We love the 'X' day - a crutch for the weaker player?

[Crustacian]

I missed your point on heads.

quote:
Originally posted by Venger on 05-09-2000 10:01 PM
Disagreement I can take.
Venger

So let me get this straight: When you get offended by someone who dissagrees you slap em and take their head off? Or do you take their head off first then slap em?




------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

[Venger]

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by JERandall on 05-10-2000 09:53 AM</font> God, Venger, we are all *so* impressed at your Civ-playing abilities. All the rest of us whining, WLT_D-using, luxury-whoring, spy-pimping weaklings are completely unable to compete with your pure and viruous method of play.

What a jack ass. Do you have anything to add to the thread besides your overpowering ignorance?

quote: I bow at your feet and request that you enlighten me with you infinite wisdom about how the game should be played. I will never again move a unit or build anything without first asking you, Venger, if doing so is acceptable in the Pure and Virtuous Method of Civ-Playing.

What are you, 12 years old?

quote: Have I made my point?

Did you have one?

quote: No? Did I at least amuse you? *No*?! Well, I sure as heck amused myself. :-)

I imagine you must do quite alot of that.

Venger

[This message has been edited by Venger (edited May 10, 2000).]

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk on 05-10-2000 10:29 AM Because of my playstyle, which involves having twice as many settlers/engineers as cities (after the initial exapnsion), and buying economic improvements, I can get democracies into "perpetual WLT*Ds" fairly easily. I set lux to 20% and never change it after that; coupled with universal marketplaces, banks, and fully roaded terrain, most cities jump from three to eight in next to no time. Stock Exchanges typically push them to twelve, and superhighways often take them as far as they can go.

I do something very very similar, but my cities are usually large by the time I roll out the big happiness improvemets, so when WLTYYYD hits, I normally have mostly size 5 or larger cities, many up at 12. I also roll to Republic early, so early that 20% doesn't do a whole lot...I usually have to use 30 or even 40% to keep order during my first few turns of Rep. Now mind you, were talking early in the game...

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Bohlen on 05-10-2000 10:12 AM Wow. What a thread. I'm here late, but here goes. Bottom line...I don't think there is a way in which you can remove WLTLD from the game. Since it has been programmed within the core program and not within the text files there probably is no way to remove it, unless you are gifted enough to open up the program and actually rewrite it to your liking. How that is done is a mystery to me.

Not a chance of me doing it either...

quote: I hope that this topic was brought up as a legit topic and not as an attempt to "dethrone" AH by being more controversial and clever than he, because that's not possible. I think AH is the only person on these boards that can create such an uproar that people start getting pissed off at each other. It is his art and he is good at it. It's funny too. This thread is getting there, but it has a way to go.

Very legit topic. I had read numerous other threads with statements like "Once I WLTYYYD and grow all of my cities...". It just seemed so weak. That's why I posted it.

quote: Good topic nonetheless.

Thanks, I hoped for some more intelligent discussions, but these will have to do...

Venger
P.S. Your's is not one of the more inane posts...

[Venger]

quote: Yes, but my point is that you must be a good player to successfully pull off WLT_D. If a poor player could do it easily, then I would consider it questionable.

I guess I don't see how it takes a whole lot of effort to pull off. In fact, it seems rather easy if you are growing a thriving republic to simply bump the luxury rate to go into city swell mode.

quote: W/o WLT_D Rep/Dem's only adavantage is one more trade arrow per developed square. Disadvantages are many: senate, unit support, unit unhappiness, no martial law, gov't collapse potential, settlers eat 2 food.

That extra trade is huge. In addition, I also believe the rate of corruption is lower under Republic, removed under Democracy, and all bribery is disallowed. I consider those huge advantages.

I don't often play as Democracy, don't really know why, just tend to stay Republic, which fits my Romans nicely...

quote: But growth is much more explosive with ICS and you can do it much earlier in the game.

It depends on the level of ICS. If you consitently spew Settlers out of every city, that's one thing. I will build a city, build a warrior, build a settler, then another. The first settler builds a road or two, usually connecting in the general direction he will settle. The second settler is dedicated to improving its parent city, roads, mines, etc. Each city founds a child.

quote: Compared to ICS? No way. For ICS, just do the following: 1) Build Setter, 2) Found new city, 3) Build Warrior, 4) Repeat. Far easier and cheaper. Each city adds to population, science and production.

But the real key behind ICS is spitting Settlers out like Tic-Tacs. A city that produces 8 settlers and has 9 size 1 cities is working 18 squares, versus two size 5 cities working 12. ICS works best when the cities are kept minute. But - that usually precludes happiness improvements, preventing the move to Rep or Dem until much much later.

quote: You missed the first part I said. I want to play perfectionist, not warmonger. It is of course easy to reduce the AI to a few cities via war. At that point you can win any way you want. But if your going to do that, you are not playing perfectionist.

I've not always found it so easy, depending on the opposition and my luck at the start.

quote: So the Mongols spent their resources founding a bunch of small crappy cities while I spent my resources developing a few cities - and I should be punished with less trade, science, production? Why are the Mongols's 40 size 4 cities more valid than my 10 size 16 cities? We spent resources differently and achieved the same thing. I guess I don't see your point.

The Mongol cities don't stay at size 4. They will grow to become ridiculous size cities with 4 Mech Inf., 4 Cruise, and 4 Stealth.

quote: Of course the AI is not shy about doing this. In reality, most cities would require severe terraforming to grow into the 30's.

Yeah, but the AI sucks

quote: Disagree. The effects of ICS are immediate while preparing for WLT_D only pays off far down the road. As such, I would expect the rewards to be better.

They can be immediate, I just see it somewhat limited under deity rules and a Rep or Dem government. Now fundy can really rack up on the ICS...

quote: You lose half the value of a trade route by trading with yourself.

But the enemy loses all the value. Sorry, no trade for the enemy. I can pull in 500+ on late year trades domestically, and with trade arrows appearing in both the host and destination, the only one benefitting is me.

quote: But without growth, most infrastructure doesn't pay off. You can't afford 3 gold Banks, 4 gold Stock Exchanges, 3 gold Universities, 5 gold Superhighways, 3 gold Factories, etc. in size 8 cities. Why would you bother building any of them? You'd have to wait until 1950 for enough citizens.

I don't. Stock exchange is late. I go, later in the game, defender, temple, settler, settler, library, market, factory (may move up or down a tad), aqueduct, university, bank...etc. The city is grown progressively, and grows continuously. Each improvement tends to come at just the right time, sewer at 10 or 11, aqueduct at 8. Everything seems to gel. But man, if I peg those luxuries, once the basic infrastructure is in, I could clean house.

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-10-2000 01:05 PM You don't seem to be able to do as you say if you feel the need to "slap" someone when they dissagree as I did.

No, you asked if I had read the manual as someone asked. That's not disagreement, that's just being smarmy.

quote: You have an interesting point but you are not experienced with using WLPD and other posters replies shows they feel the same way.

I'm not experienced in fellatio either but you can be damn sure I know it ain't for me. Why does the fact that I don't use WLTYYYD somehow mean I have no valid point against it?

quote: My suggestion is give it a try, and maybe you will also see it as a strategy and not a crutch. I also said I did not think the logic you used in drawing your comparisons was consistant.

I've seen the trailing edge of it, and trust me, if I wanted to, I could engorge my cities with it. Not interested.

quote: That sums up my points if you want to take another stab at "slapping" me LOL. It is Crustacian with an "i" tho

It actually is beyachslapping, but the program edits out the naughty bits...again, only for the "did you read it like he asked?" crap...

Venger

[Crustacian]

quote:
"Why does the fact that I don't use WLTYYYD somehow mean I have no valid point against it?

Venger I said in the first place I respect your views and playing styles regarding not usings wlpd. I just don't agree.
I offered you to give it a try, no problem that you don't want to.

You admit you are not experienced at it thx for that.

The problem I have with what you said is in calling WLPD a crutch when it is a very valid strategy equal to any of your own.
Your own logic does not disprove this.
You want to belittle wlpd on bogus logic and lack of experience then maybe i might slap you around a leedle beet eh?

------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

[Crustacian]

There are some players who posted on this thread that no one on this forum would consider to be week players, and their style of play often includes the use of WLPD.

This alone shows that it is not a crutch.

I know that these players game does not rely on WLPD solely, as they are strong players due to their ability to be flexable acording to the situation at hand, and they realise that this is a growth game. Many ways to grow in CivII, and WLPD is a valid option.

My new suggestion to you is this: develope a strategy that will consistantly beat WLPD.
There are threads about how to beat ICS, so if you think it is so weak why don't you post a thread on how to whip a WLPD?



------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

[Ming]

Well, the best strategy for beating WLYD's (or ICS for that matter) in an MP game is simple. Find them early, and crush them

Works like a charm...

[Crustacian]

dang Ming!!
I would have to be a mongol to survive if you was my neighbor. I sometimes like to go on a rampage my own self tho. Some have really did a number on WLPD and ICS'r doing just as you said. The science program of the diplomat is supreme then too.

I tryed it and by the time I got their my units were outdated. There is some awesome growth in science that can go along with the increase in city size too. I tryed it again and on a large world did not find them!!!!! They found me and kicked my butt beeg time.
Got to find em quick or you are dead by the setback of raising an army while they grow.

Kindda like a game of paper sissors or rock. remember that game? rock crushes scissors, paper smothers rock, scissors cut paper, and two people clap their hands then show one of the three things in hand symbol at the same time to see who wins.

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-10-2000 08:35 PM quote: "Why does the fact that I don't use WLTYYYD somehow mean I have no valid point against it? Venger I said in the first place I respect your views and playing styles regarding not usings wlpd. I just don't agree.

OK...

quote: I offered you to give it a try, no problem that you don't want to.

Why are half of your sentences yoda-esque?

quote: You admit you are not experienced at it thx for that.

You keep repeating that as if it has some bearing. I've stated before, I can utilize it and make my game EASIER. That's why I don't use it. Why do you insist I use it then?

quote: The problem I have with what you said is in calling WLPD a crutch when it is a very valid strategy equal to any of your own.

I offered it as an opinion. Note the question mark at the end? It was a question leading an opinion. I still maintain it is a strategy leading to a quick and easy win. No I don't need to peg my luxuries to figure this out...

quote: Your own logic does not disprove this. You want to belittle wlpd on bogus logic and lack of experience then maybe i might slap you around a leedle beet eh?

What???

Venger

[Crustacian]

WLPD is as valid of a strategy as any ones you use. End of story.

It has well been shown by those commenting here that it is not a crutch for the weak so I think the "question" on your post was answered.

And this I do not agree with:
"I still maintain it is a strategy leading to a quick and easy win. No I don't need to peg my luxuries to figure this out...


It is not necissarily an easy win. Many things have to be balanced to pull off a win with other compitant players. You risk being overly vulnerable for the chance of very quick growth if you choose. There are many things to balance and yet try to remain flexable to deal with unpredictable things your opponants come up with.

You would have to do more than peg your luxuries to do it right.

The point about experience is that if you were familiar with the strategy more, you would not claim it as an easy win. If all you think is involved is uping the lux setting, then no wonder you see it as simplistic.

I am not sure why you associate my words with Yoda's I wonder whos words would you have associated Yoda's with when you first heard his?

I was teasing you back cuz of what you said about "took Crustacian's head off and slapping me or whatever that was all about. I got a kick out of that in view of how you said you could take dissagreement.

Did you really get your comments nuked?

Anyways to each their own, but that means to EACH--yours & others their own.

I don't like the cheat bug things either but if thats how others want to play who cares so long as if they play a game with me we all use the same rules.

I don't like 2x2x setting either but see it as just fine for those who like it.

So will you cough it up and admit that you may have underestimated the comlexity of using WLPD?
And even tho you don't like it for your expressed and valid reasons, you won't think those you end up playing with are weak players cus they like to use it?

When you see that END sequence as someone takes your last city you might then.

Otherwise you will be left with a fairly weak thing to say like "well dang! I would have won those games IFFFFF they would have played me "fair" and not used WLPD, or built that Shakespeares Theater to where that city never needed to worry about happyness......."

So I am not at all against playing a game where there is a luxury setting limit of say 20 or 30% tops instead of the 100% possible that the game designers built in as an option for us.

*****When you set up games where no one can max their civ out really quick that would be one way to do it. Agree to limit the luxury setting. You asked about this earlier BTW

I have enjoyed playing no wonders and no ai games for some of the same reasons you use regarding WLPD.
But there will allways be nothing like a good ol 1x1x raging, deity, full comp civs, and mutually agreed set of rules to play by.

Great times, funny chat, and time consuming but cheap intertainment

[Sieve Too]

quote: Part of my contention is that a good player should be able to win without what I consider a questionable strategy.

Yes, but my point is that you must be a good player to successfully pull off WLT_D. If a poor player could do it easily, then I would consider it questionable.

quote: Severe? I really find the restrictions are more than offset by the advantages, all without the population growth aspect of WLTYYYD..

W/o WLT_D Rep/Dem's only adavantage is one more trade arrow per developed square. Disadvantages are many: senate, unit support, unit unhappiness, no martial law, gov't collapse potential, settlers eat 2 food.

quote: Frankly, I find ICS more digestible than WLTYYYD,

But growth is much more explosive with ICS and you can do it much earlier in the game.

quote: too easy, and cheap.

Compared to ICS? No way. For ICS, just do the following: 1) Build Setter, 2) Found new city, 3) Build Warrior, 4) Repeat. Far easier and cheaper. Each city adds to population, science and production.

quote: Me:If you want to play a perfectionist style game, WLT_D is the only way to do it. How else can your 10 cities win against the Mongols' 40+ cities unless yours are larger? You: As the geniuses at Hasbro took the Mongols out of the Extended Game in ToT, I'm not sure...but against any aggressive Civ - find a way. Probe their rear (God that's an uncomfortable sentence to type). Attack en masse. Take and consolidate.

You missed the first part I said. I want to play perfectionist, not warmonger. It is of course easy to reduce the AI to a few cities via war. At that point you can win any way you want. But if your going to do that, you are not playing perfectionist.

quote: just seems too easy

So the Mongols spent their resources founding a bunch of small crappy cities while I spent my resources developing a few cities - and I should be punished with less trade, science, production? Why are the Mongols's 40 size 4 cities more valid than my 10 size 16 cities? We spent resources differently and achieved the same thing. I guess I don't see your point.

quote: it's growing it from 15 to 32 that really chaps my hide.

Of course the AI is not shy about doing this. In reality, most cities would require severe terraforming to grow into the 30's.

quote: No way. ICS is slower to develop

Disagree. The effects of ICS are immediate while preparing for WLT_D only pays off far down the road. As such, I would expect the rewards to be better.

quote: I never trade with a foreign city

You lose half the value of a trade route by trading with yourself.

quote: Isn't that part of good management under of Rep/Dem? I don't see city bloat as a piece of that puzzle.

But without growth, most infrastructure doesn't pay off. You can't afford 3 gold Banks, 4 gold Stock Exchanges, 3 gold Universities, 5 gold Superhighways, 3 gold Factories, etc. in size 8 cities. Why would you bother building any of them? You'd have to wait until 1950 for enough citizens.

[Scouse Gits]

If this thread has anything vaguely to do with Civ Strategy the connection defeats me. Could it please be moved to OT where it (and Venger) belong?

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor

[Ming]

It has everything to do with civ strategy since WLYD's are a legitimate civ strategy, no matter what anybody says

[Sieve Too]

[/quote]I guess I don't see how it takes a whole lot of effort to pull off[/quote]

Disagree. Try it without a Temple or Marketplace. Who hasn't had the frustrating experience of a celebrating city stuck at size 7 while you rush in settlers to irrigate more grass or plains? Who hasn't had the Vikings come knocking on your door with vet Knights while your cities are building Caravans and Libraries?

quote: That extra trade is huge. In addition, I also believe the rate of corruption is lower under Republic, removed under Democracy, and all bribery is disallowed. I consider those huge advantages.

Bribery is only eliminated under Democracy. Add that 80 shield Courthouse to the list of "must-haves" for a Republic to grow. In reality, you don't even get double the science rate out of Republic compared to ICS Monarchy due to the loss of trade to luxuries. And of course each science advance makes the next one come slower and slower. While you'll be ahead, pretty soon your science rate will not be much better off than under Monarchy.

quote: ICS works best when the cities are kept minute. But - that usually precludes happiness improvements, preventing the move to Rep or Dem until much much later

If you begin a journey, you must know your destination or else become lost with the first step, i.e. If your gonna play ICS, then go for it all the way. You must beat the AI before (IMO) they get Industrialization and Democracy. IMHO if you beat down the AI with war in the early and mid game, you should just finish them off since the game becomes just too easy after that.

quote: I've not always found it so easy, depending on the opposition and my luck at the start

YMMV of course. I find war with the AI laughably easy. But leave them alone and let them get into the modern era and find out what a real space race can be.

quote: The Mongol cities don't stay at size 4. They will grow to become ridiculous size cities with 4 Mech Inf., 4 Cruise, and 4 Stealth.

And the same thing happens to your cities. The game expects this and adjusts accordingly: science advances take more and more beakers. Units cost more and more. Improvement upkeep costs get more expensive. I mean really: just how are you supposed to build 320 shield Solar Plants or SS Modules in a size 11 city?

quote: They can be immediate,

Not unless you already have the infrastructure.

quote: But the enemy loses all the value. Sorry, no trade for the enemy. I can pull in 500+

You can get 1500+ science and gold by trading with the AI - and only you get the bonus. I understand your position but consider this: If you have, say, 15 cities that each have 3 trade routes with the same AI city, you'll get the trade from 45 routes each turn while the AI will only get trade from 3 of them. Each of those routes will be worth double what they would be if you traded with yourself. Best of all, you can keep reestablishing the trade routes to get the bonus over and over. This makes it worthwhile to build Superhighways which increase the value of the routes and the bonus yet again. Give it a try!

quote: But man, if I peg those luxuries, once the basic infrastructure is in, I could clean house.

But you must wait for a new city to become size 3 before anything happens. Also, you can only build one thing in a new city per turn and you must wait for you Engineers to transform, irrigate, road, etc. It's still quite a bit to do.

quote: The city is grown progressively,

Actually, the city grows painfully slow late in the game. Some of this is the effect of how long turns take late in the game vs. early in the game.

[JERandall]

Well, Venger, since my attempt at humor and sarcasm was lost on you, I'll try again.

You brought up this thread *knowing* that it could result in flames. You admit that you b*itch-slapped Crustacian in a post. Yet you pretend to be affronted when others respond in kind. You appear to be one of those people who can dish it out, but can't take it.

You have repeatedly ignored those who have pointed out, again and again, the enormous amount of preparation necessary to make WLT_Ds work -- and the ongoing management it requires to pull this off as a long-term strategy.

You have denigrated those who suggested that you try a new way to play, and have insulted those who suggest that you either decline to use WLT_D, or use it and learn its strengths and weaknesses.

You have implied through successive posts that your way of playing is the only legitimate way to play Civ2, and that any other way of playing is inferior.

Finally, you have resorted to personal attacks on those who dare to meet your chest-beating pompousness with tongue-in-cheek, relatively gentle flaming.

WLT_D is a legitimate strategy. You are not the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable in Civ2 play. End of discussion.


------------------
JERandall

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by JERandall on 05-11-2000 01:21 PM Well, Venger, since my attempt at humor and sarcasm was lost on you, I'll try again.

Searching your post I found the sarcasm but found no humor...

quote: You brought up this thread *knowing* that it could result in flames.

Sure did. Anytime you challenge how someone wins the game you are going to get something of a heated response.

quote: You admit that you b*itch-slapped Crustacian in a post.

The magically disappearing post...

quote: Yet you pretend to be affronted when others respond in kind. You appear to be one of those people who can dish it out, but can't take it.

I'd like to find where I've precipitated any such remarks.

quote: You have repeatedly ignored those who have pointed out, again and again, the enormous amount of preparation necessary to make WLT_Ds work -- and the ongoing management it requires to pull this off as a long-term strategy.

I fail to see how the WLTYYYD prep work is any different than the work needed just to make a successful democracy or republic. Temples, aqueducts, banks, courthouses, are all required to make a succesful dem/rep growing them the old fashioned way. WLTYYYD simply removes time as a factor and allows for your city to bloat overnight.

quote: You have denigrated those who suggested that you try a new way to play, and have insulted those who suggest that you either decline to use WLT_D, or use it and learn its strengths and weaknesses.

Quotes please. Find the denigrating posts. Crustacean? As explained, anytime someone tells you to go read the manual, they can take a flying leap.

quote: You have implied through successive posts that your way of playing is the only legitimate way to play Civ2, and that any other way of playing is inferior.

What? I think WLTYYYD is bogus. So? What is so freaking threatining about that? I have nowhere said that "if you don't do it this way, you aren't playing it correctly". I've stated I don't use some governments. That's a far cry from saying you shouldn't use them, or they are the inferior form of playing the game.

quote: Finally, you have resorted to personal attacks on those who dare to meet your chest-beating pompousness with tongue-in-cheek, relatively gentle flaming.

Find the personal attack. Find it. Let's watch the thread develop and see where all the BS starts.

quote: WLT_D is a legitimate strategy. You are not the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable in Civ2 play. End of discussion.

Talk about chest-beating pompousness. Curiously, have you actually addressed any of the issues? Looking back through the thread...uh, no. Now, you and Sieve Too both apparently fall on the same side of the argument. But, he actually had a point, whereas you seem to post simply for the joy of seeing your name in HTML. God knows nothing you've written has had to do with the topic itself.

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 05-11-2000 05:29 AM If this thread has anything vaguely to do with Civ Strategy the connection defeats me. Could it please be moved to OT where it (and Venger) belong?

I would swear that by now, 7 days and 70 posts into this thread, you've seen it before. So you know what it's about. So why don't you SKIP IT if it ain't your cup of tea?

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-11-2000 12:50 AM WLPD is as valid of a strategy as any ones you use. End of story.

Huh? The question is whether the WLTYYYD population growth is a crutch to overcome other gameplay or planning deficiencies, or rather just a quick way to gain an advantage; that is, unreasonable or otherwise just plain hokey. I maintain it is. Some don't. Valid strategy is another question, personally I don't gve a rat's ass how anyone plays their own game. Anyone can screw the rules.txt enough to get a 1500% score every time they play. Big whoop. The question is, are WLTYYYD's population increases something that should not be abused, if that's the word.

quote: It has well been shown by those commenting here that it is not a crutch for the weak so I think the "question" on your post was answered.

How? Please recap - I've seen people defend it as requiring planning, and that it is part of the game, and that the game planners even desired for it to occur over and over in every city for turn after turn. But I still think it's best avoided for truly challenging and meaningful gameplay.

quote: And this I do not agree with: "I still maintain it is a strategy leading to a quick and easy win. No I don't need to peg my luxuries to figure this out... It is not necissarily an easy win. Many things have to be balanced to pull off a win with other compitant players. You risk being overly vulnerable for the chance of very quick growth if you choose. There are many things to balance and yet try to remain flexable to deal with unpredictable things your opponants come up with.

I consider those risks concommitant with the forms of government, not with WLTYYYD.

quote: You would have to do more than peg your luxuries to do it right.

Not if you've developed an infrastructure to support a powerful rep/dem. WLTYYYD is all frosting, no cake.

quote: The point about experience is that if you were familiar with the strategy more, you would not claim it as an easy win.

That makes no sense. Except maybe that if I depended on the strategy, and couldn't win without it, I'd make such a claim.

quote: If all you think is involved is uping the lux setting, then no wonder you see it as simplistic.

In a well developed rep/dem, that's all it takes. Want the save game file to prove it?

quote: I am not sure why you associate my words with Yoda's I wonder whos words would you have associated Yoda's with when you first heard his?

Disjointed sentences with the action leading the subject. "Show you I will"...

quote: I was teasing you back cuz of what you said about "took Crustacian's head off and slapping me or whatever that was all about. I got a kick out of that in view of how you said you could take dissagreement.

Disagreement is one thing, being smarmy is another. I made a very nasty reply to your post, but it disappeared off of the board...

quote: Did you really get your comments nuked?

Ming says not, but...

quote: Anyways to each their own, but that means to EACH--yours & others their own.

I've never stated it should be any other way. You know, people have referenced another thread on allowing players to build on mountains. Listen to the phrase - allow players. My phrase was "is it a crutch". Nothing about being allowed. To each his own was never in question. Rather, to discuss whether the effects of WLTYYYD disbalance a game.

quote: I don't like the cheat bug things either but if thats how others want to play who cares so long as if they play a game with me we all use the same rules.

I don't think that really is in question.

quote: I don't like 2x2x setting either but see it as just fine for those who like it.

Well that's a gamestyle that is a universal change affecting all players. WLTYYYD affects only Dem/Rep and for my purposes only when it occurs by design to grow cities, which the I have never seen the AI do. Although it should, cause it's dumb as a stump post fence.

quote: So will you cough it up and admit that you may have underestimated the comlexity of using WLPD?

No, because I never offered otherwise. You cannot simply take a Monarchy, revolution to republic and WLTYYYD whore the next turn. What I'm referring to is not the creation of growth infrastructure, but rather the setting of the luxuries rate to put your cities into WLTYYYD for turn after turn after turn. Substituting luxuries rate for time to obtain growth seems cheap to me.

quote: And even tho you don't like it for your expressed and valid reasons, you won't think those you end up playing with are weak players cus they like to use it?

I don't MP, so it doesn't really matter. It's just a point for discussion, as having seen a number of posts where city growth is designed around WLTYYYD, rather than WLTYYYD results from wise development.

quote: When you see that END sequence as someone takes your last city you might then.

Never happens (bloodlust). I do however fail to conquer other races by the determined time. If I play an additional 200 turns, I might make it, but alas, the tech tree has normally petered out (original Civ2) and 200 more turns of the same thing with no hope for glory kinda bites...

quote: Otherwise you will be left with a fairly weak thing to say like "well dang! I would have won those games IFFFFF they would have played me "fair" and not used WLPD, or built that Shakespeares Theater to where that city never needed to worry about happyness......."

I'd rather lose with diginity than win without it.

quote: So I am not at all against playing a game where there is a luxury setting limit of say 20 or 30% tops instead of the 100% possible that the game designers built in as an option for us.

You know, the % luxuries thing in my opinion is an act of ommission rather than commission. I don't think they set out to make sure you couldn't pursue x% luxuries. I can't imagine they thought anyone would want to! I think they were rather limiting the amount of science and taxes, rather than limiting luxuries.

quote: I have enjoyed playing no wonders and no ai games for some of the same reasons you use regarding WLPD. But there will allways be nothing like a good ol 1x1x raging, deity, full comp civs, and mutually agreed set of rules to play by.

I couldn't agree more with the latter part. I just find WLTYYYD is a part best left out, or at least not utilized to the extent some advocate.

quote: Great times, funny chat, and time consuming but cheap intertainment

Mmm, yes, entertaining this is...

Venger

[Venger]

quote: I guess I don't see how it takes a whole lot of effort to pull off Disagree. Try it without a Temple or Marketplace.

In the mid to late game you can't even get to size 3 without disorder without a Temple if you have a fair to large number of cities.

quote: Who hasn't had the frustrating experience of a celebrating city stuck at size 7 while you rush in settlers to irrigate more grass or plains?

Heh, well, I haven't. But by the time size 7 rolls around, 2 settlers have been calved and one has worked the surrounding lands to enhance trade and growth.

quote: Who hasn't had the Vikings come knocking on your door with vet Knights while your cities are building Caravans and Libraries?

Those bastards. You don't need to WLTYYYD to hate when those Mongol elephants dump off next to your size 3 city with only an archer to defend them...

quote: Bribery is only eliminated under Democracy. Add that 80 shield Courthouse to the list of "must-haves" for a Republic to grow. In reality, you don't even get double the science rate out of Republic compared to ICS Monarchy due to the loss of trade to luxuries.

I know the bribery dem rule, I worded it somewhat awkwardly. No, you don't get double the science rate. But you are able to increase science, tax, and usually for medium sized cities, put that one entertainer back to productive use in a forest region, for a couple shields. That's huge.

quote: And of course each science advance makes the next one come slower and slower.

Not enough for my taste actually, the tech avalanche late in the game is something I'm trying to reduce in my ruleset...

quote: While you'll be ahead, pretty soon your science rate will not be much better off than under Monarchy.

I gotta disagree on that, my Civs hit a wall in Monarchy.

quote: If your gonna play ICS, then go for it all the way. You must beat the AI before (IMO) they get Industrialization and Democracy.

I don't ICS, but I see too many weaknesses with it to really feel it is a good long term strategy.

quote: IMHO if you beat down the AI with war in the early and mid game, you should just finish them off since the game becomes just too easy after that.

The big map helps here, I tend to not even see the enemy till well into the game, unless I get squatted next to one...

quote: YMMV of course. I find war with the AI laughably easy. But leave them alone and let them get into the modern era and find out what a real space race can be.

If you get to the late era when they get stealth, it can become a real slugfest, especially on a large maps with the right Civs...

quote: And the same thing happens to your cities. The game expects this and adjusts accordingly: science advances take more and more beakers. Units cost more and more. Improvement upkeep costs get more expensive. I mean really: just how are you supposed to build 320 shield Solar Plants or SS Modules in a size 11 city?

Actually, I have a current game with a city (4 buffalo, hills out the wazoo) scoring 106 freaking production a turn at size 13. Unreal.

quote: Not unless you already have the infrastructure.

Well certainly, but if you've got the infrastructure, you don't need WLTYYYD to grow, it'll happen over time. But apparently it's easier to peg the rate for 10 turns and bloat. Anyone bulding a successful dem/rep is going to have to build infrastructure regardless of WLTYYYD...

quote: You can get 1500+ science and gold by trading with the AI - and only you get the bonus. I understand your position but consider this: If you have, say, 15 cities that each have 3 trade routes with the same AI city, you'll get the trade from 45 routes each turn while the AI will only get trade from 3 of them. Each of those routes will be worth double what they would be if you traded with yourself. Best of all, you can keep reestablishing the trade routes to get the bonus over and over. This makes it worthwhile to build Superhighways which increase the value of the routes and the bonus yet again. Give it a try!

I build Superhighways anyways. I know you can send all caravans to one city to avoid having the enemy obtain alot of trade arrows. But I can get trade in two cities while only producing a caravan in one, which often can mean an extra worker in the fields. I'm sure optimally your way produces more true trade though...

quote: But you must wait for a new city to become size 3 before anything happens. Also, you can only build one thing in a new city per turn and you must wait for you Engineers to transform, irrigate, road, etc. It's still quite a bit to do.

I would consider this par for the course, not something special to be done.

quote: Actually, the city grows painfully slow late in the game. Some of this is the effect of how long turns take late in the game vs. early in the game.

I've found quite the opposite. Other than increased unhappiness (despite Bach, Mike, Temple, 30% luxuries a size 3 city goes into disorder!), the late game cities seem to boom. I'm flush with cash for improvements, and alot of Engineers have nothing to do but clean up the occassional pollution...

Venger
[This message has been edited by Venger (edited May 11, 2000).]

[Oldman]

BoyakaSha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, i have nothing useful to contribute. So i have to make strange comments to get attention!!!!

Eh? Someone said I should post in this thread.

Happy now Hydey?

[rah]

You're welcom to your opinion Venger
, which is obviously not shared by others.

But 4 posts in a row? We know Who really likes seeing his name?

RAH
This thread got boring.

[Ecowiz]

I've been following this thread with much interest so far (Altough is becoming a bit boring ). I'm not an experienced player as you sure noticed from the Settler attribute in my profile? so, for me WLT*D was an event that occured more or less unexpectedly and whose affect I was not very much aware.

Being that I'm not that good a player myself, and since Venger declares it is a cruch i thought: so let's try it, I sure am a good subject.

Soo let's see: I am playing ToT Fantasy Game as a human, prince level with raging hordes in a normal sized world. I built three cities and tried to work my strategy in order to get the population boost (for that I needed at least Althing, the equivalent to Republic in this game). With three cities, all possible city improvements built I got WLT*D with Althing. I also got late in technological progress (60% luxuries really slow down science - to 72 turns per discovery ), with a puny army (no time to build a stronger one and no military discouveries that would help with upgrated ones), and with only two cities (yeah, I lost one to the Infidels because my rookie Warriors were no match for their I Horsemen).

-After editing-
Forgot to mention that my cities reached size 12. They don't go beyond that because I need the Catacoms (equivalent to Sewers) and I didn't reach the tech advance i need for that (can someone guess why? )
- -
So, bottom line, it is not that good a crutch for weak players like me .

But, wait, maybe it wasn't yet the time to boost the luxuries. Maybe only after all those improvements and developments Venger say are healthy choices in a sound strategy I can take full advantage of WLT*D!!! By then, maybe I don't even need WLT*D to win the game!!! But, then again, by then I will surelly be a much better player!!!

So, is it an easy strategy? IMHO, I don't think so.
[This message has been edited by Ecowiz (edited May 12, 2000).]

[JERandall]

Venger wrote, responding to me:

"Searching your post I found the sarcasm but found no humor..."

Very well.

"I'd like to find where I've precipitated any such remarks." [i.e., affrontery at light flaming]

Umm, in response to my original, sarcastic post. You have slammed anyone who dared disagree with you, *implying* (are you familiar with the definition of this word?) that their way of playing the game is akin to cheating, and using vulgar, sexualized language to do so ("spy-pimping", "luxuries-whoring", "engorging your cities").

"I fail to see how the WLTYYYD prep work is any different than the work needed just to make a successful democracy or republic."

Then you do not fully understand WLT_D. However, as you categorically refuse to *try* this strategy, you will never learn the difference between normal Rep/Dem preparation and WLT_D preparation.

"Quotes please. Find the denigrating posts."

Here they are:

"Why are half of your sentences yoda-esque?"

(This is at least vaguely insulting.)

"I'm not experienced in fellatio either but you can be damn sure I know it ain't for me."

(This is just uncalled for -- very vulgar.)

"Find the personal attack. Find it. Let's watch the thread develop and see where all the BS starts."

Here are some of Venger's personal attacks on me:

"What a jack ass. Do you have anything to add to the thread besides your overpowering ignorance?" [this one in response to my sarcastic post]

Personal attack #1.

"What are you, 12 years old?"

Personal attack #2.

"Well that was enlightening. I think that's what they tell new prisoners - assrape is part of the sentence. Get used to it."

Not a personal attack but extremely insulting. And, more sexualized language. Are you capable, Venger, of using another idiom?

"But if you aren't very clever, but really think you are, feel free to post your LoL posts down at the local gay bar, or Homeless Shelter, or some other place..."

An attack on Sten Sture. And *more* sexual idiom. Also gay bashing. And homeless bashing. Classy, Venger, very classy. (Note: that was sarcasm.)

"Curiously, have you actually addressed any of the issues?"

Yes I have: I submitted (in my very first post in this thread) that arguments over the realism of WLT_D were unfounded and misplaced.

"[...] you seem to post simply for the joy of seeing your name in HTML"

This is really, *really* funny coming from you, Venger. You have posted 28 times in this thread, often 4 or 5 times in a row. I have posted 4 messages (including this one). Which of us likes to see his name in HTML?

I also point out that it was you, Venger, who started the thread with the express purpose of stirring up trouble. If that's not an excuse to see your name in HTML, I don't know what is.

- - - - -

In the interests of peace and quiet, I will unilaterally stop posting after this message. Feel free, Venger, to lambast me, secure in the knowledge that I won't respond. You brave, brave man.


------------------
JERandall

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

An interesting thread despite the boredom claimed by RAH .

(I generally don't post in the CIV section as I am more a SMAC kind of guy, but these arguements arise in any TBS game that allows pop growth of 1 per turn so it seems germaine to post on the subject (forgive me my dyed in the wool CIV fans I used to play CIV2 all the time but have now moved on))

Venger,

Firstly I respect your convictions and generally your answers follow a sound point counterpoint format akin to a debate. You make some valid arguements .... pausing... (cause you know there's going to be a BUT)...


But...

When you use the term "crutch" it implies either:
1) a tactic that while legal either stretches the rules of the game or

2) if employed so seriously imbalances the game as to make it unplayable.

The first part of this definition re: legality was pretty well addressed by Ming. It is legal and a well documented effect.

Regarding point 2 comes to the whole crux of the arguement

I see both parties putting forth the arguement in terms of comparison of instant population gain for economies of scale vs. ICS strategy and how one compared to the other is equally unbalancing.

So now ultimately the point gets to a ICS vs. large city thread of which there have been numerous in the past. I don't intend to argue much on behalf of either point since most people have made their points re: need to have infrastructure in place prior to WLTPD (and one can draw the same parrallels in SMAC as well) etc.

The only point I wish to make on behalf of the larger city approach vs. ICS (which I am making the assumption is the strategy you follow)is this:

Once you have chosen to go the ICS route you unfortunatley have sealed your fate (moreso in CIV then in SMAC as one can augment city population size via crawlers in SMAC but I digress), population size is sealed to a finite small population size. This being said you indicated extra facilities tend to be wasteful and uneeded.

To my way of thinking what this purports is that only a portion of the game is actually played. If you never see the need to build adavanced facilites you in effect are only playing a small protion of the game and robbing yourself the experience of playing the grand tapestry of the game (ohh I shouldn't have gone that far as now I am waxing poetic... )

Thats my take on it at least. ICS surely is powerful but why play it??? As others point out population explosions seem to be the only way to somewhat balance the scales between the two approaches (your point being that it overbalances in favor of the larger city approach) regardless of the case I would prefer to play the complete game as opposed to a mere fraction.

Just my ramblings....

[This message has been edited by Ogie Oglethorpe (edited May 12, 2000).]

[Ecowiz]

Oops. Repeated incidentaly my last post.

But, since I'm here cleaning up the mess let me launch a chalenge to you, Venger.

Since, for you, WLT*D is a crutch, and to prove us just that, why don't you try and play a game with the following objective: as soon as it is possible, begin "demographic explosion" (hey, didn't something like that really happend in this century? ) through WLT*D and win (you may choose the ending, either by conquer or by sending the ship to AC; preferably the one you are more familiar with). You could then post the log of that game for us to see how it made your winning easier (I would surelly enjoy very much to learn it )

Just a thought
[This message has been edited by Ecowiz (edited May 12, 2000).]

[Sten Sture]

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-09-2000 09:56 PM So SKIP IT. God people, if you have nothing to add, then freaking go DO SOMETHING ELSE. ...if you aren't very clever, but really think you are, feel free to post your LoL posts down at the local gay bar, or Homeless Shelter, or some other place...just not on this thread. Venger

Since being banned from this very serious thread by Venger, I went to a couple of local gay bars and a homeless shelter to discuss the humor of Civ and Apolyton ramblings. I got to meet some very nice, genuine people with some very interesting stories, but they didn't think my civ LoL's were terribly clever either.

Therefore I conceed that WLT_Ds are only for weak players, and I will continue to play SP in deity, large map, bloodlust, 7 civ, raging, no wonders, no howies, no bribe, and founding not more than 10 cities; but also now with no WLT_D. I am sure the AI will be much more of a challenge.

BTW - has anyone done OCC with no WLT_D??


----------
How long til 150 posts??

[Ming]

Since this thread is getting way to long for people to read everything in... I thought I would do an executive summary of where it is REALLY at.

Venger's points if you look through all the posts.
1) It wasn't the intent of the designers.
Wrong... It is well documented in the manual that the designers expected it to be used for dramatic growth.
2) It's not realistic.
That's just a matter of opinion... I think some posters have provided some excellent examples that it is indeed realistic.
3) It makes it too easy to win.
Again, opinion... many posters have tried to point out that it requires real planning and work to set it up right, but Venger just waves it off and doesn't agree.
4) He doesn't use it.
So what... who cares!
5) He doesn't like it because it feels like cheating to him.
His only legitimate point since it is a matter of personal opinion.

So after all of his posts, that's all it comes down to... HE DOESN'T LIKE IT.

So don't use it if you don't like it!

Fine... is any more discussion really needed!
[This message has been edited by Ming (edited May 12, 2000).]