|
Post by lorddragon on Jan 22, 2006 5:21:13 GMT -5
I might note that I was only down by 50 pts when my modem burned out, and had been gaining rapidly for the last 20 turns or so. And I was freaking Washington, lol.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 22, 2006 5:23:30 GMT -5
we banned gandhi in our fun epics as early wonders are just reserved for india
but after this game i d say finacial is very powerful - and without resource u can maybe be 1. at hegne or oracle with gandhi but for other wonders u just need stone or marble even when having gandhi
and after lets say vaselage the workers are useless dudes anyway
oh well choping isnt that important in epics - as u soon ll just lack of woods
so final standing of ironman were:
tommynt MUD discus MDR ninou LKT CS KC GameTh .A.
at least on my last save
oh ya and ld was really unlucky here - we tried to find other tx member to sub him but there was just non in the end AI finished 2nd - and started appolo when mine was finshed and no ohers had infantire - quite a sign of good buildup from ld - when no1 was able to kill his AI takeover
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Jan 22, 2006 19:06:04 GMT -5
Even though I agree that Finacial is amazing for tec in the long run, if you know how to properly use ghandi you can Use certain Wonders as a steping stone in Beating China any day of the week and grabbing the early lead in terms of population and cities actually makes ghandi get to early tecs before anyone else and grab those early tec wonders and thus you are always staying ahead of the guy who is Finacial. In Long games.
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Jan 23, 2006 0:21:52 GMT -5
I have to disagree MrG. By early tech you are referring to the Oracle I assume? Its the only real tech oracle for some time.
Financial is actually MORE powerful in the early game than the late game. Your initial cottage, by a river for the sake of argument, gives most civs 2 gold. It gives a financial civic 3. That is a 50% increase. That is freaking huge. When I am not a financial civ, in random games mainly, I notice a massive difference in my teching. And yes that includes playing India. And lets not even mention using water squares, 50% more commerce the whole game.
Also, relying on certain wonders to let you win is a mistake. No matter how good you are, someone who wants wonders can and will beat you to them sometimes, if only because they get the stone or marble or whatever.
I like to think I speak with some authority on this, I am generally considered one of the best techers around, despite my other glaring flaws, lol.
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Jan 23, 2006 13:30:06 GMT -5
I have a solution to this problem. Lets play an Epic game, either 1v1 or Cton and prove who is in fact the better Leader in an Epic game. Beat me and I will tell the World that not only is Qin a Better Epic Leader, but you are a better epic player than me. Just consider the second part more motivation in participating, and yes I know I know you probably are going to say on the boards, "Well I don't need to prove anything to anyone, or why the hell would I care about beating you, or some other things in response , but seriously, I think it be interesting and I would honestly like to see who the better leader is, we don't even have to play it all at once, we can take it in shifts, but I can think of no other better epic type person to do this against than you, so it would only be logical to test this against you before I make an absolute claim on who is better...
|
|
|
Post by lorddragon on Jan 24, 2006 6:54:33 GMT -5
Yes, this would prove exactly nothing. And I didn't say that Financial would always outpoint Ghandi, I said that it has the advantage when it comes to tech.
But there are no "best" civs. There are civs that are better suited to some situations, and there are people that can do brilliantly with civs I quite frankly despise (Die Saladin, Die!!!)
Also, one trend I have noticed on the ladder is people tend to copy the civs of those that win. I have often seen people switching civs to match the one used by the winner of the prior match. I wonder if those civs are innately superior, or if people just associate them with being superior because the guy using it won.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 24, 2006 6:57:45 GMT -5
civs dont win games - players do - and sometimes land and sometimes rng
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Jan 24, 2006 12:21:45 GMT -5
Civs provide a huge advantage if you have the strategy to go along with them,
The fact of the matter is that in a Hub game where there are 8 players playing, odds say that players will receive less aggression than in normal games. This gives an advantage to players who tec at a better rate and less of an advantage (Pound for Pound) to an aggressive player or a creative player per say. To deny this is to lie to ones self.
I understand that under the control of the right player, any leader can be powerful, but certain leaders do honestly provide an advantage if picked on the right setting.
I understand that there are so many damn variables in this game that it would seem to be absolutely impossible to derive who is the better leader after one game, but I feel that if we were to play an epic game, Gandhi would be able to beat Qin in a tec game. Tec isn't everything, but if Gandhi has the ability to not only swoop up on the wonders and beat Qin at his own tec game, than I see no reason not to label him the best player in terms of not only 1v1 and Cton, but possibly even epic games.
The main reason I want to play you is I wanna be able to play the best Qin and see how they directly match up. Obviously one of us getting gold in capital or all green land, or some very lucky thing will help, but I feel that in the grand scheme of things it will not affect the game to dramatically and I will be able to decide who the better leader is on epic, plus after the game we will be able to see each others maps and see who actually had the better land and resources and than we can factor that into the equation, once again we obviously cant get exact answers, but I can provide myself with a ruff estimate.
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Jan 24, 2006 14:29:12 GMT -5
I tend to agree with Tommy on this one. Sure some civs are better than others. Some starting land is also better than others. Some RNG is better than others. That's the game of CIV. If you want a perfectly balanced game with no luck involved try Chess.
I've heard many times (in both CIV3 and CIV4) that one CIV is "too" strong when in fact, you can win with any civ and lose with any civ.
I am going to put up a poll on the subject of "Is Ghandi too strong for the Ironman". We'll see what the response is.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Feb 22, 2006 0:10:38 GMT -5
Washington techs faster than gandhi if allowed to be a builder. Qin, on the other hand, won't be able to compete with the explosiveness of gandhi with the fast worker. The real question is, is any leader better than asoka . And in regards to the chess analogy, a great chessmaster once said "When I play white, I win because I am white. When I play black, I win because I am me." . So even chess is imbalanced .
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Mar 11, 2006 7:25:07 GMT -5
Nibiru plays for GC
|
|
|
Post by holocanthe on Mar 11, 2006 7:28:03 GMT -5
Holocanthe for LKT if here it is for CCC 27
|
|
|
Post by rosieta on Mar 11, 2006 7:30:14 GMT -5
rosieta for FUN is here for CCC 27
|
|
|
Post by matth on Mar 11, 2006 7:32:12 GMT -5
Matth for MDR Team Good luck everybody and lets have 24 hours non stop of fun
|
|