|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 7, 2006 8:38:09 GMT -5
>> You should try for a few workers no matter what, the one you start with can chop out a second worker in just 1 chop of a forest. So by taking the time (2 turns) to chop that forest you now have double the chopping capacity. Chopping is the main source of early hammers so it's important to have plenty of chopping capacity. << Thanks, I learned somthing because I usually use the first worker for food to grow city, while the city is doing forge.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 7, 2006 8:13:22 GMT -5
>>I wouldn't agree with this, it's a pretty bland generalization. Often it's easier for one good player to control all the units than to try to coordinate with another player. With two people trying to accomplish teamwork, a lot can go wrong ... with one person ready to catapult and then attack immediately, or whatever the case may be, it's usually a lot easier. Many times I've sat there watching someone do nothing after explaining to them what to do and when to do it ... if they'd just gifted the units to me it would have been over and done with. << Yes, the coordination can be a problem, but can be done. Here is why:
Case 1 The key to defend a city is the siege weapon and collateral damage units unless attack force is much larger. It is not uncommon that a defender has 8 cats (can be produced by 1 city in 8 turns). An attacker will usually have 2 stacks, the first one will be attacked by siege weapon, and the second stack covers the first stack. Otherwise the entire attacking stack will be heavily damaged and the attack will halt.
When two attackers with 4 individual stack, it will overwhelm the defender and gets 3 out of 4 stacks to the city without much damage. Next turn, the city falls.
Case 2 The first attacker put pressure on the first city with 2 stacks, and the second attacker, with double movement units, attack the next city. Again, it will overwhelm the defender.
I would rank offense this order:
Two well-coordinated attackers with N units One good attacker with N units Two poorly-coordinated attackers with N units One poor attacker with N units
No real coordination will be required if two players attack two cities, except timing.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 6, 2006 19:51:55 GMT -5
My 2 cents:
I love to be a part of 4v4 or 5v5, but hate to be in the front line; however, I am in frontline 90% of time. There are several points we want to make:
(1) Front line players do not have time to make settlers, and quite often, not even for workers. That responsibility should fall into the second line players. Unfortunately, most of the second line players do not understand this, even when I beg them for settlers and workers, I still do not get them.
(2) When facing a good opponent, the front line cities are attack by two players with two stacks. The two stacks, controlled by two well-coordinated players, can go for one city or two cities. Under this circumstance, the front line player’s role is to defend the first city and it is the second line player’s duties, with his units, to defend the second city, which is usually the capital. Otherwise the frontline players will be overwhelmed. (The attack comes in the last 5 seconds of a turn and fast reaction is a matter of live or die). Most of the time, the second line player simply drop units to the front line player and pay no attention.
(3) As opposite of (2), the offense must be done by both front line player and second line player. Two well coordinated players can do far more than a single attacker.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 20, 2006 21:34:20 GMT -5
I often do it as I feel without a real guidance. Sometime I will expand until research hits <20%, sometime I will not allow research fall below 80% for long, otherwise, I will not expand. All this depend on how I feel. Is there a formula? If you ever let your research hit below 20% you are clearly doing something very wrong. While it's true that every city has a cost in maintenance, they also bring in gold -- you should be able to run around 70% if you're doing everything right. Sometimes a little lower, sometimes a little higher depending on the circumstances. It sounds like you're doing 1 of 2 things: 1) Planting cities and immediately having them build a Worker or a Settler -- not allowing them to grow and giving them only 1 tile to work isn't going to help pay for your maitenance. 2) Planting cities and not having enough Workers to make them productive. Cities are great and all, but if you don't have enough Workers to make them productive, they are just going to cost you money in maintenance and be targets for your opponents. You need to improve your food, build cottages, and build mines -- working numerous unimproved tiles in your cities is a huge mistake. Actually I manually manage all workers in the first 5 cities in the order of food, mines, and cottage. All of the working tiles are improved; otherwise, these tiles are slaved away quickly to turn population into productions. I also produce workers ahead of settlers so each settler has a worker to go with (worker, worker, settler, worker, worker, settler, worker, settler, worker, settler, worker). For 5 cities, I generally have 7 workers, 1 for each city, 1 for auto-road and 1 for auto-mode. The research rate falls below 20% for one reason only, over expansion early on and some of the cities are far away because of land condition, which cost $4 – 5 city maintenance. Because all cities are working on improved tiles, this will recover fairly quickly to 50%. So the question becomes this, which one of the following is better? (1) Slave/chop 5 cities + 7 workers in the earliest possible way, suffers 20% research rate, and recover quickly to 50 – 60%; (2) Slave/chop 3 cities + 4, 5 workers in the earliest possible way, maintain 60% + research, and take a break. When research recovers to 80% +, expand again. You seem to indicate option (2) is better, which I agree, but we can’t prove it.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 20, 2006 19:00:04 GMT -5
It depends on your land, your resources, and your situation in the game. However, the two pictures you paint are the model of two extremes, and in-game situations are usually much more somewhere in the middle. My problem is under a given land, resources, and situation in the game, given such a big variation, is there any guidance for what my approach should be? I often do it as I feel without a real guidance. Sometime I will expand until research hits <20%, sometime I will not allow research fall below 80% for long, otherwise, I will not expand. All this depend on how I feel. Is there a formula?
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 20, 2006 13:26:35 GMT -5
Early growth question: which one is better and why?
Assumption: 1 cont each or you are in the back of inland sea, so you are safe from early attack, the goal to build your economy up asap. Let me list two extremes. Obviously, there are various variations between these two ends.
1. 0% Research 2. One City Approach
1. 0% Research
In this approach, assuming you have enough forest and seafood/rice…, you will use slavery and chopping as fast as available. Build nothing but workers and settlers. Start building a warrior until size 2, switch to worker and slave asap. Workers start chopping. Build warrior or granary and wait city grow to size 2, and switch to worker/settler. If you start from ancient, it is quit probably possible to get 5 cities and 6 workers when you reach 0% research. Here you must stop, or your workers become suicidal.
2. OCC Approach
Just build a super-city with 2, 3 workers and grow it to say size 5, 6, or even 7. It has forge, 3 mines, a library and is very productive. The research rate is always 100%. It has so much production that it produces a settler every 2 turns. At this point, you can produce 4 settlers in 8 turns and have these additional cities produce workers.
In a game of 100-turns, 130-turns, 150- turns, and 350-turns, which one is better? How do we justify which one is better than others? I have tried all of them and have no clue which one is better.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on May 4, 2007 11:09:14 GMT -5
I started this thread when I just joined Ladder last November.
I forgot all about this thread a long time ago; now I feel sorry for MLL that I ever started this thread. I have never met MLL since, I have not played that much either.
With my apology to MLL for starting this thread, I hope this thread ends here.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 6, 2006 18:37:42 GMT -5
MookieNJ:
I must admit your comments are enlightening. Thank you very much for taking your time to make the comments. Points well taken.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 6, 2006 14:03:27 GMT -5
>> Personaly i couldent care less, if HE/SHE play's with me or not. << Way to go.
This was my first encounter with him. May all of us learn:
"Our members are Civ fans who agree to play fairly, RESPECT others, and abide by the rules. "
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 6, 2006 13:35:54 GMT -5
High ranking members obviously have a lot influence power.
It would be nice if they can use their power to advance ladder’s agenda:
"Our members are Civ fans who agree to play fairly, respect others, and abide by the rules. This is the place where you can literally play the best in the world anytime of the day or night. "
I actually think this problem can be solved very easily, just specify it in the game title:
Ladder Teamer, rank <50; or
Ladder Teamer, rank <20.
Then we will not join the high ranking game.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 6, 2006 13:18:38 GMT -5
Good advice, I will do. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 6, 2006 13:13:29 GMT -5
I forgot. But the host did not want to kick so it is not his fault. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 6, 2006 12:44:17 GMT -5
Well, the board replaced my original word, ret..., by "slowed".
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 6, 2006 12:38:57 GMT -5
Ladder Home Page State: "Our members are Civ fans who agree to play fairly, respect others, and abide by the rules. This is the place where you can literally play the best in the world anytime of the day or night. "
Yesterday (11/5/2006), I joined a game named "Ladder Teamer". After a long wait, MissLadyLuck joined. He/She shows NO respect to lower ranking members and use bad words (slowed) on them. He/She made the host kick out first low rank memeber. Then he/she made the host to kick me with words like, "win 10% of time". The host resisted initially, saying kicking out 1 is enough for 1 day; but MissLadyLuck insisted and I was kicked after a very long wait.
Is this the norm of Ladder players? Is Ladder an organization where low rank memebers (I ranked 70 at that time) are slowed and can be kick out off game at will?
If so, Ladder need to be splitted into several sections, high ranking section and "slowed" section.
Your thought please?
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on May 1, 2007 13:36:51 GMT -5
I was making a joke to make ladder members laugh, not directed at you or your cousin. I have deleted the post and sorry about this.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on May 2, 2007 12:20:45 GMT -5
No spy, no commando, no nuke, no bomb, damn soon we'll have no units? ? Please let some fun in this game You can have units, just no gold mine, no silver mine.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 13, 2007 10:20:33 GMT -5
geforced:
Thank you for your kind offer, we do have a clan site; but it will be a long long time before a web site to be active.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 12, 2007 20:27:43 GMT -5
Event #1 – Friday at 3:00 pm EDT The Classic Singles Clan Tourney Ancient 1v1 Limit: 120 turns Map: Mirror inland sea, duel size,
Cachola Back up: Arthur_Rodrigues
---------------------------
Event #2 Friday, 4:00 pm EDT Renaissance 3v3
cv431410, Astax, Bonsai, Darkwooddude, Nature_one
----------------------------
Event #3 - IRONMAN PRELIMINARY ROUND MigUgra Squalsk Ezyrider ScotishFury TheBadSeed
-----------------------------
Event #4 Friday, Nov 9th at 6:00 pm EDT Friday Future Regicide Start
Squalsk Nature_one Mr.Morph ABCman ScotishFury
-----------------------------
Event #5
Ancient CTON 7:30 pm EDT Era: Ancient
Lestate
----------------------------
Event 6 Sat 2am Industrial 3v3 Grudge Match
Ezyrider, TheBadSeed, [MCC]Cankaban, Bonsai
----------------------------
Event 7 Sat 5am MOD Event - 2v2 UQC Void for small clan ----------------------------
Event 8 Sat 10am Ancient 4v4
Cachola Purple_turtle Arthur_Rodrigues [MCC]Cankaban Bonsai ABCman Astax ---------------------------
Event 9 12noon Killer CTON Lestate
--------------------------
Event 10 Sat 3pm 3v3 MODERN ERA TEAMER
Ezyrider, cv431410, Cachalo, Bonsai,
--------------------------
Event 11 Sat 6pm Ancient OCC
Arthur_Rodrigues Lestat [MCC]Cankaban Purple_turtle
-----------------------------
Event 12 Sun 8am 3v3 Medieval Clan Tourney
Cachola MigUgra Arthur_Rodrigues [MCC]Cankaban Purple_turtle CV431410 Ezyrider --------------------------
Event 13 Sun 9:30am 2v2 Ren OCC teamer
Cachola Lestat [MCC]Cankaban Purple_turtle Bonsai
----------------------------
Event 14 Sun 10am 3v3 Classical Start Cachola Nature_one ScotishFury TheBadSeed Astax ------------------------------
Event 15 Sun 11am Random/Random 2v2
Bonsai cv431410 Ezyrider
...............................
There are your assignments. Feel free to jump ship by inserting a message; I will check back every thrid week. I will change your assignments. Next time: be there.
For those of you who want play for MCC (standing for monkeys), contact Cachola.
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 12, 2007 20:27:21 GMT -5
What I have learned from my first CCC
(1) A clan member does not know that he is a clan member; often with a comment like: how did I get into the roster; (2) A clan member is not on roster (because of typing error), so he cannot play; (3) A clan member does not know the date of CCC (who knows?); (4) A clan member does not know the time of an event; therefore, went to play other online games (after all 15 events are a kind messy); (5) A clan member do not know what the events are and which one he/she suppose to play (need to grow a second brain first before mastering all 15 events); (6) A clan member does not know who his teammates are; (7) A clan member does not have mod (of course not, don’t even have time play the regular); (8) All clan teams are met first time in CCC events; (9) All clan teams never practiced for the events they played; (10) Too many 1:1 communication, need a “MCC Back Stage”, with pw mcc; (11) A clan member could not find his beer, smoke, coffee cup, match, … (12) …
Given the amateur nature of CCC, the situation is not going to be improved; but it might be getting worse. We barely made 5 events this time with no back up in each of the 5 events. If we are not careful (which we will not), we might make only 2 events next times. That is neither sad or upset, that’s way it is: amateur * amateur = amateur square.
Here is the improvement:
The following stuff is pulling out of the thin air, but thin air is better than no air.
You need to know the next CCC date. Here are your time, your events, and your teammates (just in case you want to practice; Of course, the list below can be changed, just post a message here):
|
|
|
Post by cv431410 on Nov 9, 2007 13:37:23 GMT -5
cv431410
Event #2 Friday, Nov 9th at 4:00 pm EDT
|
|