Once again: I don't care.

There is this newbie, don't remember his name; he read many posts here and "became really better" or something like this, as he said. Now he wants to know when to swith over from perfectionist to expansioist. THAT's what I'm talking about. When he has more fun being perfectionist, then why does he want to become a conqueror? Well? Because he wants to

1. fit in

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by Andz83 on 06-08-2000 02:51 PM</font> Well, trying to achieve fast times IS a kind of contest. There is this newbie, don't remember his name; he read many posts here and "became really better" or something like this, as he said. Now he wants to know when to swith over from perfectionist to expansioist. THAT's what I'm talking about. When he has more fun being perfectionist, then why does he want to become a conqueror? Well? Because he wants to 1. fit in 2. being GOOD. But it's not important whether you are GOOD at anything or not. I know that Americans see this very different. They always want to WIN. It's ridiculous...

IMHO his questions don't have anything to do with fitting in or being GOOD. When I first stumbled into ACS, months before I made my first post, I was a perfectionist player too. By reading this forum I discovered there were all kinds of ways you could play Civ, ways I never dreamt of. And I wanted to try them all and I did...and got beaten by the AI again, which didn't happen for a long time. So naturally I started to ask questions here and with the help of the people here became a better player. Compared to most people here I'm only average but by asking questions and trying different approaches Civ became even more fun than it already was.

And it felt really good when I was the first on AC in one of the OCC-forthnights

Edited some grammar.

Being the one who posted the question, "when to switch from Profectionist to Conqueror?," I'd like to refute your post.

First of all, I wasn't aware that I needed to become a war mongorer to "fit in." Isn't the big thing now OCC? I'm interested in others' aggression tactics because I'd like to learn other facets of the game. Yes, perfectionism will alway be my preferred style simply because it fits my personality, but that shouldn't keep me or anyone else from trying something new. We must remain open minded in life.

Secondly, mediocrity is nothing for which to shoot. Becoming "good," or bettering one's self, should be the goal in everything we do. Why settle for less?

With that said... I understand you're German? The war's over. We won. Let it go.

I like to succeed at things I compete at. I've played chess, backgammon, cards, etc, where the only real purpose is to win.

I also like to master complex situations. I played computer quest games, the Sim games, etc for that reason. But neither group was entirely satisfactory.

So, when I discovered CivII, I was hooked. Both apply. Winning is a measure of your success in dealing with barbs, opponents, geographical restraints, selecting appropriate strategies for a given situation, etc. On the other hand, you also get to build a civ the way you want, as perfect or as large as you desire to attempt, and can enjoy your own little people wandering around doing useful work.

My problem is that I get caught up in playing the role of "leader of my people" which can lead to decisions not perhaps overly compatible with winning!

For instance, if one of my cities is captured, I will spare no effort to liberate my citizens, even if the kingdom's coffers are emptied and the military wrecked in the process. Hey, they are my people, I am responsible for their welfare!

Sometimes I hang onto ancient units for sentimental reasons. Also, I will never nuke a city that was formerly part of my kingdom. How can you nuke your own people!

I may not win often, but I always have fun!

Now you know why I don't dare to play MP! Hey Andz83, maybe we should organize an MP game with kindred lousy players!

- mindseye

Typically, I start out as a perfectionist ruler. I only destroy enemy nations early on if they're within 20 squares of my capital city. Later on, though, I transform into something War4ever might be able to identify with — a bloody, ruthless sonofab*tch wreaking VENGEANCE upon the AI for past transgressions and tribute payments.

Yeah, baby. That's it. PISS ME OFF, AI, AND YA BITE THE DUST!!!!!

Okay ... no more caffeine tonight ...

CYBERAmazon (who likes his style of play)

and Hawkx9 was trying to jest about WWII.

I really do have to agree with CYBERAmazon... i will kick any ai near my land, ie same continent.... but as for just warfare, i have toned it down a bit

Mastering a perfectionist style of play has made me into a much better player and gave me some challenges early on

quote: Originally posted by mindseye on 06-08-2000 09:18 PM My problem is that I get caught up in playing the role of "leader of my people" which can lead to decisions not perhaps overly compatible with winning! For instance, if one of my cities is captured, I will spare no effort to liberate my citizens, even if the kingdom's coffers are emptied and the military wrecked in the process. Hey, they are my people, I am responsible for their welfare! Sometimes I hang onto ancient units for sentimental reasons. Also, I will never nuke a city that was formerly part of my kingdom. How can you nuke your own people! I may not win often, but I always have fun! Now you know why I don't dare to play MP! - mindseye

Now this describes very much my own style! No foreigner is going to hang on to one of _my_ cities if I have anything to say about it!

There has been a time or two when I just had to leave that city be for several centuries, but it was always a sore point with me.

As for nuking, well, maybe I'm too ecologically minded, but I have yet to build a capabiltiy for nuclear warfare in any of my games. I'm not sure how things work, but it does appear that the AI won't build nukes unlesss you've started building them first. I could be wrong on that; I just know that no nukes have appeared in any of my games, and that no nukes is good nukes.

We poison half the world to win some kind of philosophical, economic, or religious point? Sounds a little strange to me.

I can't wait for S.M. Stirling's _Island in A Sea of Time_ series to get that far. Will the people of Nantucket invent nuclear warfare, or try to keep it a secret?

When I first visited Apolyton Ming was sharing everything he knew about tribute. It was a big help and I appreciated it.

I don't know who first proposed OCC but there were questions about whether it was even possible. Then Paul came along and freely explained the techniques he used.

Many others have shared their discoveries as well.

Someone who was really competitive and interested solely in winning would not do these things. In fact they would try to disguise what they were doing.

I wish I had your luck when it came to nuclear weapons. Sadly, that isn't so. I've personalized the RULES.TXT file sufficiently to make it more difficult to acquire nuclear weapons (read: more prereq techs) but that doesn't stop the AI from building the Manhatten Project.

A pattern I've noticed is that a "supreme" AI power will never go the nuclear route. However, if it falls to "strong" or lower (or the AI power at that level), it begins to build the damned thing. Why? Well, the only thing I can figure out is that the AI gets the "feeling" that w/o nuclear weapons, it will never regain/make it back to "supreme" status.

Of couse, by then, it's too late and every nuclear-capable nation (human, included) is building the durned things.

CYBERAmazon

Maybe there should be a second tier of "challenges" for those of us who are "victory-impaired". For instance, instead of the One City Challenge, there could also be the Twenty City Challenge.

Steve Clark - Howdy! I have actually been around Apolyton, I just fell into the "Off Topic" black hole. There lies danger. Good to hear from you!

- mindseye

Well, in a way there is, it's called the Space Odyssey Challenge or SOC. The object is, given a comparison map so everyone gets the same start, to make it to AC by any means possible, OCC, ICS, perfectionist, it's up to you. Check out this thread, ../../Forum3/HTML/001158.html?date=13:39 and keep your eyes open, there should be a new SOC map out in about a week.

John-SJ

What's needed is a challenge whose victory doesn't depend on highly refined playing skills or careful execution of the best moves. You know, something like miniature golf as opposed to real golf. I might be able to beat Tiger Woods on the windmill-and-metal-pipe circuit; I don't think I'd have much chance at Pebble Beach. Or maybe like Blackjack rather than Bridge -- a little skill is involved, but luck plays a lot bigger role.

• Science Village
  Goal: Develop a city that generates at least ten beakers per turn.
  
• Not One City Challenge
  Goal: play an entire game without a single city falling to Barbarians
  
• We Sorta Like the King Day
  Goal: Keep a WLT*D going for two turns in a row!
  
• Witness the Colonization Challenge
  Goal: Keep your civilization alive long enough to see another civ successfully reach Alpha Centauri
  
• City of Wonders
  Goal: Successfully complete two Wonders in the same city!
  
• The Earth is ... Round?
  Goal: Persuade another civilization to exchange maps with you before someone completes the Apollo Project
  
• Pollution Solution
  Goal: Play an entire game without Global Warming occurring even once
  
• Space Tortoise
  Goal: Build a spaceship capable of moving under its own power
  

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

quote: what does ROTFL mean? or ROTFLMAO?

Rolls on the floor laughing
and
Rolls on the floor laughing my A** off