quote: I guess I don't see how it takes a whole lot of effort to pull off Disagree. Try it without a Temple or Marketplace.

In the mid to late game you can't even get to size 3 without disorder without a Temple if you have a fair to large number of cities.

quote: Who hasn't had the frustrating experience of a celebrating city stuck at size 7 while you rush in settlers to irrigate more grass or plains?

Heh, well, I haven't. But by the time size 7 rolls around, 2 settlers have been calved and one has worked the surrounding lands to enhance trade and growth.

quote: Who hasn't had the Vikings come knocking on your door with vet Knights while your cities are building Caravans and Libraries?

Those bastards. You don't need to WLTYYYD to hate when those Mongol elephants dump off next to your size 3 city with only an archer to defend them...

quote: Bribery is only eliminated under Democracy. Add that 80 shield Courthouse to the list of "must-haves" for a Republic to grow. In reality, you don't even get double the science rate out of Republic compared to ICS Monarchy due to the loss of trade to luxuries.

I know the bribery dem rule, I worded it somewhat awkwardly. No, you don't get double the science rate. But you are able to increase science, tax, and usually for medium sized cities, put that one entertainer back to productive use in a forest region, for a couple shields. That's huge.

quote: And of course each science advance makes the next one come slower and slower.

Not enough for my taste actually, the tech avalanche late in the game is something I'm trying to reduce in my ruleset...

quote: While you'll be ahead, pretty soon your science rate will not be much better off than under Monarchy.

I gotta disagree on that, my Civs hit a wall in Monarchy.

quote: If your gonna play ICS, then go for it all the way. You must beat the AI before (IMO) they get Industrialization and Democracy.

I don't ICS, but I see too many weaknesses with it to really feel it is a good long term strategy.

quote: IMHO if you beat down the AI with war in the early and mid game, you should just finish them off since the game becomes just too easy after that.

The big map helps here, I tend to not even see the enemy till well into the game, unless I get squatted next to one...

quote: YMMV of course. I find war with the AI laughably easy. But leave them alone and let them get into the modern era and find out what a real space race can be.

If you get to the late era when they get stealth, it can become a real slugfest, especially on a large maps with the right Civs...

quote: And the same thing happens to your cities. The game expects this and adjusts accordingly: science advances take more and more beakers. Units cost more and more. Improvement upkeep costs get more expensive. I mean really: just how are you supposed to build 320 shield Solar Plants or SS Modules in a size 11 city?

Actually, I have a current game with a city (4 buffalo, hills out the wazoo) scoring 106 freaking production a turn at size 13. Unreal.

quote: Not unless you already have the infrastructure.

Well certainly, but if you've got the infrastructure, you don't need WLTYYYD to grow, it'll happen over time. But apparently it's easier to peg the rate for 10 turns and bloat. Anyone bulding a successful dem/rep is going to have to build infrastructure regardless of WLTYYYD...

quote: You can get 1500+ science and gold by trading with the AI - and only you get the bonus. I understand your position but consider this: If you have, say, 15 cities that each have 3 trade routes with the same AI city, you'll get the trade from 45 routes each turn while the AI will only get trade from 3 of them. Each of those routes will be worth double what they would be if you traded with yourself. Best of all, you can keep reestablishing the trade routes to get the bonus over and over. This makes it worthwhile to build Superhighways which increase the value of the routes and the bonus yet again. Give it a try!

I build Superhighways anyways. I know you can send all caravans to one city to avoid having the enemy obtain alot of trade arrows. But I can get trade in two cities while only producing a caravan in one, which often can mean an extra worker in the fields. I'm sure optimally your way produces more true trade though...

quote: But you must wait for a new city to become size 3 before anything happens. Also, you can only build one thing in a new city per turn and you must wait for you Engineers to transform, irrigate, road, etc. It's still quite a bit to do.

I would consider this par for the course, not something special to be done.

quote: Actually, the city grows painfully slow late in the game. Some of this is the effect of how long turns take late in the game vs. early in the game.

I've found quite the opposite. Other than increased unhappiness (despite Bach, Mike, Temple, 30% luxuries a size 3 city goes into disorder!), the late game cities seem to boom. I'm flush with cash for improvements, and alot of Engineers have nothing to do but clean up the occassional pollution...

But 4 posts in a row? We know Who really likes seeing his name?

Being that I'm not that good a player myself, and since Venger declares it is a cruch i thought: so let's try it, I sure am a good subject.

Soo let's see: I am playing ToT Fantasy Game as a human, prince level with raging hordes in a normal sized world. I built three cities and tried to work my strategy in order to get the population boost (for that I needed at least Althing, the equivalent to Republic in this game). With three cities, all possible city improvements built I got WLT*D with Althing. I also got late in technological progress (60% luxuries really slow down science - to 72 turns per discovery ), with a puny army (no time to build a stronger one and no military discouveries that would help with upgrated ones), and with only two cities (yeah, I lost one to the Infidels because my rookie Warriors were no match for their I Horsemen).

-After editing-
Forgot to mention that my cities reached size 12. They don't go beyond that because I need the Catacoms (equivalent to Sewers) and I didn't reach the tech advance i need for that (can someone guess why? )
- -
So, bottom line, it is not that good a crutch for weak players like me .

But, wait, maybe it wasn't yet the time to boost the luxuries. Maybe only after all those improvements and developments Venger say are healthy choices in a sound strategy I can take full advantage of WLT*D!!! By then, maybe I don't even need WLT*D to win the game!!! But, then again, by then I will surelly be a much better player!!!

"Searching your post I found the sarcasm but found no humor..."

Very well.

"I'd like to find where I've precipitated any such remarks." [i.e., affrontery at light flaming]

Umm, in response to my original, sarcastic post. You have slammed anyone who dared disagree with you, *implying* (are you familiar with the definition of this word?) that their way of playing the game is akin to cheating, and using vulgar, sexualized language to do so ("spy-pimping", "luxuries-whoring", "engorging your cities").

"I fail to see how the WLTYYYD prep work is any different than the work needed just to make a successful democracy or republic."

Then you do not fully understand WLT_D. However, as you categorically refuse to *try* this strategy, you will never learn the difference between normal Rep/Dem preparation and WLT_D preparation.

"Quotes please. Find the denigrating posts."

Here they are:

"Why are half of your sentences yoda-esque?"

(This is at least vaguely insulting.)

"I'm not experienced in fellatio either but you can be damn sure I know it ain't for me."

(This is just uncalled for -- very vulgar.)

"Find the personal attack. Find it. Let's watch the thread develop and see where all the BS starts."

Here are some of Venger's personal attacks on me:

"What a jack ass. Do you have anything to add to the thread besides your overpowering ignorance?" [this one in response to my sarcastic post]

Personal attack #1.

"What are you, 12 years old?"

Personal attack #2.

"Well that was enlightening. I think that's what they tell new prisoners - assrape is part of the sentence. Get used to it."

Not a personal attack but extremely insulting. And, more sexualized language. Are you capable, Venger, of using another idiom?

"But if you aren't very clever, but really think you are, feel free to post your LoL posts down at the local gay bar, or Homeless Shelter, or some other place..."

An attack on Sten Sture. And *more* sexual idiom. Also gay bashing. And homeless bashing. Classy, Venger, very classy. (Note: that was sarcasm.)

"Curiously, have you actually addressed any of the issues?"

Yes I have: I submitted (in my very first post in this thread) that arguments over the realism of WLT_D were unfounded and misplaced.

"[...] you seem to post simply for the joy of seeing your name in HTML"

This is really, *really* funny coming from you, Venger. You have posted 28 times in this thread, often 4 or 5 times in a row. I have posted 4 messages (including this one). Which of us likes to see his name in HTML?

I also point out that it was you, Venger, who started the thread with the express purpose of stirring up trouble. If that's not an excuse to see your name in HTML, I don't know what is.

- - - - -

In the interests of peace and quiet, I will unilaterally stop posting after this message. Feel free, Venger, to lambast me, secure in the knowledge that I won't respond. You brave, brave man.

(I generally don't post in the CIV section as I am more a SMAC kind of guy, but these arguements arise in any TBS game that allows pop growth of 1 per turn so it seems germaine to post on the subject (forgive me my dyed in the wool CIV fans I used to play CIV2 all the time but have now moved on))

Venger,

Firstly I respect your convictions and generally your answers follow a sound point counterpoint format akin to a debate. You make some valid arguements .... pausing... (cause you know there's going to be a BUT)...

But...

When you use the term "crutch" it implies either:
1) a tactic that while legal either stretches the rules of the game or

2) if employed so seriously imbalances the game as to make it unplayable.

The first part of this definition re: legality was pretty well addressed by Ming. It is legal and a well documented effect.

Regarding point 2 comes to the whole crux of the arguement

I see both parties putting forth the arguement in terms of comparison of instant population gain for economies of scale vs. ICS strategy and how one compared to the other is equally unbalancing.

So now ultimately the point gets to a ICS vs. large city thread of which there have been numerous in the past. I don't intend to argue much on behalf of either point since most people have made their points re: need to have infrastructure in place prior to WLTPD (and one can draw the same parrallels in SMAC as well) etc.

The only point I wish to make on behalf of the larger city approach vs. ICS (which I am making the assumption is the strategy you follow)is this:

Once you have chosen to go the ICS route you unfortunatley have sealed your fate (moreso in CIV then in SMAC as one can augment city population size via crawlers in SMAC but I digress), population size is sealed to a finite small population size. This being said you indicated extra facilities tend to be wasteful and uneeded.

To my way of thinking what this purports is that only a portion of the game is actually played. If you never see the need to build adavanced facilites you in effect are only playing a small protion of the game and robbing yourself the experience of playing the grand tapestry of the game (ohh I shouldn't have gone that far as now I am waxing poetic... )

Thats my take on it at least. ICS surely is powerful but why play it??? As others point out population explosions seem to be the only way to somewhat balance the scales between the two approaches (your point being that it overbalances in favor of the larger city approach) regardless of the case I would prefer to play the complete game as opposed to a mere fraction.

But, since I'm here cleaning up the mess let me launch a chalenge to you, Venger.

Since, for you, WLT*D is a crutch, and to prove us just that, why don't you try and play a game with the following objective: as soon as it is possible, begin "demographic explosion" (hey, didn't something like that really happend in this century? ) through WLT*D and win (you may choose the ending, either by conquer or by sending the ship to AC; preferably the one you are more familiar with). You could then post the log of that game for us to see how it made your winning easier (I would surelly enjoy very much to learn it )

I have been in a discussion with a player who does not MP, and is not experienced with using WLPD trying to get him to try it so he can talk from an informed platform.

He wishes to stay ignorant, of other valid views, so be it.

quote:
Crusty:
When you see that END sequence as someone takes your last city you might then."

Venger:
Never happens (bloodlust). I do however fail to conquer other races by the determined time. If I play an additional 200 turns, I might make it, but alas, the tech tree has normally petered out (original Civ2) and 200 more turns of the same thing with no hope for glory kinda bites..."

Get some EXPERIENCE in MP with even some of the average players on this forum, and I guaranty you WILL see the end sequence! That is if you don't surrender before it gets there. It was playing MP I was refering to.

I have much experience in playing the AI's as well as MP. Why don't you get some EXPERIENCE in MP and WLPD and then talk some more on this subject?

I gave you my 2 cents worth, you can take it or leave it.

It should not be hard to whoop the AI with one hand tied. I don't blame you for choosing ways that challenge you when playing against the AI's. The One City Challenge ought to keep you out of mischieve for awhile if you really want a challenge against the AI. BUT READ THE INSTRUCTION MANUEL ON IT FIRST!! ...
http://members.home.nl/paulvdb/occ.htm

... LOL or you WILL see that end sequence.

Then maybe play a little MP when you are up to it and see how is goes.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-09-2000 09:56 PM So SKIP IT. God people, if you have nothing to add, then freaking go DO SOMETHING ELSE. ...if you aren't very clever, but really think you are, feel free to post your LoL posts down at the local gay bar, or Homeless Shelter, or some other place...just not on this thread. Venger

Since being banned from this very serious thread by Venger, I went to a couple of local gay bars and a homeless shelter to discuss the humor of Civ and Apolyton ramblings. I got to meet some very nice, genuine people with some very interesting stories, but they didn't think my civ LoL's were terribly clever either.

Therefore I conceed that WLT_Ds are only for weak players, and I will continue to play SP in deity, large map, bloodlust, 7 civ, raging, no wonders, no howies, no bribe, and founding not more than 10 cities; but also now with no WLT_D. I am sure the AI will be much more of a challenge.

BTW - has anyone done OCC with no WLT_D??

Venger's points if you look through all the posts.
1) It wasn't the intent of the designers.
Wrong... It is well documented in the manual that the designers expected it to be used for dramatic growth.
2) It's not realistic.
That's just a matter of opinion... I think some posters have provided some excellent examples that it is indeed realistic.
3) It makes it too easy to win.
Again, opinion... many posters have tried to point out that it requires real planning and work to set it up right, but Venger just waves it off and doesn't agree.
4) He doesn't use it.
So what... who cares!
5) He doesn't like it because it feels like cheating to him.
His only legitimate point since it is a matter of personal opinion.

So after all of his posts, that's all it comes down to... HE DOESN'T LIKE IT.

So don't use it if you don't like it!

*Crusty walks sadly away to play w/o his 2nd favorite unit*

One thing I had not realized untill earlier today about Venger was that he is a SP Civer, not a MPlayer.

If all he would have said was that it seems in SP games that using WLPD is too easy against the AI I might not have payed much attention.

All his stuff I was applying to MP game stuations apparantly was for not.

One thing I must say in Venger's behalf is that even tho he posted many times, and some commented about this... It must be said that he made an effort to reply to and keep discussions going with the ones who responded to his post. I like that.

Q: How can you keep your stinkin one city ALIVE!! let alone send 40,000 "happy to be outta there" colonists to AC? j/k...as it is an adventure I have yet to venture into.

Whaddaya say Venger? You want a bigger challenge then refraining from WLPD?

Try bloodlust starting from only one original to your civ city. I have done this for gunnery and tactics practise along the way. In CTP you are docked in score for every unit that perishes...see how many units you can keep from loosing in the process.

THE OCC is to me....wait!!!

quote: Originally posted by rah on 05-12-2000 08:30 AM You're welcom to your opinion Venger , which is obviously not shared by others. But 4 posts in a row? We know Who really likes seeing his name? RAH This thread got boring.

I try to respond to everyone who raises a point. I'll post anonymously if that'll soothe you...

quote: "I'd like to find where I've precipitated any such remarks." [i.e., affrontery at light flaming] Umm, in response to my original, sarcastic post.

Then I would suggest it is you who precipitated said remarks, not I.

quote: You have slammed anyone who dared disagree with you, *implying* (are you familiar with the definition of this word?) that their way of playing the game is akin to cheating,

Absolutely not. Those who've brought intelligent rebuttal to my points have been treated in kind. Those who've posted inane remarks with nothing but ad hominem attack received same.

quote: and using vulgar, sexualized language to do so ("spy-pimping", "luxuries-whoring", "engorging your cities").

I would disagree with your final quote, engorge certainly is not remotely sexual in nature. Unless you would like to ban the words "do", "jump", "bag", etc. because they make you giggle with their double entendre meaning. I would consider none of them vulgar or overtly sexualized as used.

quote: "I fail to see how the WLTYYYD prep work is any different than the work needed just to make a successful democracy or republic." Then you do not fully understand WLT_D. However, as you categorically refuse to *try* this strategy, you will never learn the difference between normal Rep/Dem preparation and WLT_D preparation.

I do "fully understand" it. The preparation for growth is the same as the preparation for WLTYYYD, the exception being the presence of an abnormally high luxuries rate designed not to keep order or support the government but to simply cause WLTYYYD.

quote: "Quotes please. Find the denigrating posts." Here they are: "Why are half of your sentences yoda-esque?" (This is at least vaguely insulting.)

A pot shot at some rather poor phrasing...

quote: "I'm not experienced in fellatio either but you can be damn sure I know it ain't for me." (This is just uncalled for -- very vulgar.)

I'll post an 18 or over disclaimer.

quote: "Find the personal attack. Find it. Let's watch the thread develop and see where all the BS starts." Here are some of Venger's personal attacks on me: "What a jack ass. Do you have anything to add to the thread besides your overpowering ignorance?" [this one in response to my sarcastic post]

You make my point - you'll not find where I initiated personal attacks. Am I to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or by opposing end them?

quote: Personal attack #1. "What are you, 12 years old?" Personal attack #2. "Well that was enlightening. I think that's what they tell new prisoners - assrape is part of the sentence. Get used to it." Not a personal attack but extremely insulting. And, more sexualized language. Are you capable, Venger, of using another idiom?

The first, a response to another brilliant bon mot from someone with nothing to add bud blinding ignorance. The second is hardly insulting. I believe the point was to show how the "get used to it" throwaway argument should indeed be thrown away. Perhaps killing a close relative and getting used to it? Paralysis and getting used to it? Would you prefer a death or dismemberment motif?

quote: "But if you aren't very clever, but really think you are, feel free to post your LoL posts down at the local gay bar, or Homeless Shelter, or some other place..." An attack on Sten Sture. And *more* sexual idiom. Also gay bashing. And homeless bashing. Classy, Venger, very classy. (Note: that was sarcasm.)

A response to his "I can't believe this thread exists". As to sodomy or vagrancy, if those pursuits are particularly enobling and worthy of your defense, so be it.

quote: "Curiously, have you actually addressed any of the issues?" Yes I have: I submitted (in my very first post in this thread) that arguments over the realism of WLT_D were unfounded and misplaced.

Indeed, I have found your first post, well written and very stately. I am in error, and apologize. I wish I had responded to that post, but alas, I overlooked or forgot to.

Again, I am in error.

quote: "[...] you seem to post simply for the joy of seeing your name in HTML" This is really, *really* funny coming from you, Venger. You have posted 28 times in this thread, often 4 or 5 times in a row. I have posted 4 messages (including this one). Which of us likes to see his name in HTML?

As I was the one who brought up the whole question, would you not expect my participation rate to be as high? I've tried to make my posts relate to the topic, or at least to the post I reply to, not bemoaning the existence of the topic to begin with.

quote: I also point out that it was you, Venger, who started the thread with the express purpose of stirring up trouble. If that's not an excuse to see your name in HTML, I don't know what is.

I did not wish to stir up trouble. I knew it may be controversial, that a strategy alot of people may depend on is something of a stepladder. But trouble is hardly correct.

quote: In the interests of peace and quiet, I will unilaterally stop posting after this message. Feel free, Venger, to lambast me, secure in the knowledge that I won't respond. You brave, brave man.

That's a rather cowardly way to put it. The first sentence stands on it's own. The latter is kinda childish really. I hope I've responded intelligently and in kind, I do not bemoan your response, so feel free to state it. In fact...be brave enough to respond..

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe on 05-12-2000 09:19 AM An interesting thread despite the boredom claimed by RAH .

I glad you find it of some worth...

quote: (I generally don't post in the CIV section as I am more a SMAC kind of guy, but these arguements arise in any TBS game that allows pop growth of 1 per turn so it seems germaine to post on the subject (forgive me my dyed in the wool CIV fans I used to play CIV2 all the time but have now moved on))

I liked SMAC, but when the planet started talking and I couldn't build a Death Star wonder as a cure, I kicked it to the curb. Also, the Shock Missle Entropy Former ECM blah blah blah really stinks...

quote: Venger, Firstly I respect your convictions and generally your answers follow a sound point counterpoint format akin to a debate. You make some valid arguements .... pausing... (cause you know there's going to be a BUT)...

Here it comes...

quote: But... When you use the term "crutch" it implies either: 1) a tactic that while legal either stretches the rules of the game or 2) if employed so seriously imbalances the game as to make it unplayable.

I wanted to imply that it was somewhat questionable as a strategy, which I suppose somewhat fits condition 1. It certainly doesn't render it unplayably, although I think it somewhat less challenging...

quote: The first part of this definition re: legality was pretty well addressed by Ming. It is legal and a well documented effect.

Legality isn't a question, more a question of suitability...

quote: Regarding point 2 comes to the whole crux of the arguement The only point I wish to make on behalf of the larger city approach vs. ICS (which I am making the assumption is the strategy you follow)is this:

ACK!! No ICS for me. I expand greatly, but you'll not find 35 size 4 cities in my Civ Bucko...

quote: To my way of thinking what this purports is that only a portion of the game is actually played. If you never see the need to build adavanced facilites you in effect are only playing a small protion of the game and robbing yourself the experience of playing the grand tapestry of the game (ohh I shouldn't have gone that far as now I am waxing poetic... )

I agree so utterly it's nuts. I want a grand capital, and thriving, sprawling Civ with large cities and wonderful skylines. 35 cities with barracks and a temple SUCK...but I don't use, nor see the need to use, WLTYYYD to get it...

quote: Thats my take on it at least. ICS surely is powerful but why play it???

If you've gotten the notion that I prefer ICS as a strategy, that is in clear error. I prefer everything about the grand Civ builders and their infrastructure and improvements to get to WLTYYYD - just not the associated city bloat that accompanies it.

quote: Just my ramblings....

They are welcome as always...

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz on 05-12-2000 10:03 AM Oops. Repeated incidentaly my last post. But, since I'm here cleaning up the mess let me launch a chalenge to you, Venger. Since, for you, WLT*D is a crutch, and to prove us just that, why don't you try and play a game with the following objective: as soon as it is possible, begin "demographic explosion" (hey, didn't something like that really happend in this century? ) through WLT*D and win (you may choose the ending, either by conquer or by sending the ship to AC; preferably the one you are more familiar with). You could then post the log of that game for us to see how it made your winning easier (I would surelly enjoy very much to learn it )

I can send you a ToT game right now that I'm playing with a stable luxuries rate, a huge empire, and little WLTYYYD (it's not like it never happens in my game, but I don't raise luxuries to force it for turn after turn). But 10% more luxuries and it's WLTYYYD for everyone! But not too realistic in my book...

quote: Originally posted by Sten Sture on 05-12-2000 01:57 PM Since being banned from this very serious thread by Venger,[quote] Heh... [quote] I went to a couple of local gay bars and a homeless shelter to discuss the humor of Civ and Apolyton ramblings.

Heh heh...

quote: I got to meet some very nice, genuine people with some very interesting stories, but they didn't think my civ LoL's were terribly clever either.

See, now THAT'S funny stuff...

quote: Therefore I conceed that WLT_Ds are only for weak players, and I will continue to play SP in deity, large map, bloodlust, 7 civ, raging, no wonders, no howies, no bribe, and founding not more than 10 cities; but also now with no WLT_D. I am sure the AI will be much more of a challenge.

10 cities huh? And no howitzers? I'll make the game harder for you - you can have howitzers back, but you must add the nil command in rules.txt for Spy and Diplomat units. MUHAHAHA...

quote: BTW - has anyone done OCC with no WLT_D??

Would WLTYYYD be so beneficial in a OCC? I would imagine that without the diversion of resources one could grow pretty fast regardless of WLTYYYD...once railroad and refrigeration hit...

quote: How long til 150 posts??

From me or for the whole thread? I just started this thread to whore posts to get out of the whole Chieftain thing up to Prince...

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-12-2000 03:02 PM Since this thread is getting way to long for people to read everything in... I thought I would do an executive summary of where it is REALLY at. Venger's points if you look through all the posts. 1) It wasn't the intent of the designers. Wrong... It is well documented in the manual that the designers expected it to be used for dramatic growth.

I'm hoping to describe a nuance here. That it can result in dramatic growth is a step from expecting it to be used Civ wide for 30 cities.

quote: 2) It's not realistic. That's just a matter of opinion... I think some posters have provided some excellent examples that it is indeed realistic.

Across the board? Do you honestly find going from size 12 to size 24 realistic within the game design?

quote: 3) It makes it too easy to win. Again, opinion... many posters have tried to point out that it requires real planning and work to set it up right, but Venger just waves it off and doesn't agree.

Well that's not quite correct. My statement is that planning and setup is required to run any Rep or Dem of size, the final step of boosting luxuries for WLTYYYD notwithstanding.

quote: 4) He doesn't use it. So what... who cares!

I've never offered that as a point, and it should be apparent in observation. As to who cares? Well Ming who the hell cares about any of this? It's all just a $20 CPU hogging computer game with tons of bugs. Let's just bag the whole damn site.

quote: 5) He doesn't like it because it feels like cheating to him. His only legitimate point since it is a matter of personal opinion. So after all of his posts, that's all it comes down to... HE DOESN'T LIKE IT.

If that's what you take away from the thread, you've missed out on it.

quote: So don't use it if you don't like it!

What an insight. It was only made at the top of the page bt another deep thinker.

quote: Fine... is any more discussion really needed!

I'd imagine that as moderator your web interface has the ability to not select this thread to read. Can we have a discussion here even if you don't want to take part?

[This message has been edited by Ming (edited May 12, 2000).][/quote]

That's the best post you could come up with even after editing?

quote: Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-12-2000 03:44 PM One thing I had not realized untill earlier today about Venger was that he is a SP Civer, not a MPlayer. If all he would have said was that it seems in SP games that using WLPD is too easy against the AI I might not have payed much attention. All his stuff I was applying to MP game stuations apparantly was for not.

Apply it, my post is the result of reading threads about both MP and SP. My thoughts on WLTYYYD apply to all situations.

quote: One thing I must say in Venger's behalf is that even tho he posted many times, and some commented about this... It must be said that he made an effort to reply to and keep discussions going with the ones who responded to his post. I like that.

I try to actually have a discussion on the discussion board. Responding to all, especially when I'm the one raising the question, is just part of the whole picture...

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-12-2000 07:50 PM Gee, you have just posted 1,000's of words, and you have added nothing new. No surprise! Can't you do better than that?

Only half of the words were his though...

IP check.

quote: Gee, you have just posted 1,000's of words, and you have added nothing new. No surprise! Can't you do better than that?

That reminds me of the type of thing I'd overhear on the 5th grade school bus 20 years ago. Congratulations.

quote: Only half of the words were his though... IP check.

I don't follow the latter statement.

Venger
P.S. In appreciation of economy of posts, which has become a topic of grave concern in this thread, I've taken the liberty of combining these two small snippets into a single post...I hope this alleviates the sleepless condition some of you seemed to be developing regarding this topic...

Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-12-2000 03:44 PM
One thing I had not realized untill earlier today about Venger was that he is a SP Civer, not a MPlayer.

If all he would have said was that it seems in SP games that using WLPD is too easy against the AI I might not have payed much attention.

All his stuff I was applying to MP game stuations apparantly was for not.

Venger:
Apply it, my post is the result of reading threads about both MP and SP. My thoughts on WLTYYYD apply to all situations.

Crusty:
Can't. Get some experience to discus the subject of MP WLPD and maybe some of us will be able have something of substance to chew on. Your comments point as Ming very well put it:
That you simply don't like it. What is there to discuss really?

Gee, you are the one insulting everybody here. You might be a tad confused

Again, your whole argument is based on YOUR opinion. You raise no facts, logic, or NEW ARGUMENTS. Your typical response to people is just to ignore their issues, and insult them.

Maybe somebody might agree with you if you came up with something besides "it sucks",
because that is all your argument comes down to.

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-12-2000 08:20 PM "That reminds me of the type of thing I'd overhear on the 5th grade school bus 20 years ago. Congratulations." Gee, you are the one insulting everybody here. You might be a tad confused

It seems your observations of insults are particularly one-sided, especially for a moderator.

quote: Again, your whole argument is based on YOUR opinion.

So what's yours based on Ming? Is there a stone tablet somewhere that says "Using WLTYYYD as a substitute for growth over time is deigned by God an ordained strategy, as defined by Ming?" The book says a settler can found a new city. Does that also mean there's an ICS commandment? Is every poster in here putting up research and statistical data, or are they expressing their opinions?

quote: You raise no facts, logic, or NEW ARGUMENTS.

Facts? What fact have you raised? The program let's you do it, so who cares? Your logic? You don't use it, therefore you must not understand it? Your arguments? If you don't like it, don't use it?

quote: Your typical response to people is just to ignore their issues, and insult them.

I've addressed EVERY issue raised, treated those who've posted with respect respect, and insulted those who've insulted me.

quote: Maybe somebody might agree with you if you came up with something besides "it sucks", because that is all your argument comes down to.

I suppose your argument must just boil down to "it's cool", "itz 3l33t dOOdz", "it rockz". Funny how other people seem to disagree but actually notice that I'm bringing up points, which they manage to respond to without some weak-ass "you just think it sucks, that's all you're saying", which is pure crap.

quote: It does indeed seem like all you want is to see your name in lights.

Yeah, this board is SO COOL!!! Look, my NAME!!! Fu#king please.

quote: But if that's what you want, maybe you should actually say something that will actually add something to the discussion you started.

Do you READ the posts, or just randomly respond in stream-of-consciousness? After all, your last posts have added so very much...

Your original point, and bad mouthing others is what sucks.
Ming is not the only one on your case.

You seem to be a sincere civer, and reply to most comments sent you, but you are just getting worked up now.

Judging from the comments thus far, it is very clearly not a crutch in most players eyes. You are only one of many voices.

If you want to handycap yourself for a little challenge against the AI, then sure go for it. Or try some of the even more challenging ways once you have that mastered.

quote: Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-13-2000 12:31 AM Your original point, and bad mouthing others is what sucks. Ming is not the only one on your case.

What's funny is this thread suddenly is about posters and not about posts. And excuse me, my point doesn't "suck". You may not agree with it, but I sure don't agree with yours and your points don't "suck".

quote: You seem to be a sincere civer, and reply to most comments sent you, but you are just getting worked up now.

I'm not "worked up", I'm tired of ridiculous statements about "that's your opinion" - well no shit, are we not all doing that?. "Don't use it" - is that the answer to every Civ question? "You just don't know what you're talking about" - what kind of assinine answer is that?

quote: I heard ya, I thought on it, I learned somethin, but I still disagree. I hope you can say the same.

Not a thing wrong with that...

quote: Originally posted by Crustacian on 05-13-2000 12:39 AM Put it to a vote.

I did not post it to request a popular vote - certainly a majority of people seem to think it's a great thing to do. I would offer that popular is quite different than valid, or optimal.

quote: Judging from the comments thus far, it is very clearly not a crutch in most players eyes. You are only one of many voices.

Did I claim otherwise?

quote: If you want to handycap yourself for a little challenge against the AI, then sure go for it. Or try some of the even more challenging ways once you have that mastered.

I find it the best way to play, that is challenging and doesn't rely on what I consider to be the gimmicky WLTYYYD...

quote: Then come to MP and give it a whirl.

I may try a MP game at some point, it'd be interesting to see the strategies used.

I just have to count all the insults you have made to people vs the ones tossed at you. You are by far ahead on that score.
It's not a one-sided view, just a factual count.

"So what's yours based on Ming? Is there a stone tablet somewhere that says "Using WLTYYYD as a substitute for growth over time is deigned by God an ordained strategy, as defined by Ming?"

Add this to your insult list... And it's not even a correct observation. It is not my opinion, but a fact that the designers intended it to be used that way. So it is a viable feature of the game.

"Facts? What fact have you raised? The program let's you do it, so who cares? Your logic? "

My logic is that the same as above. It's no different than building a wonder or setting up trade routes. It is a feature that was designed into the game for exactly the purpose that people use it for. And that is a fact, not an opinion.

"I've addressed EVERY issue raised, treated those who've posted with respect respect, and insulted those who've insulted me.

You must see insults in everything, because you have done the majority of insults here, and that is a fact. Go ahead, count them.

"I suppose your argument must just boil down to "it's cool", "itz 3l33t dOOdz", "it rockz". Funny how other people seem to disagree but actually notice that I'm bringing up points, which they manage to respond to without some weak-ass "you just think it sucks, that's all you're saying", which is pure crap."

No, my argument boils down to it's a designed feature and that people are using it as intented... yours argument comes down to it's not fair and you don't like it... based only on your opinion.

"Yeah, this board is SO COOL!!! Look, my NAME!!! Fu#king please."

What else are people supposed to think when all you do is post thread after thread in a row. Why not just make long thread when you post instead of putting a bunch in a row.

"Do you READ the posts, or just randomly respond in stream-of-consciousness? After all, your last posts have added so very much..."

Another insult... you are way ahead on that count. But yes, I read every word. And you are the one that really hasn't anything new from the very beginning. I find I must repeat myself, because even if you are reading what I say, you don't understand.

So get off your high horse. All you are doing is insulting people for disagreeing with you. Again... you raise NO FACTS to support your opinion.

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-13-2000 08:53 AM So get off your high horse.

Hi Mom

quote: Originally posted by Ming on 05-13-2000 08:53 AM Venger "It seems your observations of insults are particularly one-sided, especially for a moderator" I just have to count all the insults you have made to people vs the ones tossed at you. You are by far ahead on that score. It's not a one-sided view, just a factual count.

Factual count. What is the count? Go and read through the whole thread - please find where I instigate a pissing contest. You'll note I attempt to maintain a serious tone throughout the thread.

quote: "So what's yours based on Ming? Is there a stone tablet somewhere that says "Using WLTYYYD as a substitute for growth over time is deigned by God an ordained strategy, as defined by Ming?" Add this to your insult list... And it's not even a correct observation. It is not my opinion, but a fact that the designers intended it to be used that way. So it is a viable feature of the game.

Insult? Hardly Ming. Apparently disagreeing with you is high crime in this board.

And I disagree with your quote of "intended", the fact that the designers made each city work pop+1 squares does not mean they intended for us to ICS. That's just plain wrong.

quote: "Facts? What fact have you raised? The program let's you do it, so who cares? Your logic? " My logic is that the same as above. It's no different than building a wonder or setting up trade routes. It is a feature that was designed into the game for exactly the purpose that people use it for. And that is a fact, not an opinion.

I believe it was designed to be more of an effect than a tool. Do you think global warming was designed so someone who is losing an MP game can screw the other players? Well, it can be done, so by God, that must be the exact purpose it was designed for.

quote: "I've addressed EVERY issue raised, treated those who've posted with respect respect, and insulted those who've insulted me. You must see insults in everything, because you have done the majority of insults here, and that is a fact. Go ahead, count them.

For the last time, show me where I precipitated any BS. Come on Ming, find the post. You'll find no such post. I responded to serious posts seriously, to insulting point with said.

quote: "I suppose your argument must just boil down to "it's cool", "itz 3l33t dOOdz", "it rockz". Funny how other people seem to disagree but actually notice that I'm bringing up points, which they manage to respond to without some weak-ass "you just think it sucks, that's all you're saying", which is pure crap." No, my argument boils down to it's a designed feature and that people are using it as intented... yours argument comes down to it's not fair and you don't like it... based only on your opinion.

I tire of this Ming, I've said it before, and you don't hear what I'm saying. It's not unfair, it's unrealistic and beyond what I believe the game designers had in mind. That's my opinion, and you have yours. You're kidding yourself if you think you've expressed anything more factual than your opinion.

quote: "Yeah, this board is SO COOL!!! Look, my NAME!!! Fu#king please." What else are people supposed to think when all you do is post thread after thread in a row. Why not just make long thread when you post instead of putting a bunch in a row.

Because I respond, point by point, to those who address me. I do so in a complete manner. Maybe I should make posts like "Ha Ha" and "LoL", which are brief but do nothing. Why don't you think "He takes this seriously and wants to discuss the options". Rather, suddenly you've found me annoying so I must be posting out of some personal defect.

quote: "Do you READ the posts, or just randomly respond in stream-of-consciousness? After all, your last posts have added so very much..." Another insult... you are way ahead on that count. But yes, I read every word. And you are the one that really hasn't anything new from the very beginning. I find I must repeat myself, because even if you are reading what I say, you don't understand.

You know what, screw it Ming. Don't respond to me, I won't respond to you. Apparently I'm too damn stupid to understand anything you say, I'd rather insult you than listen to you. So I'll just discuss this with others who have some interest in the topic who can somehow find a way to communicate to me in a fashion I can understand.

quote: So get off your high horse.

Ming, you're blathering.

quote: All you are doing is insulting people for disagreeing with you.

That's a lie. Period. Find the post. You're a damn poor moderator if you can't follow the thread to see where the instigation begins, and where it ends.

Yeah, I insult anyone who disagrees with me, like I insulted Shamrock, Sieve Too, Carnide, Scouse, and any number of others who posted disagreements...oh wait, you'll find no such insults. Why? Because they posted on the subject not the writer, they were serious but gentlemanly, and they take the game seriously without taking it personally.

Find them. Ming, I dare you to. Find a post where I take off on someone without cause, just because my ego is so sensitive I can't handle someone disagreeing with me. Find any. You won't. Because they don't exist.

quote: Again... you raise NO FACTS to support your opinion.

Whatever Ming, skip the thread, we have nothing left to say to one another. If you curled up and blew away in the wind I'd notice it no sooner than if you posted something in here that made sense.

quote: Originally posted by hydey on 05-13-2000 07:35 AM Vengar you started this thread and it created gteat argument which allowed all of us to learn which is what this place is for you put up strong arguments as did many others and in the end each to there own opinion. this is now becoming a slanging match which is a shame

Agreed. If every single snide remark on both sides could be removed, I'd be all for it. I'm glad you found the debate and surrounding points reasonable.

quote: well done on a good subject lets not ruin it with insults

Thanks, kind words on this thread are most welcome...

quote: Originally posted by cavebear on 05-13-2000 12:17 PM Forgive me for observing that the tenor of the discussion has changed somewhat of late.

Indeed.

quote: What was a very reasonable question about the value and intended purpose of WLTxD seems to have gotten "just a tad" out of hand.

Some people seem to disagree as to the reasonableness of said question. I'm pleased you found it thought-provoking, as noted in your posts in the discussion.

quote: My sincere appreciation to Venger for bringing up the question (which I found interesting). My equal appreciation to those who discussed the idea at length. Both sides did well, and it is worthwhile to question things that *can* be done (and defend that they *should* be done. Can we ease off a bit on the personal stuff, though?

Well said. Ability and Nobility are indeed different as you can/should phrase states quote well. That you've noted that nuance in what I've been trying to say indeed says that my arguments are not falling on entirely deaf ears...

Thanks for the modicum of thoughtfulness you've shown in this thread...

Some people have said that the designers intended for WLT_D to be used civ-wide. Others have said it is only intended for a single city which happens to achieve high luxuries.

This is all meaningless. The intent of the designers is (1) unknown and (2) irrelevant.

It is the players, not the designers, who discover which strategies do and don't work, which ways of playing are most efficient, and generally stretch the game to its utmost limits. In fact, for most games (not just Civ2), the designers *don't even know* what the best way to play the game is.

Oh sure, they might build in some things which tilt the playing field in a certain direction, but they cannot anticipate the cleverness of thousands of players expending millions of hours on the game.

So: whether or not the designers intended for WLT_D to be used on one city, many cities, or all cities is totally irrelevant. The fact is that WLT_D *can* be used to make a lot of cities grow very quickly. Whether or not you *should* use it that way is, utlimately, a personal preference -- *especially* in single player.

So there! :-)

Of all the comments posted by you Venger (both constructive and destructive), I think this is the most terse.

And you know what's kinda scary to me? It's starting to make some sense.

Now don't get me wrong - I still believe that the "pop-whoring" effects of WLTXD were intended by the game designers; I think that the preponderance of evidence makes this clear. However, maybe, just maybe it was not meant to be used this way, but rather as an occasional bonus effect.

Forgive me Venger if I've misinterpreted the crux of your argument

Ming, et al.-

I would have to agree with Venger that both sides of this discussion are merely stating opinions. While I would argue there is more evidence on the side of "intended effect," I don't think there is any way for us to know short of talking with one of the game designers.

So what say we direct the discussion more in the direction of what I believe Venger's original point may have been? Assuming that the WLTXD was not intended to be used this way, should it be used this way?

quote: Originally posted by JERandall on 05-13-2000 02:12 PM Well, earlier (*much* earlier, heh) I expressed my distaste for "realism" as a criterion to apply to a game. Now I must express my disagreement with the "designer's intent" argument. Some people have said that the designers intended for WLT_D to be used civ-wide. Others have said it is only intended for a single city which happens to achieve high luxuries. This is all meaningless. The intent of the designers is (1) unknown and (2) irrelevant.

Indeed, it is nearly impossible to truly discern - we can only speculate. The truest test is how it fits in gameplay. My contention is that it can fit alright as an event, poorly as a strategy.

quote: It is the players, not the designers, who discover which strategies do and don't work, which ways of playing are most efficient, and generally stretch the game to its utmost limits. In fact, for most games (not just Civ2), the designers *don't even know* what the best way to play the game is.

True again, I imagine the best players at nearly every game are never the designers...

quote: Oh sure, they might build in some things which tilt the playing field in a certain direction, but they cannot anticipate the cleverness of thousands of players expending millions of hours on the game.

There is no truer testament to this than the ridiculous Civ2 power graph. Is this thing even usable past 2000B.C.?

quote: So: whether or not the designers intended for WLT_D to be used on one city, many cities, or all cities is totally irrelevant. The fact is that WLT_D *can* be used to make a lot of cities grow very quickly. Whether or not you *should* use it that way is, utlimately, a personal preference -- *especially* in single player. So there! :-)

Well said.