

I also have to worry about air power. I really have little experience with that. I am confident that I can hold my continent against invasion with artillery and rails.

Then there is the whole nuke thing.

This is going to be a bear.

Thanks for the feedback.

DrSpike · February 10, 2004, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
If the AI is required the 2:1 ratio then I might never have to worry about an overall culture loss in this game as I have two super civs, Hittites and the Dutch.

That's the strategy! Make sure everyone is p*ssing on you.

1000 units.

vmxa1 · February 10, 2004, 17:39

Yes if you have some other good sized civs you can relax on the double culture. My problem was it was basically one huge KAI.

I never knew what they had in the way of units, but I am sure it was fightening.

Yes Nukes could be a problem, but bombers are a real nightmare in C3C. No more of them busting up some tiles and you repair them right after. Now they can destory units and structures. That includes wonders.

That is a big problem for invasions of their land once they have flight. You get the harbor or airport build and they bomb it out. That cust of you connection and the fast reinforcement.

Paddy · February 18, 2004, 06:32

My battle against Sid Napoleon has taken some bad turns...

The whole of Europe is no allied against Brittain, no one is to be trusted.

The saving grace is that I am on two Islands, and have a strong Navy that can slave their ships, thus growing my navy.

I have taken out a great number of troop vessels trying to get to England and Ireland.

I just wish this game allowed the Navy to bombard.. I may then have a chance in landing and thus supporting units.

Drachen · February 18, 2004, 09:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot

I just wish this game allowed the Navy to bombard.. I may then have a chance in landing and thus supporting units.

It’s not uncommon for the AI to let a powerful beachhead be established as long as you don’t take or found a city. This allows you to continue ferrying more troops and guns to the landing zone until you’re ready to strike. I actually had about 150 units in a beachhead and the AI had only 4 units in the adjacent city when I took it but brought in 100’s in its attempts to retake the city. I have reason to believe that troop concentrations this large will prevent a cultural flip back to the AI and this allows you to use the defensive attributes of the captured city to destroy the AIs army and then you can roll. You already know that war weariness is impossible in these situations so make sure your governments attributes will allow the invasion to succeed. Good luck.