|
On March 04 2013 17:17 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 16:03 riyanme wrote:on what turns do you usually win cultural victory based on 1 or cities only? went on this game as GOKU (kamehameha wave) and originally opted for cultural turned diplomacy AGAIN. i ended the game on turn 431. won by diplomacy but i almost completed my policies with making my own 8 cities and 1 puppet capital. i asked because when i went another game with capital only build, it almost went the same as taking 8 cities. therefore, not agreeing into common belief that less cities makes culture faster. turn 422 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/plHrBmV.png) ] turn 431 the game ends with almost 1 policy to go to build utopia. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WsXhGd1.png) ] i dont know with you guys but i find it having a hard time winning culturally. the way i see it these happends to be the easiest path to victory. 1.) diplomacy 2.) science 3.) cultural 4.) domination 5.) time (surprising!!! The point is that on higher difficulty computer will achive science victory much quicker. In my last game (immortal) computer build apollo program in 1695. [/url][/url]
true. even on diety, ai's got plenty of boost like extra settlers and such. after playing a couple of games now, the level of ai is the same as on harder levels. the only difference is that they are provided with extra units and tech boosts. on the comming games to come i consider playing at normal levels. playing deity/immortal/emperor is like a handicap. i wanna fight fair and square. besides, domination will only be the victory condition ill set. tonight, i'll be getting ready for world war 3!
1695 apollo program! haha! its like seeing william wallace riding the cockpit! haha!
|
I have no idea why you would not use tradition for cultural victory.
Since you won by turn 400+, was that prince? for prince it is not hard to win by 350 with culture. However, given your bpt and gpt, you probably would have won in any method you like, but you happened to have chosen to dick around until you could get a lot of culture.
|
i didnt use tradition because i want another variation of my play. using the same method all over again makes the game boring. i like to try new. somehow it works.the main goal was cultural victory with liberty as starter but ended up in diplomatic. i think the level was prince this time. i dont know. my experience in gods and kings is limited. again, science was the least of my priorities. i DONT build libraries not until populations pops at 10 on the city. this was the part when it all got nasty. japan and athens teamed up.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NvZxUZM.png) ][/url]
taking up liberty is useless if you dont make use of it. thats why i build 8 cities. personally i love liberty than tradition, except for the euthopia.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SAKooOR.png) ][/url]
i love the 187 and 192+ defense on cities. weeee~! had a lot of battle engagements with rome until japan backstabbed rome almost phase out. celts was annoying as it continue to harass so i decided to silence her. fighting with athens from the start was a stalemate. his terrain was so good that im finding it hard to attack.
|
If you want a cultural victory, then you really don't want more than 4 cities. This is why getting liberty instead of traditional is a bad idea. Delaying your libraries for so long is also a bad idea.
|
On March 04 2013 22:51 xDaunt wrote:
If you want a cultural victory, then you really don't want more than 4 cities. This is why getting liberty instead of traditional is a bad idea. Delaying your libraries for so long is also a bad idea.
it should have to be that way, 2-4 cities for cultural victory. just want to try a mass city culture strat. delaying libraries doesnt hurt me much in all honesty. spies can close that gap. there is no hurrying in tech when i cant even use that tech. even in immortal mode, im short in 3-4 tech only.
|
I like cultural victory just because it saves my time in real life. Domination takes about twice as long. Nothing saves more time than spamming "NEXT TURN" without a single order.
|
i have more free time. from the way things are going now. i cant win this without nuke! ㅠㅠㅠ with this new combat mechanics, its hard to kill. let alone, ai is quite smarter than the main series.
|
Opening liberty is fine, but not having tradition is stupid. Cv depends strongly on population per city.
|
If you're getting bored because it is too easy playing then you should move up from prince. I didn't realise how ridiculous the AI bonuses were until I looked it up. Deity is just straight retarded, damn.
I was wondering how India managed to get a 7 and 8 pop city before I hit 4 on one.
Its a shame because I find Immortal just a tad under what I want in the game and Deity just imbalanced for the AI to the point where its not fun.
|
and how will you rate my population on my game? this was turn 431 i think. you can see my population in cities pops at 18+. i went on all food based beliefs. i believe that overall population count outweighs individual pops on less cities.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZOjfUCP.png) ][/url]
editL btplix: i had been playing immortal these past days/week. it was just now i play normal type game. i tried deity and i got STEAMROLLED! ㅠㅠㅠㅠ
|
On March 05 2013 02:45 riyanme wrote:
and how will you rate my population on my game above? you can see my population in cities pops at 19+. i went on all food based beliefs.
editL btplix: i had been playing immortal these past days/week. it was just now i play normal type game. i tried deity and i got STEAMROLLED! ㅠㅠㅠㅠ
It's hard to rate your empire beyond noting that you're past turn 400 and have neither won nor finished available research. These two facts alone strongly suggest that there is something suboptimal about how you chose to play that game. Having a couple 30 pop cities at turn 400 doesn't mean anything. If anything, your empire's population may be low.
|
Are there any custom AIs for Civ5 out there?
I really don't enjoy games where the AI only gets better because it's allowed to cheat, and the only way for you to beat that is to choose the most OP race and abuse the hell out of the starting settings and/or game balance and/or AI. It kind of defeats the purpose of the game for me.
|
|
|
Well, the thing is Your population is heavily influenced by many factors. Like difficulty, starting postion, natural wonders, Your Civ, civs close to Your starting location. Map settings (resources) etc. And mostly the kind of victory You are aiming for. For example with domination You will have a lot of small cities (and perhaps but not necessarsly a few huge ones).
![[image loading]](http://s24.postimage.org/4z5m0b4ut/aaa.jpg)
photo hosting sites
Thats from one of my games. Going for domination with austria, i kinda got bored but whatever. Notice the turn. Difficulty Immortal.
|
On March 05 2013 03:02 riyanme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 02:51 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2013 02:45 riyanme wrote:
and how will you rate my population on my game above? you can see my population in cities pops at 19+. i went on all food based beliefs.
editL btplix: i had been playing immortal these past days/week. it was just now i play normal type game. i tried deity and i got STEAMROLLED! ㅠㅠㅠㅠ It's hard to rate your empire beyond noting that you're past turn 400 and have neither won nor finished available research. These two facts alone strongly suggest that there is something suboptimal about how you chose to play that game. Having a couple 30 pop cities at turn 400 doesn't mean anything. If anything, your empire's population may be low. can you enlighten me as to what average pops you have during 350-400 turns? and how many cities? annexed or puppeted? dont get me wrong. i just want to have a healthy conversation from people like you who had much experience in this game. i rarely find anyone playing this game in my country. edit: conti: not that i know of. does anybody know one? you got what i had been thinking lately. its not fun to play with such bonuses. i want fair and square. what needs to be boosted is ai's brain. as for the abuse thing. i play the underdogs. i dont use those so called imba civs unless just checking out whats new. heres the summary of the game. (gold, food, population, science, score and map)
I haven't recently had a game that went past turn 300. I've been finishing off domination victories around turn 270 with atomic era tech. This research pace, which typically is accomplished without many research agreements, is considered "a little slow" by many deity players.
As for the population of my cities, it depends largely upon starting locations. As a general rule, though, I want to have my core cities at 20+ pop by turn 200. By turn 250, I want to be in the 25-30 range, if not higher in a food rich city. This all depends upon whether I am food focusing or production focusing (if I'm going for a military victory). With regards to how many cities I have, it obviously depends upon the game. I typically build about 4-6+ cities, and may conquer more if the opportunity presents itself. I am not a fan of ICS/liberty strategies. I find them slower than 4-city tradition openers, and more open to getting crushed by an early DoW.
|
yes, true. it has many factors. as for that game, i had a lot of battles with celts, athen and rome. that prompted me to turtle-city too. i hard made my citizens productive because the tiles were occupied by those bafoons. next time i should have summary screenshots like that. very much appreciated. it would have been better if you had the summary of the other civs. i mean the end game reply summary. i wanted to see how you fair to them. but if i were in that game, i would simply be crushed by you. i never even had science of 1.4k+ in any of my gods and kings game. would love to have a game with you in hotseat, just like those days i had in homm.
edit: @daunt: oh my. you make me seem like on a barbarian camp level with you guys. im embarassed. ㅠㅠㅠ
|
On March 05 2013 04:20 riyanme wrote:
yes, true. it has many factors. next time i should have summary screenshots like that. very much appreciated. it would have been better if you had the summary of the other civs. i mean the end game reply summary. i wanted to see how you fair to them. but if i were in that game, i would simply be crushed by you. i never even had science of 1.4k+ in any of my gods and kings game. would love to have a game with you in hotseat, just like those days i had in homm.
edit: @daunt: oh my. you make me seem like on a barbarian camp level with you guys. im embarassed. ㅠㅠㅠ
Looking at the graphs, my guess is that your early game needs a little refinement. Frankly, I think 90% of winning immortal games is managing the first ~110 turns or so. If you come out of that early game phase with at least 4 solid cities, you'll be well-positioned to catch up and win later on.
|
The first 150 turns are my favorite part of the game anyhow, and it is where most of my immortal games end up lost or won. Gotta be real deliberate with those early decisions.
|
i think it has to do with the policy. i didn't use tradition. thats why my early game was passive.
i had this other game that i almost lost if i hadn't kill the two cruisers containing nukes. those cities contained two nukes and three great war bombers. the funny thing is, i opted for order rather autocracy which was CLEARLY a blunder.
these were the settings: donut/tiny/king/standard/all normal mode
edit: @farvacola: all those games i won on immortal were all 400+ turns, all diplomatic. had numerous amounts of battles. defending here and there, losing cities, building again.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hjGQKpd.png) ][/url]
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9QWod29.png) ][/url]
|
So wait, do yo enable policy saving?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZzZs40O.png)
]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qWkgUSV.png)
]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oqig5Cg.png)
]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vq6fwLT.png)
]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TxvXigY.png)
]![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BQ7Rd2T.png)
]
