|
Post by Ellestar on May 7, 2006 1:43:25 GMT -5
You say you can beat diety, we all say bullsh*t. Actually, i didn't said so. I said that it's possible to beat deity on standart settings and maybe even him may do it. You think that just calling 90% of what I say meaningless, without offering any direct reasoning to support that conjecture, is not flaming, while actually addressing it directly would be flaming? You think that instead it is better to just call me a name (board warrior) instead of attempting to refute my arguments. Fine. We have opposite views as to what constitutes flaming it seems. Haha funny flamer. Learn to read other's posts. "Also, in many cases you explained to me what IMHO is my IMHO, what my IMHO is different from other's IMHO, what you finally understood my position but you didn't get it earlier because of blah-blah-blah. And all of that doesn't add anything to a healthy discussion. Nitpicking is a sign of a board warrior as well, normal persons don't waste time on it."I find arguments that don't make sense are the easiest ones to refute. Certainly they are the most enjoyable ones to mock the one who posted them with. Do you know english? I said "flames that don't make any sence", not "arguments that don't make sence". Buy a dictionary or something and next time respond to what i actually saying instead of whatever will come to your head first. Otherwise, we can just ignore whatever doesn't lead to, or impact, future discussion. Like... Your posts? ;D Technically speaking, I am participating in the community, as the boards are part of the community. I do not participate in the games of course, that has never been under dispute. It has already been addressed by a mod. No, you're not. Some forums create their own communities, some forums just serve the existing communities (like this one). You're not a member of our Civ 4 MP community.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 5:59:43 GMT -5
ellestar - discussing with slowed is pointless - dont try try it - that s hte old interebt problem - u cant do nothing as not to care when some1 says f**k you Nah i don't care in any case. I'm just wasting some time the same way as him (that is, when i'm participating in some meaningless discussions). The difference is that i'm actually playing Civ in addition to writing on these forums and he tells others how he'll get a copy from Firaxis Soon™ ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 2:28:09 GMT -5
Well, it's not my problem in any case, as I enjoy my posting. Simply put, I wouldn't waste my time if it was otherwise. I don't really care what you call me or my posting style. If you can refute my points, have at it. If they are invalid, it should be easy enough. Worrying about the label is pointless. Points? Which points? You don't have much there. Maybe about 10% of your particular post is meaningful. And flames are hard to refute because they don't have any sence in the first place. However, i can show why it's stupid to write something like that But it will be a flame as well. That's why flames are destructive - they only lead to more flaming.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 6, 2006 0:26:16 GMT -5
I will extend the wager to you then, since tommy has not taken me up on it. I have $500 USD to put up, and will match any bet* up to that amount. (* An amount that I would consider of enough significance to waste time on proving/collecting... say over $100 USD.) It would allow me to purchase another copy of CIV instead of open up the one signed by Sid. Put your money where your mouth is zerza. If you really have a legal copy of Civ but don't want to open it then why don't you just download Civ from torrent or something? Seriously though, I respond to points that I feel require a response. I drop points which I don't feel need to be addressed. The extent of my responses are dictated by how much I feel is necessary to adequetly cover the topic. The statistics about how much I respond to, how much I drop, and how long my responses are is not really good evidence of anything other than to what extent those feelings were present at the time. From my experience, they are a good evidence. Also, in many cases you explained to me what IMHO is my IMHO, what my IMHO is different from other's IMHO, what you finally understood my position but you didn't get it earlier because of blah-blah-blah. And all of that doesn't add anything to a healthy discussion. Nitpicking is a sign of a board warrior as well, normal persons don't waste time on it. Considering the fact that your posts are already far bigger than they should be to stay manageable, i count it as flaming. So, you're a classical board warrior. Maybe you don't realize it, but it's your problems.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 5, 2006 4:12:21 GMT -5
Btw I tried Sp sometimes - and aslong as u dont abuse the exploits in it it s not too bad - I just say it s a joke for competetive play as ai is too dumb - hub map is imo a map where u can abuse the dumbness not too good. Actually, HUB is good for that. For example, Wall of Cheese will work just fine. It's when one of your units blocks the path to your cities and AI sends units via sea (with marine attack ROFL) or only through the only available route to your cities that wasn't blocked by you (so you can easily slaughter AI units). And that guy doesn't understand why we think so bad about SP "challenges".
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 5, 2006 4:01:11 GMT -5
After some review here and at Apolyton, I will not be deleting any posts in this thread. Your ego and skills got you into this, Tommy. Get yourself out. This debate has been quite reasonable - for the most part - and quite polite, again, for the most part. If Aeson, who is a respected member of several communities, wishes to address your remarks on another forum (which were already referenced here) in this forum, I will honor that. If you wish to get exceedingly technical, Tommy, Aeson may post here as a member of the CIV testing and development team, who have always been welcome on this forum. I would ask that we keep the discussion above the waist and away from people's nethers, though, Aeson? Well, actually there wasn't much flaming until Aeson started to flame there. He started to comment every sentence with like 5 of his. Of course, after 2-3 replies in a row it creates a huge flaming posts. The difference between a flame and a discussion is that flamers respond to sentences while people who want a normal discussion respond to thoughts written in other's posts. It may be easily tracked: Ellestar: 1 quote (2 paragraphs in the quote), 2 paragraphs in a reply www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4407131#post4407131Aeson: 1 quote (2 paragraphs in the quotes, 100% of the post quoted), 2 paragraphs in a reply Ellestar: 1 quote (2 paragraphs in the quotes, 100% of the post quoted), 2 paragraphs in a reply Aeson: 4 quotes (2 paragraphs in the quotes, 100% of the post quoted), 10 paragraphs in a reply Ellestar: 5 quotes (6 paragraphs in the quotes, 60% of the post quoted), 10 paragraphs in a reply Aeson: 13 quotes (9 paragraphs in a quote, 90% of the post quoted), 24 paragraphs in a reply + another reply - 1 quote from earlier post that he already replied to (1 paragraph in a quote), 5 paragraphs in a reply Ellestar: 10 quotes (11 paragraphs in a quote, 45.3% of the post quoted), 12 paragraphs in a reply Aeson: 21 quotes (11 paragraphs in a quote, 91.6% of the post quoted), 28 paragraphs in a reply IMHO it should be obvious to anyone who of the two fuels the flame. And no matter who Aeson was in any other community, here he's just a flamer who's bored because he doesn't have Civ 4 and who didn't found anything better to do than to flame others on forums.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 2, 2006 6:18:00 GMT -5
Well, cheesy tech trade is possible as well (espeically if you have a bad score that is to be expected early on on Deity, AIs stop trading techs with 1st score after trading some number of techs, but limit is bigger for lower-score civs). After that, you use diplo to slow down strongest AIs with wars (although they shouldn't steamroll other AI). All that cheesy singleplayer-only crap that relies on a knowledge about how to exploit stupid AI behaviour. In any TBS diplomacy is the easiest thing to exploit because it's a way to get something for effectively nothing almost without any inherent costs involved.
There also was a praetorian chop rush with a permanent anarchy on pangea.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 7, 2006 14:16:43 GMT -5
Guide? Looks more like a remark to me ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 17, 2006 4:26:54 GMT -5
I'm afraid I didn't understand the maths (note, I am British!) you used there though. Could you explain that in terms a dumbass could understand? There is a full description in that "Combat explained" article. What exactly you don't understand? You sum up all general attacker bonuses, add 1 to it and multiply it by attacker strength. Then you sum up all defender bonuses and substract all attacker bonuses that work in specifically that situation (bonus against unit type, city attack bonus etc.). If the resulted value is positive, then you multiply the defender's strength by 1+resulted value. If it's negative, you divide it by 1-resulted value. Oh and one other question ellestar: This stuff about jump points seems to be a pretty crucial aspect of combat, but I'm finding it difficult applying the knowledge, or even understanding the concept. Is it really as useful as it appears when used correctly or it just an interesting observation? Well, there aren't a lot of important jump points but still it's nice to know that: 1) Even if you just slightly wound a stack of units of one type and you have exactly the same type of unwounded units then your losses will be significantly smaller (62.9%+ chance to win or 0.589 units lost on average per 1 enemy unit instead of 50% chance to win and 1 to 1 win/loss ratio). That's because enemy unit will need to win one more combat round in battle. So, it may be efficient to use a collateral damage units, obsolete units you no longer need etc. before the main stack. Though you may need obsolete units to finish enemy wounded units (if strength difference is small) and i'm not sure which way is more efficient under which conditions. 2) When you have a stack of units of one type against another such stack, if you have 1.533+ times as many units as your enemy you'll lose 0.533 units on average per 1 unit lost by enemy (instead of 1 to 1 average losses with equal numbers of equal units where each unit has 50% chance to win). 3) No matter your numbers advantage if you use same units but enemy has a 35% or bigger defence bonus you'll lose more units on average than the enemy (35% bonus - 1.005 average kills for a defender, see "Av[erage] Kills" coloumn in a combat calculator after you calculate "Chances vs multiple units". Also, you need (Av Kills+1) times as many units on average or your win/loss ratio will be even worse than that (though it matters only for big stacks where it's better to use catapults first anyway, for a small number of units it's better to look up your chances from the same table "Chances vs multiple units"). Other than that, jumppoins may make some unit a better or a worse counter to some other unit (compared to "average" result if there was no jumppoints). But i don't think that there is any way to use such knowledge. All that matters is if a unit is a good counter or not with the system that exists.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 12, 2006 2:27:26 GMT -5
a cata or other unit which inflicts collateral damage can only inflict collateral damage if the unit is below 50hp and will not damage the unit to any amount below that sum. therefore i suppose it is better to use it against healthy targes. Also they inflict CD on a maximum of five units (making a total of six including the one strongest unit it battles with in the normal way). Note that these numbers are different for high-tech units with collateral damage. There is a full description there, i guess you missed it. This figures but I wasn't totally sure whether it was the case: less collateral damage will be inflicted if the cata is less strong. Yes. Another point worth noting is that specific bonuses take strength away from the defender, instead of adding it to the attacker. E.g. An axeman with cover promotion attacking an archer (on plains - no other bonuses to either party), will mean 5 v 3 - 3x.25 (5v2.25). Instead I always thought the bonus went to the attacker which would mean: 5 + 5x.25 v 3 (6.25v3), which is more favourable to the axe (i think). So basically you get more advantage from a specific bonus when the defender is stronger than you. Or, at least this is how I read it. If the overall value is negative, the defender’s modified strength is found by taking the original defender’s strength divided by (1-overall_value).So, it will be 5.5 vs 3/(1-(-0.25)) = 5.5 vs 2.4 (2.2916 to 1) instead what you thought 5*(1+0.25+0.1) vs 3 = 6.75 vs 3 (2.25 to 1) Note that you forgot Combat I for Axe. Arathorn (the author of the thread) also mentioned something called jump points. Basically he was saying that at certain levels of N (attacker value/defender) - stay with me here, it might be worth it ;D - the chances of winning changes significantly. This change was most marked when the two units strength values are very close to one another. To cut a long story short when N = only 1.01, ur chances of winning are a mighty 62%, when compared to 50% when N =1. So if your unit is only a tiny bit stronger you have a much better chance of winning. I am going to see whether this is the case in my next few games. You can use my calculator if you want to see these jump points for healthy units. There is a link to it in that thread on civfanatics. Open it with Internet Explorer (it has a faster JavaScript parser compared to Firefox) and check "chances vs multiple units". Don't cancel that script. It will take some time, especially on a slow computer.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 8, 2006 3:11:58 GMT -5
1. Which horseriding units get defensive bonuses and when they do does this apply to terrain and city defense? Notagoodname gave the right answer. 2. What's the deal with collateral damage? i understand CD can be inflicted on a maximum of 6 units per strike. But how is it decided what amount of strength is taken away? Is a catapult's CD pretty well ineffective against much stronger units? Collateral damage is equal to a half of a combat round damage (3*AttStr+DefStr)/(3*DefStr+AttStr)/5 and divided by half. Collateral damage is explained in a "combat explained" thread here forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137615Worker first is the best for economy i think. But you may die that way If you start with a scout and enemy is near then it's a bad idea to make a worker first.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 9, 2006 0:42:21 GMT -5
my theory is this: if it is ur 1st religion u will get an automatic culture pop (without even converting). if not u have to convert to the said religion to get that culture pop. Actually, you get culture from every religion (5 in a holy city, 1 in other cities) if you don't have a state religion. If you already chosen your state religion, you'll get culture only from your state religion. So, just don't immediately choose state religion if you don't need it right now.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 25, 2006 0:50:06 GMT -5
there are guys who build a 2nd warrior and just attck the guy in wood with 2 of theirs - works too often to be called dumb - i still dont like it 26% chance that unfortified warrior in a forest will win vs 2 (and 4% vs 3). If it's fortified in a forest it has 57% chance vs 2, 19.5% chance vs 3 Hardly a good idea to attack. I won one teamer that way - some player attacked with a stack of 3 and lost all. 19.5% chance isn't that uncommon.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on May 24, 2006 0:52:06 GMT -5
not sure this thread is seeing a lot of action. but i have recently got into 1v1 and at last i am seeing some success. with regards to wonders i see a lot of peeps go for henge and oracle. tommy really downplays there importance. may be others could comment. also, i'd like to know some good players (esp tommy's) thoughts on tech order. what to go for and why. i think this would be useful for general play as well. come one. we need more peeps posting. In 5v5, Henge gives a bonus for everyone. I think it's like 3 Obelisks if you're Industrious so it pays for itself almost immediately. Also, only one of the players tries to make it. In 1v1 you have significantly less cities than 5 player team in a teamer and you'll cripple your economy too much by doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 7, 2006 7:59:54 GMT -5
Nah i like overlapping food resources (at least, in Anc games when cities are small). It's also useful when you do have one more in range but your city needs a border expand before it will be able to use it. So you get a very fast growth (city is very small so it grows really fast) from a first, already improved resource and then switch your new city to work his own food resource. Also, you may make a fast Obelisk/Granary if you have overlapping production resources and new cities' growth is more important than making units a little faster in main cities.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Jun 26, 2006 7:10:46 GMT -5
But how would this actually fare against a human player with equal military power and deviousness. You just don't attack. You can't win with equal numbers on enemy ground. Singleplayer approach shouldn't work if enemy chopped all forests near his front cities (always a good idea in multiplayer). Even if he didn't, he'll block all forests himself. It's not a stupid AI that just sits in cities. Ok, some players are not as stupid as AI ;D So, either you have a BIG advantage or you don't attack. In a catapult era you need at least 2.2 to 1 advantage IMHO, that's probably the hardest era for attack. My question is that when defending from a large stack, should you keep all your units in your cities and wait for them to attack, thus reaping the defensive bonus, or should you go ahead and attack their stack as they get nearer to your cities? I'm sorry if this thread is too old to bring back to life, but its a shame it didn't get many replies. In a catapult era you keep units in or near cities and hit them when you have an advantage of your road network (you made some roads on front, right?). Stack vs Stack battle is a Catapult vs Catapult battle with other units finishing units damaged by collateral. Because of collateral a stack of Catapults that attacks first wins, you need a big advantage and/or reinforcements to survive it. So, if possible attack within your culture borders where you always have a first strike. And don't sit with catapults in a city pretending that you're defending it that way (no def bonus and no collateral when defending so it's absolutely pointless almost all the time). However, don't attack with catapults if you can't finish most of the wounded enemy units right now. "With the loss of Moscow, Russia is not yet lost… But if the army is destroyed, both Moscow and Russia will perish…," (c) Field-Marshal Kutuzov. So if you obviously can't hold one city but can hold 2nd it's better not to lose an army.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Feb 14, 2006 2:07:00 GMT -5
As far as going down the upper tech line before the lower, it really depends. The major upside of shooting along the top is that it is a quick path to construction, and catapults are simply amazing in teamers. The downside is you can't grab theocracy or feudalism, meaning your troops can't get the extra upgrade +2 (for non-aggressive civs this is pretty major, since +2 with a barracks making 6/5 opens up the first two +25% bonuses). I personally like using aggressive civs with the upper tech path to fast catas, and doing a power push with the 3axe/3cata/1spear ratio combo (which really has no counter solid enough to stop it, especially if you stick to forest tiles). Longbows (with 2 promotions Combat I + Shock because of Vassalage) or crossbows (oracle->metal casting, you don't research these techs so you'll give oracle to another team) should be fine. Good luck knocking them off these forests where you want to move.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Aug 8, 2006 5:43:34 GMT -5
Iw asnt wrong at all, my Home is my castle, my city and healing in enemy territoy is slowwwwwwwwwwwww, 5% my ass, but moving out and in is same slow, so i guess it dont matter usually Do you read what others say anyway? It's 15% with a medic.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Aug 4, 2006 8:10:38 GMT -5
If you units are relatively healthy, then you need 3 turns max so to heal to full with a medic on enemy territory (and 2 in your city with a medic). However, you need something like a forest so to heal in relative safety (and of course you need to kill main enemy stack). And you can probably finish healing remaining unhealthy units while bombing enemy defence on a next city. It's not always a good idea, but there are some situations when it's obviously better.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Aug 4, 2006 4:26:43 GMT -5
cultre in the city ll be something like +10 if u havent adopted to another religion before - also u can see it in the religion advisior screen i think - healing is somthing like 5% in enemy land 10% in neutral and 20% at home if i m not wrong (i m hardly wrong in civ stuff) I remember i had a discussion with you 4 or so months ago exactly about unit healing and you was wrong You moved your stack from enemy territory for healing and then back when it was much faster to just heal on the enemy territory with a medic (it was a ~3 turn difference in that case). After that, you argued that you was right Anyway, here is a full description. You're wrong again forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=157954
|
|