On February 25 2013 19:15 Sufficiency wrote: I swear, just for having Hiawatha in the game makes it 100% harder.
Yeah, Hiawatha is always a pain in the ass. The other leader who has been a bitch in my recent games is Pachuti. He's a wonder-whore, and he expands like crazy.
Strange, I have no problems on Hiawatha. But I really hate the huns when it bombared me freely with bombers as I attacked Dido whom I had a war right from turn 20. What mode/settings do you usually play on?
immortal, standard, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea and emperor, small, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea
i prefer raging barbarians to add up the insane difficulties, disabled the ruins for OP against higher difficulty settings. i go on domination and cultural victories as my main strat. razing cities here and there, be friending city states.
I don't know what you are playing, but having Hiawatha in the game MAKES ME PLAY DIFFERENTLY.
If Hiawatha is my neighbour, I will devote all my resources to assure that he is utterly crushed before turn 100. If Hiawatha is not my neighbour, I will abandon all peaceful strategies and take over any civs in the way so I can reach him.
On February 25 2013 19:15 Sufficiency wrote: I swear, just for having Hiawatha in the game makes it 100% harder.
Yeah, Hiawatha is always a pain in the ass. The other leader who has been a bitch in my recent games is Pachuti. He's a wonder-whore, and he expands like crazy.
Strange, I have no problems on Hiawatha. But I really hate the huns when it bombared me freely with bombers as I attacked Dido whom I had a war right from turn 20. What mode/settings do you usually play on?
immortal, standard, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea and emperor, small, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea
i prefer raging barbarians to add up the insane difficulties, disabled the ruins for OP against higher difficulty settings. i go on domination and cultural victories as my main strat. razing cities here and there, be friending city states.
I don't know what you are playing, but having Hiawatha in the game MAKES ME PLAY DIFFERENTLY.
If Hiawatha is my neighbour, I will devote all my resources to assure that he is utterly crushed before turn 100. If Hiawatha is not my neighbour, I will abandon all peaceful strategies and take over any civs in the way so I can reach him.
there were always other civs in war with him that "absorbs" his might before we face off. more like we were far from each other. all civs are a pain, maybe its how we approach situation and the locations.
I heavily play infantry, horseman and artillery type soldiers. im not into ranged units except of course the planes and artillery. never used tanks, archers and spearman type. as for promotions, straight on specific tile centered till heal on move and pure medic types. full completion on tradition > liberty > influence cs policy (i forgot the name) and the next depends on the situation. at most of 4-5 cities only. acquired enemy cities are razed. pillaging and into city state quest. focused on cultural and engineering wonders. more gold improvements rather than production. thats how i play.
On February 25 2013 19:15 Sufficiency wrote: I swear, just for having Hiawatha in the game makes it 100% harder.
Yeah, Hiawatha is always a pain in the ass. The other leader who has been a bitch in my recent games is Pachuti. He's a wonder-whore, and he expands like crazy.
Strange, I have no problems on Hiawatha. But I really hate the huns when it bombared me freely with bombers as I attacked Dido whom I had a war right from turn 20. What mode/settings do you usually play on?
immortal, standard, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea and emperor, small, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea
i prefer raging barbarians to add up the insane difficulties, disabled the ruins for OP against higher difficulty settings. i go on domination and cultural victories as my main strat. razing cities here and there, be friending city states.
I always do immortal / standard / no ruins / regular barbarians / pangaea. My understanding is that raging barbarians makes the game easier because it so significantly slows down the AI's.
The Huns are a really nasty early game neighbor because their ancient era units are bullshit. However, I don't think that I have ever seen the Huns take over the mid game/late game with a large sprawling empire. The AI's that expand like crazy are usually the ones that cause the most problems because they quickly run away in tech with their huge population base (and AI bonuses).
in both ways, yes. easier for the delayed ai's aggression, harder because im deprived on working tiles and barbs always bully to the point i couldnt expand easily. by the time i get to expand, the ai's army are marching. i tried regular barbs but i find it easy to defend ai's aggression than on raging ones. on my games with huns, they always left unchecked as i often attack other civs and making all neccessary means on having a good relationship with huns on the early stages. luckily i often have chokes on huns area, never had probs on them early. maybe we had different strategies. aiding city states and razing cities (hit and run) were always my strat. do you win usually by what?
I have been playing the Arabs a lot recently, so I have been opting for a strategy that maximizes gold accumulation and maximizes purchase gold purchase discounts. I also time two phases of military expansion -- the first when camel archers are available and the second when bombers and tanks come online. Unlimited oil is awesome. I also use the gold to buy off tons of city states -- particularly the cultural ones.
On February 25 2013 19:15 Sufficiency wrote: I swear, just for having Hiawatha in the game makes it 100% harder.
Yeah, Hiawatha is always a pain in the ass. The other leader who has been a bitch in my recent games is Pachuti. He's a wonder-whore, and he expands like crazy.
Strange, I have no problems on Hiawatha. But I really hate the huns when it bombared me freely with bombers as I attacked Dido whom I had a war right from turn 20. What mode/settings do you usually play on?
immortal, standard, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea and emperor, small, no ruins, raging barbarians, pangea
i prefer raging barbarians to add up the insane difficulties, disabled the ruins for OP against higher difficulty settings. i go on domination and cultural victories as my main strat. razing cities here and there, be friending city states.
I always do immortal / standard / no ruins / regular barbarians / pangaea. My understanding is that raging barbarians makes the game easier because it so significantly slows down the AI's.
The Huns are a really nasty early game neighbor because their ancient era units are bullshit. However, I don't think that I have ever seen the Huns take over the mid game/late game with a large sprawling empire. The AI's that expand like crazy are usually the ones that cause the most problems because they quickly run away in tech with their huge population base (and AI bonuses).
in both ways, yes. easier for the delayed ai's aggression, harder because im deprived on working tiles and barbs always bully to the point i couldnt expand easily. by the time i get to expand, the ai's army are marching. i tried regular barbs but i find it easy to defend ai's aggression than on raging ones. on my games with huns, they always left unchecked as i often attack other civs and making all neccessary means on having a good relationship with huns on the early stages. luckily i often have chokes on huns area, never had probs on them early. maybe we had different strategies. aiding city states and razing cities (hit and run) were always my strat. do you win usually by what?
I have been playing the Arabs a lot recently, so I have been opting for a strategy that maximizes gold accumulation and maximizes purchase gold purchase discounts. I also time two phases of military expansion -- the first when camel archers are available and the second when bombers and tanks come online. Unlimited oil is awesome. I also use the gold to buy off tons of city states -- particularly the cultural ones.
honestly, i dont play civs that people tend to play and love. i like playing those underdog civs. i dont have any timings phases and i dont wait for the maximization method because that will always lead me to doom. i tried that once and left with no city states to ally. all went in war with me. i dont know if this makes sense but i prefer the STATEGIC VIEW than the normal view. terrain is very critical and normal view sometimes misleads me.
Edit: Nvm, I think I kind of got it... After 20 turns both parties get a science point boost equal to 50% total of what they currently could research. I guess that means it speeds up their research by scaling accordingly.
On February 26 2013 10:30 Emnjay808 wrote: Stupid question here:
What does research agreement mean exactly?
Average of your last 30 beakers per turn with some additional math added to it basically. At the end of your agreement you get a tech boost (like bulbing a Great Scientist).
Here is a full explaination: (starts about at 24:30)
some say religions were useless. i dont think so. i used religion as my back bone to happiness, culture and purchasing merchants. as im always behind in tech i used spy in teching. the funny thing is, though i tend to domination, i never use autocracy and honor. what are your preferred policies?
1.) full completion of tradition 2.) up to liberty settler tree 3.) first 3 (influenced to city state policy), gift to increase gold and science 4.) 1 merchatn policy (forgot the name again) 25% gold output and great merchant purposes only 5.) piety or rationalistm or order (depends on the situation)
On February 26 2013 10:30 Emnjay808 wrote: Stupid question here:
What does research agreement mean exactly?
After 20 turns you get a tech boost (much like bulb-ing a great scientist). I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head but I will look them up unless someone can fill them in.
20 to 30?? i use the research agreement strat on bullied civs. if they dont have gold, i donate then ask for an agreement. if there was a flaw in my strat, that would be my science out put. i heavily really on spies, agreement and city states.
On February 26 2013 10:30 Emnjay808 wrote: Edit: Nvm, I think I kind of got it... After 20 turns both parties get a science point boost equal to 50% total of what they currently could research. I guess that means it speeds up their research by scaling accordingly.
If you are playing G&Ks its easier to watch the video I posted. What you posted here is how it used to work before it got changed.
I think a few people on civfanatics have posted the full math. There are some additional modifiers to it like the Porcelain Tower and a Rationalism policy.
my last pre god and kings game. a very memorable one as we launched at least 11 nukes at each other on the so called battle of china (it happend on the bombed out city of china)
darius, immortal, standard, earth, no ruins, raging barbs
On February 26 2013 11:51 Sufficiency wrote: only 773 bpt? Ouch.
What do you mean? science output? science is always been my flaw on my strategies. focused that the least.
It's just odd that you are in information era, has ~1/2 of the world in land, and you only make 773 bpt. I guess it was because of the nukes - hence "ouch".
On February 26 2013 11:51 Sufficiency wrote: only 773 bpt? Ouch.
What do you mean? science output? science is always been my flaw on my strategies. focused that the least.
It's just odd that you are in information era, has ~1/2 of the world in land, and you only make 773 bpt. I guess it was because of the nukes - hence "ouch".
france actually owned the euro-afri-asia continent. the final face off was immenent. i need to stop france to i crawled all from canada to right russia. allied with the sole city of china as right to pass and bombared all the way with pure stealth bomber, nukes and infantry.
please enlighten me why you were shocked? i guess this explains on how we played the game. i think we play differently.
On February 26 2013 11:51 Sufficiency wrote: only 773 bpt? Ouch.
What do you mean? science output? science is always been my flaw on my strategies. focused that the least.
It's just odd that you are in information era, has ~1/2 of the world in land, and you only make 773 bpt. I guess it was because of the nukes - hence "ouch".
i think you didnt saw that the game ended on capturing paris on turn 580. yah, nukes were the key. if i hadn't purchased at least 7 nukes, i would be dead. those nukes were def ones. france had an insane number of army marching. ranging from bombers, tanks to foreign legions. ottomans also helped france. it was a total war. i was one policy away from culture victory then. domination and culture where my long term goal. should i lost the war, i would definitely win by cultural. my capital was located in america. by the time they will get there, it would be too late. the best game i had in civ5.
On February 26 2013 12:46 Durak wrote: Yo, can you stop double and triple posting. If you have something else to say edit it into your other post. Confusing and spam-y.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6E4opHA.jpg)
]
