Yeah, I'm thinking the first part of that subject line might be just a teensy tiny bit overambitious.
The feature film "As Beyond As It Gets" Wrote:Viqsi: I've got a really great compliment for you, and it's true.
Realms Beyond: We're so afraid you're about to say something stupid.
Viqsi: Don't be unwelcoming, it's not your style. Okay, here I go. I've got this, what - aversion? My dedlurker, one of those pros whose reports I read, he says that in fifty or sixty percent of the cases, opening micro really helps. I hate opening micro. Very tedious thing, opening micro. Hate. I'm using the word "hate" here, about opening micro. Hate. My compliment is, that night when you came over and told me that I could be in... all right, well, y'all were there, you know what was said. Well, my compliment to y'all is, the next evening, I started practicing opening micro.
Realms Beyond: We don't quite get how that's a compliment for us.
Viqsi: Y'all make me want to be a better Civ player.
Confession time:
As is suggested by the silly quote, I'm an extremely casual Civ player by nature. I don't do much micro (unless I'm desperate), I rarely have an opening plan to win the game (those usually come around, oh, 500 BC at the earliest, but more likely around 500 AD), and my SP campaigns usually consist of chasing down some runaway AI, grabbing him by the collar, and grinding him into the dirt and then, oh, finishing a spaceship in 10-15 turns as an afterthought. Although that "chasing down" part doesn't always work. (My last two SP games were a cute illustration of this - kicked butt with Willem/Dutch on Monarch, promptly followed by getting a cultural loss to a Prince AI while playing Suvy/Khmer but he had ALL THAT LAND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD AND SOMEHOW VASSALED ALL THE THINGS ASDLKJ:VLUER#$*@!!11).
Based on that, my expectations here are low - survival would be pretty neat, for example. Or at least being tenacious in defeat.
Incidentally, I hated Civ3; it nearly ruined the series for me. Lack of RoP doesn't matter + unit zones of control == trollface. That the government and diplomacy systems were (to my eyes) downgrades from SMAC(X) didn't help either. I just kept dominating Planet over and over 'till Civ4 came out, and I only gave Civ4 a chance because of the Civics system making me think "well, maybe they have a clue this time". :D
So, yeah. I am not pro, I don't expect to be pro anytime soon, but I do at least hope to have fun.
(October 22nd, 2012, 12:14)Commodore Wrote: For your consideration.
[img]
Fog-gazing is of the devil and should not be trusted.
Somehow managed to miss this. Auspicious beginning - can't even see posts in my own thread! Go me!
Seems like there's two possible immediate openings:
Keep the hill tile as settlement spot, pick a Agricultural civ, and flip a coin on "worker first to grow" versus "warrior first 'cause OMG donwannadie". Quick and easy.
Move NW one, pick a Fishing civ, rush a work boat as fast as humanly possible. Dubious and a bit slow, and I'm thinking it mostly because I don't know how else to make the fishes that much more useful. And that BOTHERS me.
That latter seems a tad overambitious. Would have to wait for more info - like, actual scouting.
I figure I'll probably end up picking someone Creative regardless. I've learned that I do not do well if I don't get those early border pops. Besides, I love love love cheap libraries. I think I'm addicted. Anything else depends on how the tech thread shakes out - I'm trying to be all flexible and crap here.
Just as a general rule, I would highly recommend not going warrior first-it's almost always economic suicide.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
(October 23rd, 2012, 16:31)Merovech Wrote: Just as a general rule, I would highly recommend not going warrior first-it's almost always economic suicide.
Will keep that in mind, thanks!
Ostensibly there's a chance of scout-only starts anyways which would render the consideration moot. But I'm still not sure if I'm being too paranoid or not paranoid enough.
(October 23rd, 2012, 16:31)Merovech Wrote: Just as a general rule, I would highly recommend not going warrior first-it's almost always economic suicide.
*ahem*
Though you did say "almost always".
(October 23rd, 2012, 21:51)Viqsi Wrote: Ostensibly there's a chance of scout-only starts anyways which would render the consideration moot. But I'm still not sure if I'm being too paranoid or not paranoid enough.
Have you considered going NW-W (7-4 if you prefer that way) with the settler and settle T1?
Furthermore, I consider that forum views should be fluid in width
(October 24th, 2012, 04:51)kjn Wrote: Have you considered going NW-W (7-4 if you prefer that way) with the settler and settle T1?
First impression: I'm not fond of the idea unless there's a lot of goodies under the fog there (I'd definitely want to move my scout in that direction to check that possibility, tho!), as it gives up the wet rice.
On further reflection, tho, depending on how civ selections go down there may be more options in that direction regardless, whether I go there or the grassland next to it.
Thinking as follows: With a strategy focused on the fishes, the goal would be to pick a Fishing/Mining civ (so we can build a worker and research Bronze Working immediately and chop out a Work Boat), and there's LOTS of Fishing/Mining folks out there, some of which (*cough*cough*carthage*cough* would be highly awesome on a map that ostensibly has a focus on navies and thus likely to have lots of strong coastal city spots. By contrast, there's only one Agriculture/Mining civ out there that I can find, and while it's one I like in theory (China! Chokunu! ph33r mah collateral damage! ) I've never actually tried using it.
(I've never before paid very close attention to starting techs, so this is a bit new for me. )
(October 25th, 2012, 05:24)kjn Wrote: If you go to the PH and with a Fishing civ, a worker shouldn't be your first build. You should aim to get the fish improved ASAP.
I'd have assumed a chop would be the quickest way to get that work boat out. Am I doing it wrong?
...on second check, they're half the cost of a worker in hammers. Huh. Somehow I keep thinking of work boats as being expensive and I dunno why. Yeah, WB first for that plan. :D
![[Image: nod.gif]](http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/images/smilies/nod.gif)
![[Image: Civ4ScreenShot0008.JPG]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28594063/Maps/PBEM45/Civ4ScreenShot0008.JPG)
)