|
Post by tommynt on Apr 6, 2006 14:34:16 GMT -5
For the guys who dont know me, I saddly might be the most experienced civ4 player, proly beside some beta testers, I got by far mots played games and wins on the ladder. After i started writing for some time allready I decided to leave it with link to apolytopn forum www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4309728#post4309728my post was followed by a interesting discussions about differences between muli and singleplayer If some guys are intersted in a even more detailed and specific guide i ll add that CIVPICK: I ll leave it for now with this: Gandhi is 1. pick due to it s superfast start - with spi and fast workers u should have 2nd city aboĂșt 6 turns faster as with another civ - and kinda guaranted henge or oracle just helps a lot - and it s only civ where u can go religion 1. and getting bronze soon enough after him there are many other civs - i d maybe rate traits like that (from top to bottom) fin indu agri phi spi exp org cre; agri is kinda hard to rate as it is kinda must in a 1-1 but a real not that important in a epic other way round with phi
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 7, 2006 14:16:43 GMT -5
Guide? Looks more like a remark to me ;D
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on Apr 11, 2006 7:03:30 GMT -5
It's sort of depressing how all those Apolyton guys give up on multiplayer because they got choked the first time they tried, so multiplayer must be just single-minded rush rush rush with no depth. I made a long post but, like your guys', I doubt it changes their mind.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Apr 14, 2006 22:15:58 GMT -5
Actually this is probally what i hate about MP the most aswell, the effectivness of choking (Im not sure choking is totally the right word). In ancient it pretty much hook metal/horse and send axes/charriots to enermy ASAP. If you can get them on him before he gets metal then you are sorted. Even if you cant, the fact that he has to keep units at home to handle axes gives you alot of freedom.
Every single teamer i have been in, apart from say 5 at most, and i have played a sh1t load of teamers. The team that applies hard pressure early wins. This is the reason in big games such as 5v5 or even 6v6 a scout start is crippling. Beacuse one team has so much more power of the bat, and can get early control, which has a knock on effect on the speed at which worker is got out, which has a knock on effect on when you hook up resources and start chopping. How many times have you seen the "axe shower"? Every single teamer should be the answer.
This is the main reason aggressive is by far the best trait in ancient games, you have a better chance of winning 1v1's. When agressive axes, later in the game are stacked they are less of a problem, but early on say first 60 turns, they especially effective, and this is why.
Of course if 1 player is alot better then the other im sure alot of this dont apply, but when simular in ability, or when they have a little more experiance it definatly does.
So i wouldnt say its suprising the folks at apolyton are put off MP by this, because it can sometimes make the game very fustrating, boring and depressing, even for a guy that plays regularly.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Apr 22, 2006 3:02:28 GMT -5
That was interesting reading. Velociryx the self proclaimed genius because he can out tech ai and attack with overwhelming force at a time of his choosing. Whoopi! Anyone who finds dealing with the ai true diplomacy and thinks its the apex of the game must think a dog chasing its tail is solving the world peace dilemma. Give me a break.
I enjoy playing SP very much too but the ai have absolutely no rational thinking and have no overview strategy at work. One can turn up the difficulty, but that only stifles your economy and gives the ai start advantages and production benefits of some sort, it doesn't make ai any smarter. I personally like doing unbalanced teamers. So far I'm up to 3 vs 7 in late era starts and still kicking :oss. It's hard to do anything earlier than Renaissance due to war weariness. If you try, get pyramids at all cost for later in the game.
I had some trouble adjusting to MP when I first started playing C3C MP games. My main problem was I was still playing with a epic mind frame and always did stuff like I was plaining for the next couple of hundred turns even though the game was only 90. I also had a bad habit of hoarding gold. I would end game with 500 or 600 gold sometimes. I couldn't figure why I was not winning when the stats told(#1 or #2 ranking in all categories)I had the best over all empire. I know what the deal is now so no need to inform me. One other thing is I got to attached to my civ and hated to abuse it. Sounds silly, but I still feel like a d:ck every time a slave pop something.
Tommy, most of the stuff you wrote about is a no brainer for both MP and SP play but I would definitely like to hear more if you have the time to explain it on paper. I'm sure there is many things in that brain of yours that would make me say wow! I didn't realize that. Cool.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Apr 23, 2006 7:57:41 GMT -5
Man I hate SP snobs, the SP game is good no doubt, but those who dismiss MP, really just haven't played it enough usually. Anyway I couldn't let the remarks slide so I posted some counter arguments Good tips for the noob too.
|
|
|
Post by zerza on Apr 30, 2006 9:40:01 GMT -5
I had to rant to. These self proclaimed "civ" masters are a joke. To have total control of the politics of a game and claim that takes skill is a hoot. MP is where the skill is, you cant just toss someone 10 gold and have peace all game The only time SP is challenging is on levels where the AI gets to cheat severely, and beating a cheater just isn't fun for me To me SP civ is just to fake, what country ever got to develop without threat of any kind of war?
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Apr 30, 2006 13:53:46 GMT -5
Here's my latest SP outing. Ren start, small low inland sea map, always war, no barbs, 2 vs 6 unbalanced teamer. Me and my AI teammate both get Gandhi, opposing AI team random civs.
Opposing team got a decent draw with Saladin, Louis XIV, Isabella, Elizabeth, Cyrus and Alexander.
It was a little rough there for a while. My AI buddy lost a city and then I lost a city later trying to reinforce his front.
Anyway, a little over 12 hours later there was only one opposing city left and I was awarded domination victory.
I killed 641 units. Lost 102 units and 35 of those were sacrificial catapults. I was playing sloppy at the end as well so that added another 10 units at least that you could subtract for the total.
On a side note that was the first time I had a unit that was promoted 6 times. Has anyone had a unit with 7 promotions. It takes 50 experience points.
Time for 2 vs 7 next. That my be the tipping point.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Apr 30, 2006 15:39:31 GMT -5
Yes SP players are in there own world and do not understand MP play. Good MP skills will help your SP game, but learning SP skills like how to be a tech sleeper or bribe AI civs are useless in the the more challenging MP diplomacy environment.
CS
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Apr 30, 2006 17:56:00 GMT -5
This god AI is kinda though - still i m kinda proud that i was able to keep on teching wiht it - it s just imposible to get as many units - they start with like 40 bakers when u got 10 - really kinda unfair ...
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Apr 30, 2006 17:59:54 GMT -5
The problem with writing a guide is that i m a perfewctinist sometimes. I d write like 1 page just about cap placement ..
and there are few things which i got ahead of the other experienced ladder players
|
|
|
Post by Gogf on Apr 30, 2006 21:37:01 GMT -5
MP and SP are both totally different games. Multiplayer is far more about trying to trick the other player, whereas SP is more along the lines of simply outperforming the AI. I love single player, and it is quite foolish to dismiss it as many do here. However, it is equally foolish to dismiss multiplayer. Both require different styles of play, and both are certainly enjoyable to play.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 30, 2006 22:45:33 GMT -5
Ah, so this is where it's coming from. It's sort of depressing how all those Apolyton guys give up on multiplayer because they got choked the first time they tried, so multiplayer must be just single-minded rush rush rush with no depth. MP is a different game than SP. Some don't like MP for various reason, but like SP still. It also works the other way around. "All those Apolyton guys" accounts for a lot of people. Do you honestly think they all fit your sweeping generalization? Myself, rush and choke type tactics have nothing to do with it. I actually tend to play that way myself a lot, and enjoy the playstyle as much as many others. For me, MP (not just Civ, but just about any game) is distasteful because it requires interaction with other people. When I play a game it's generally to get away from having to deal with people. (When I post, then I'm looking for interaction.) In my case it has nothing to do with the challenge either, as even in MP the only thing I compete with is myself. Judging my own actions and decisions against the circumstance, rather than necessarily the result. That way, win or lose, I can judge my performance without the extreme variables of whether the player(s) I was up against were on their game or not. I had to rant to. These self proclaimed "civ" masters are a joke. You are confusing respect a community gives to a person with a person giving themself a label. Vel is a respected player over at Apolyton, whether you agree with the assessment or not. He hasn't needed to go around proclaiming himself to be something. If other people make statements like that, it's still not "self-proclaimed". Since you are using the plural of "master", who else are you refering to? There are a lot of respected SP players at Apolyton (and other places). Are you saying they all are jokes? This is terrible logic. Just because you don't find it fun to beat high difficulty levels, doesn't mean skill isn't necessary to do so. Your claim, "toss someone 10 gold and have peace all game" suffers from exactly the same problem as Vel's proclaimation about MP. It horribly underestimates the complexity of the mechanics involved to make a somewhat derogatory claim about a playstyle and community. Same deal here. The threat of war is there in SP. (Not as much when compared to some MP players, but moreso than when compared to at least some MP players I know.) Saying war is completely avoidable in SP just ignores reality. Which is ironic as your argument is supposedly in support of realism. Yes SP players are in there own world and do not understand MP play. You know better than that. Don't you? Simply because someone chooses to play SP doesn't mean they can't possibly understand MP. And do you really believe that nothing that can be learned in SP can help out in the MP arena? Players can play MP and SP. Whether someone understands one, the other, or both is purely dependant on what they understand; which can be affected by what they choose to play, but is not necessarily dictated by it. put a skilled sp player up against an average mp player and the mp player will win every time. Depends on what type of competition it is, who the SP player is, who the MP player is, and just how the map turns out. If it's a GOTM or HOF style competition, the results may favor the SP player, even if it's against a skilled MP player. In PBEM, both have advantages and disadvantages. Though considering PBEM is the "MP" for a lot of SP players, it may favor the SP. If it's MP, the results may favor the MP player. In any case, to say "every time" simply ignores the reality of the game, that there are unknowns and a RNG. That in some cases even lesser skilled players can win based off of luck. That in some cases the seemingly proper move leads to opening up a vulnerability. Not to mention that overconfidence can impact the play of the person perceived to be the favorite. MP and SP are both totally different games. Multiplayer is far more about trying to trick the other player, whereas SP is more along the lines of simply outperforming the AI. I love single player, and it is quite foolish to dismiss it as many do here. However, it is equally foolish to dismiss multiplayer. Both require different styles of play, and both are certainly enjoyable to play. Very well stated. (Though I don't agree that SP is more along the lines of simply outperforming the AI. It can be, but there are plenty of other forms it can take depending on the desire of the player and/or community.)
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on May 1, 2006 7:20:23 GMT -5
The thing about mp and sp is that a good mp is even a better sp as a experienced sp. MP ers have kinda mastered game after some time (different people explorer different ways and with this combined knowledge u go to perfect game).
I see that when playing PBMs with apolyton guys, and i try to play only with the best experienced players there - there s just no way for em to compete.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 1, 2006 16:58:03 GMT -5
The thing about mp and sp is that a good mp is even a better sp as a experienced sp. This is funny coming from someone who admittedly can't beat Deity. You're a good MP, right? Deity is beatable, and not just with the cheesey tactics you suggested. There's nothing keeping a MP from being good at SP, or a SP from being good at MP... but to be good at SP you actually have to be good at SP. Same with MP. You can't just claim you are one because the other, especially if you admittedly have not been able to do what makes a good "other". There is nothing applicable to SP that can't be learned by playing SP. You can learn things for MP that will help in SP, and things you can learn in SP that will help in MP, but nothing you can learn in MP that will help you in SP can't be learned in SP, and nothing you can learn in SP that will help you in MP can't be learned in MP. It's just egotism blinding you to that fact. PBEM is a form of MP. It's not SP. I said that it's the form of MP that many SP players are most comfortable with, given the lack of time constraints. Can't you understand the difference between two things having a similarity in one regard, and two things actually being the same thing? PBEM obviously still has the human vs human aspect, which SP does not.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on May 1, 2006 18:33:45 GMT -5
Being able to beat the computer on the hardest levels is just about knowing the right technique, it has nothing to do with ajusting you style and thinking quick on your feet. I have only played SP a few times in all honesty as i find it deadly boring, but i remember from my CIV3 days, once you learn how the AI thinks then there is always a "best tactic".
MP is very much diffrent in that respect everything you always have to think what your enermies, and often allies, are doing and how you can get one over on them.
For game depth comparing MP to SP, it like compaing chess to checkers. Why do you think they cant create an AI chess champion?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 1, 2006 19:21:06 GMT -5
Being able to beat the computer on the hardest levels is just about knowing the right technique, it has nothing to do with ajusting you style and thinking quick on your feet. Who cares? If you don't know the right technique, then you can't say you have mastered the technique. tommynt said average MP players are better SP players than SP players can be, so I pointed out that he admittedly hasn't been able to do what the better SP players can do. It refutes his point, and your point is irrellevent to that issue. Then what is that "best tactic"? If we combine tommynt's reasoning with your's, any good MP player would know it. Again, irrellevent. That is not what is being discussed. Understanding MP making a person better at the things necessary in MP fits perfectly with everything I have said. First of all, they have created chess AI's that have beat even the very best players in the world. But to the point, the depth of the game mechanics are basically the same between MP and SP CIV. Same tiles, same units, same specialists, same techs, same improvements, ect. The depth of the opponent can be different, and is what you are referencing. (Though theoretic possibilities and variants allow both to have much more depth than even playing against a player allows on it's own. Not to mention some players don't have much depth to them either.) An intelligent analogy would instead be comparing chess vs a reasonably good chess AI against chess vs a human (of variable skill). Because that is the difference in the two. The opponent. Not the game mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on May 1, 2006 20:36:17 GMT -5
These chess comparisons are really lame. There is almost no difference in a human's play whether he is facing a computer or a human on the other end, because nothing changes. The best move against a human is also the best move against a computer. Civ4 is completely different in every regard. SP diplomacy changes the best course of action dramatically; it revalues techs (Alphabet, rare techs that you can trade), it revalues religions, it revalues units (keeping high power changes relations), and on higher difficulties it affects city growth and general game pace. It changes almost every balance aspect of the game. The game mechanics, in short, are changed a lot by the huge shift in opponent. There is nothing applicable to SP that can't be learned by playing SP. You can learn things for MP that will help in SP, and things you can learn in SP that will help in MP, but nothing you can learn in MP that will help you in SP can't be learned in SP, and nothing you can learn in SP that will help you in MP can't be learned in MP. It's just egotism blinding you to that fact. I guess, but so what? There are definitely skills that are more important in one or the other. I can't think of any SP ones, but that's because I don't play SP much. Here's a five-second straight off the cuff example: In the current MP atmosphere, there's a huge value to being able to make good tactical assaults with 2-move units that have defensive bonuses (musketeers, cqs); small stacks of them have won probably 1/3 of the ren games I've played. Could you learn that in SP? Maybe. Would you learn it? Almost definitely not, because the AI is nutsty at controlling its own military to the point where you wouldn't even know what mistakes you're making in movement and unit concentration. If you screw up in multiplayer doing it, you lose units and you might lose the game. If you screw up in singleplayer doing it, you probably won't lose units, and it may not matter if you do, because the AI can't figure out how to use a catapult. Does it matter? Only a little bit in singleplayer, which is why you won't learn it. Hell, I played multiplayer for months, became a quite strong player, and it wasn't until I started playing ladder play specifically that I learned a lot of little details like that (on the flip side, I learned longer-game tactics that don't get much play in ladder, as well.) There are a zillion things like this that add up to a significant gap in skillset between a fairly good SP player and a fairly good MP player. I believe that most of the MP players have the belief that the skills they have honed (military control, efficient building, awareness among them) are more useful in an SP environment than the SP-centric skills (diplomacy with AI, what else? I don't play much SP so feel free to fill in more appropriate ones) are in a MP environment. Are we square? So there's no point beating down each other's straw men.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 1, 2006 22:24:26 GMT -5
These chess comparisons are really lame. The Chess:Checkers for MP:SP one was very lame I agree, which is of course why I responded to it. I made a suggestion about how to make it it more applicable in the context it was offered. I'm not one to rely on analogy, but when someone confronts me with one, I will discuss it's merits. The opponent does change, from human to human, from AI to AI, and definitely from human to AI or vice versa. There are very different ways players and computers can approach the game, and everyone (even the AI's) will have certain tendancies. An approach that will beat one, can be beat by another. Humans and AI specifically approach the game very differently. There are chess tactics that generally work well against AI in that generally won't (at least as well) against humans, and vice versa. Knowing your opponent's tendancies in Chess is every bit as important as it is in CIV. Certainly there is a psychological impact for any human involved based on who the opponent is. I agree that it's not a perfect analogy. It's a much better one than Chess vs Checkers at least, which was my point. Of course I don't agree that CIV is completely different in every regard. There are many similarities between CIV and Chess, even though they obviously are different in many ways too. An analogy doesn't have to hold up in every regard, only the ones it is specified to apply to. The analogy I offered is that there is a game (chess) with two different types of opponents (human or AI), and that is a better analogy to the game (CIV) with two different types of opponents (human or AI) than to say playing against the AI is Checkers, and playing against a human is Chess. Do you disagree with that? Do you feel comparing Chess:Checkers is a better analogy than Chess(AI):Chess(Human)? You are right about a couple things here, but not in your overall point. Health, Happiness, Maintenance/Upkeep/Inflation/Support/Supply (can't remember if S/S... but I think so), and tech costs do vary by difficulty level. (Some mechanics also vary by game speed and map type as well) But those settings are not necessarily different in SP than MP. They are different based on what you choose, and you can choose the same things for SP that you can for MP. The approach to the opponent, how you will use and manipulate the game mechanics, is necessarily different. Everything else, while it can be different based on settings, is not necessarily different based solely on whether the game is SP or MP. So what? tommynt made the point that MP players are better than SP players at SP. My point was in response to that. That is the context of my statement. The entire argument was about whether MP necessarily leads to better SP than SP can. And you say that answering whether that is true or not is not important? I am glad you agree with me though. Even if you're confused about whether it matters or not. Depends on the playstyle, variant, whatever. Some game types (MP or SP) tech trading is one of the more important aspects, other game types (MP or SP), it's not even an option. The importance of most areas of the game vary depending on settings, options, the RNG, playstyle, ect. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I was using extensive choke and resource denial tactics vs the AI before Civ III MP was even released with PtW, and had done much the same things to some extent or another in Civ I, II, and SMAC, as well as the RTS games I played. I used Musketeer rushes/chokes in CIV before the game was even released. You can say that I wasn't doing so in the same context as it would be used in MP, but the point is, I was doing those things in a manner befitting SP play while playing SP. It is ignorant (in the purest sense of the word) for you to suppose you can expound upon the efficiency of my actions while you have no idea about what my actions actually are/were. If anyone actually wants to discuss the merits of the tactics I was using, they should probably at least know what those tactics were, what the situation was, what the point of the exersize was, and what the results were first. (Don't take this the wrong way, I don't pretend that I was the one (or even part of the community) that came up with these types of tactics. And I bet we could find a quote from Sun Tzu (or other tactician) to fit nicely regardless of whatever "new" tactic that you come up with. It's always a laugh to see people come up with "new" ideas that have been obvious for millenia to anyone with an inquiring mind and the ability to read.) Or if you are playing on a difficulty level where any real mistake will kill you. Or unless you have enough intelligence to tell the difference between the results when you screw up, and when you don't, and infer the cost that way. Or unless you participate in a competition like the GOTM, where if you screw up, someone else is going to do it right and show you by how much it cost you. I mean, this is a strategy forum. (If somewhat of a ghost-town.) The basic principle of such is that you can take things you have learned, and share them with other people. Where you might find out what some other MP player has done, so you can try it out for yourself and see how it works. Pretending that that type of interaction can't lead to further understanding in the SP game is just silly. It even works between SP and MP in many cases where the skillsets overlap. I have not said the skillset of SP players is the same as MP, quite the opposite. I'm glad you agree with me that MP does not teach/encompass the entire SP skillset either. You say MP-centric skills are military control, efficient building, awareness. Those things are also SP-centric skills, but in a different manner. I know my economic skills from SP apply very well to MP, but not in every regard. Some things are different, especially regarding what a "safe" military entails. When going back to SP, there are parts of MP economics that I have to discard if I want to be efficient. For example, I don't need the MP level of "safe" military, just the SP level for the circumstance. If I am playing a human, I know my AI interaction skills do not apply, and replace them with those for human interaction. If I am playing an AI, I know my human interaction skills do not apply, and replace them with those for AI interaction. It works both ways. If you are saying your own points are strawmen, or some others I have addressed, I don't agree in every case. Some of the points are applicable, even if I don't agree with them. Those which aren't, I have addressed as such. If you wish to point out any of my specific arguments which do not apply to what I was addressing, feel free. I would love to discuss whether they are or not, specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Elledge on May 1, 2006 23:11:18 GMT -5
Aw geez, this is going to be a long one. The opponent does change, from human to human, from AI to AI, and definitely from human to AI or vice versa. There are very different ways players and computers can approach the game, and everyone (even the AI's) will have certain tendancies. An approach that will beat one, can be beat by another. Humans and AI specifically approach the game very differently. There are chess tactics that generally work well against AI in that generally won't (at least as well) against humans, and vice versa. Knowing your opponent's tendancies in Chess is every bit as important as it is in CIV. Certainly there is a psychological impact for any human involved based on who the opponent is. Do you play chess much? I've played in tournaments since I was about seven (which isn't as long as it sounds, cause I'm pretty young), and I would say I am real good and well-read compared to your average Joe, although I admittedly don't tend to play a lot of computer chess. The fact is that although it's true on an algorithmic level that "humans and AI approach the game differently", on a practical level, there's little difference. "Tactics that work well against AI but not humans" basically do not exist, or vice versa. Before you do your research and pre-empt me on this point, I will admit that there are one or two precepts that lead to good "anti-computer" chess, which mostly amount to just playing a conservative game, aiming for a positional advantage past the computer's search depth. These are almost negligible in effect. It's possible that at the very upper echelons of play this would be an issue; below the top 0.001%, there is literally no difference in "good play" against an AI and a human. In chess, a move is either sound, or it's not. Anyway, arguing about this is far enough off-topic that it's silly, and if you won't take my word for it I don't see anything I can say that will really convince you, so I might as well drop this point. I think they are both equally inadequate for different reasons. Closer would be blitz chess to long chess games. Closer still in my opinion would be normal chess to chess variants like bughouse or "reverse chess," played with the same rules and pieces but with an extra rule or different objective. OK, I think we are agreeing on this and arguing semantics because I was not as clear as I should have been. Would this statement seem reasonable: Singleplayer and multiplayer use the same basic game mechanics, but the player often needs to deal with different consequences due to his play, and large adjustments are necessary accordingly. But my point is that the AI doesn't even challenge you to do that! I played a bunch of singleplayer while I was learning the game, and the AI is, for all its other good and bad points, really bad at actually controlling military units in interesting ways. Park a longbow on a hill in AI territory and watch it suicide units on it with 5% chance all game, every twenty turns. Same thing happens if you siege an AI city; it'll keep building defense and periodically throw away its defense on your stacks! I have never seen the AI use catapults to weaken stacks and then attack them, which is like the most basic tactic in C4. The AI almost never takes forests and hill positions in your territory and stays on them for recon or support; it runs around open land so you can pick it off. The AI leaves way more defense around in its cities than it has to. I could go on for an hour, and I'm no expert. If you want to argue about this, then fine, but I'm not going to take it very seriously because I can watch with 100% guaranteed reliability throughout the course of a SP game as the AI makes these ridiculous moves over and over. Now, it's perfectly possible that you would have developed great, sound military tactics and moving and positioning skills versus an AI like this. But is it likely? I don't see how. Like I said, in my own experience I played some singleplayer and a bunch of multiplayer before I ever touched ladder play; I had mostly played "single-player-esque" long FFA matches, lots of teching, lots of building, an occasional invasion or defense. Never city elim. When I played ladder play I immediately got smacked down militarily! Speaking as a player who was quite good at other aspects of the game, through experience. Hell, I still get smacked down militarily sometimes, because I get outplayed by people who have more experience and more cool than I do on the front line, but I've improved vastly and learned a lot of tactics like the ones above. The reason I learned them is because suddenly I had to learn them or I would lose games. Before I could coast by making mistakes and usually win because I was good at most of the rest of the game, and I was playing mediocre opponents. Suddenly I had to learn how to maneuver and play well, and so I learned. After that experience - and given my common sense - it seems unlikely to me that almost any SP players would develop these techniques by themselves, simply because like me, they didn't have much incentive to. There are other ways to improve your game that are easier, because the difference in result from doing it the right way and doing it the wrong way in SP is usually not even going to be noticable. I don't think that Sun Tzu has much to say about Civ4, because good combat in Civ4 is kinda removed from good combat in reality. I bet you disagree, though, and I can't really think of a way to argue this point, so I'll drop it. None of it applies, man, because some military skills at least hardly ever get punished by the AI, like I said. Likely as not they won't have units in the right place to screw you, they won't attack at the right time, and you will never see the difference in action reliably. Maybe in a few years everything will be so well-documented in regard to the best style of playing this game that everyone will be able to read about it without needing the experience of losing to it. I don't think the game is there yet after six months. People are not perfect and people have things to learn, and that gap is in a different place between a SP and a MP player typically.
|
|