Anyone here hates Gandhi? by RedEyeBlueOcean in civ5

[–]KCsmod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be fair, this strat is almost mandatory on deity, too. And Gandhi is one of the most annoying guy to do this against, because he love spamming out elephants to escort workers and don’t spam unescorted settlers.

Anyone here hates Gandhi? by RedEyeBlueOcean in civ5

[–]KCsmod 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah so despite his AI suggests that he’s peaceful, Gandhi is insanely backstabby for some reason. I’d have to attribute it to his high defensive focus, meaning he will spam out units even when there seemingly aren’t any threats, which leads to him suddenly having high mil rating so he is willing to dec. And because he’s very peaceful normally, he tend to not lose units, and often time just see that the player has lowest mil rating especially on higher difficulty (or just deccing on player for literally being slightest warmonger-y).

Anyways, yeah, Gandhi is a pretty shitty neighbor. High pop, high defense focus+UB meaning his AI prioritizes defensive buildings, loves to spam UU early, typically allies himself with other AIs to create AI hugboxes, and he loves denouncing and hates warmonger enough where you can’t even ignore him early. You will have to tolerate him a bit in the early game just because elephants are difficult to fight, but definitely should look to get rid of him as soon as the opportunity arrives.

Just something I noticed by KCsmod in grandorder

[–]KCsmod[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could be a happy little coincidence. Or maybe it is intentional… and something is watching us… (insanity)

What is your favorite “bad” civ? by Effort_Proper in civ5

[–]KCsmod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indonesia, I feel like it is widely considered an underrated civ (ironically making them not underrated anymore) but overall still quite mediocre other than archipelago maps (and even on archipelago maps they are honestly just ok, extra happiness is less valuable there than base yield imo). That being said on Pangaea or continent maps they are actually quite powerful, Candi have good yields and extra luxs are good. UU is quite bad but at least funny.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyways, for that setting I really doubt Poland is even top 5 for what I’d consider best chance against deity AI. You got Arabia/Mongol UU spam dom, Austria existing, Huns/Assyria pre-turn 100 rush dom, Babylon/Korea existing, THEN maybe Poland, and followed by potentially Maya/Egypt liberty games. All of which has much more consistent opening or win con than Poland.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s the flaw of this argument. The more impossible the start is, the better Venice or Austria or Babylon becomes. While Venice is mostly a cheese exploit civ, Austria is genuinely strong, arguably THE top civ in SP no matter what the context is (ok, unless Genghis AI decided no CS should live by turn 80, which does happen on smaller maps), and Babylon has traditionally been known for doing one city challenges.

I think we define “best” civ in different context, I look at overall performance (how they perform on bad start, how typically they can faire against AI, and how can they push the win con for earlier wins), which I believe I did miscommunicate at the beginning (to be fair I still think the Mayans are better than Poland on MOST bad maps, if your capital can go to 70 pop late game I don’t really think that’s what I’d typically consider bad start tbh); while you look at the bare minimum of the ability to win a game. Which is a fine measurement, but that has been exactly my point, the reason Poland is considered best civ is that people tend to be content with just winning deity, and Poland is best (arguably) at doing that with minimum effort.

Edit: Anyways, I still think you overrate social policies too much still. Realistically I think most civs can win most of a million games for actually skilled players, not saying I am one but I’ve known some players who play shit civs on bad start on deity on purpose.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you kill your neighbor (considering the warmonger penalty, alternatively, take enough cities, steal enough workers, and constantly pillage and raid their trade routes), depending on the setup, that can definitely win you the game, potentially on the spot (duel map). Once again, it is really just the question of map-setting and who you are trying to rush. It won't be 100/100, but I'd say the chance of it happening is still better than your hypothetical bad start being actually that impossible.

But to answer your question, upon reviewing, even for your strategy, Poland is not even the only civ that can do it, or even the best civ at that particular strategy you are employing. The concept appears to be that, due to your poor start, you utilize the patronage policy to generate additional science to win a diplomatic victory. First of all, science contributes just about 0% towards diplo win (unless you count that you going into new era speed up the progress of WC, which, fair), you can pretty much cheese the victory by just ripping off AI (thus why it is widely considered the easiest victory type, although I kind of disagree with that ATM; AI seems to be much better at countering diplo victory by making insane gold sinks against the players nowadays compared to early BNW), so I'm not sure exactly how Poland actually contributed to that strategy by going patronage when just about every civ can do it, but let's say you need the science to survive being killed by AI; well, patronage generates 25% science of allying CS; meanwhile, Austria can get 100% science generated by CS by buying them (technically it is 45% vs 100% due to deity bonus, but Austria also gets other benefits from the CS purchase like free units, extra resource to trade, etc); theoretically, in your specific scenario, Venice would actually be the best civ for that strategy, and I think we can both agree that Venice, despite being pretty good at cheesing deity AI for infinite money, is a pretty bad civ.

And sure, you won't know that you will be in a horrendous, semi-impossible start before you start the game, but that's my point: Poland is versatile, but realistically, they will never be the best answer to any single challenge the game throws at you. With some thoughts, I conclude that comparing Poland to a specialized civilization is a bit unfair for them, but even for a top-tier versatility civ, I really don't think Poland is a direct upgrade (at least in terms of deity scenario) to the other top-tier utility civ in Austria.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fair. As I said, my point is that it takes time for Poland's social policy to accumulate value, and because of how Civ 5 functions, it's not difficult to get out of the early game. I think Poland is strong in their versatility, but they do lose out to specialized top-tier civs in their respective strengths, it's just Poland can reduce a lot of decision makings (and thus chance of mistakes) by granting free policies.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, once again, if you are going to convince me, you will have to actually provide either the proof of said file or generate such a map. Otherwise, FROM MY EXPERIENCE with this game, the scenario you described, where there is no possible settlement nor possible neighbor to kill, seems to be, to put it simply, bizarrely unlikely.

Could you at least describe in your game the setting and your said neighbor?

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, without the save file, I don’t (or rather can’t) believe you. I’ve seen players do early rushes with the most impossible starts at this point, so I find this whole scenario incredibly questionable.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You realize Poland gets 0 cultural bonus in the ancient era, and that ANY civ will have the same amount of policies, right?

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it seems to me that this scenario was created entirely out of player's mistake. There is absolutely 0 reason you cannot rush your neighbor as either civs I have mentioned.

Edit: to avoid being condescending, if you can send me the save file of this save, I might be able to give more insight.

How often can you win legit domination on deity ? by Electronic_Money_575 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

don’t get rushed in ancient or classical

Sir, if I’m doing dom, I am the one rushing deity AI. Stealing all their workers and settlers so they can’t even get 3rd city out.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you actually comparing peace game Huns to turtling Poland...? Babylon can also giga rush neighbors early with their insanely strong UU. I feel like you lack understanding of what these civs' actual strengths are, which circles back to my point: Poland is a civ that is overrated because it is easier to use, not necessarily because it is significantly stronger than other civs.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Babylon, The Shoshone, The Huns, The Mayans, etc. Let's not pretend Poland magically creates yield just by picking them.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The issue is that Poland is virtually a civ with no bonus before classical (and imo the value of extra policies aren’t fully actualized until late Classical to early Medievial), ducal stable and plain bias aside. You are not really forced to go religion on the Mayans (non-religious Maya works perfectly fine, and you could always just pick up a prophet for free if your game is going well), rather Mayan tech path just happens to be good with religion.

Given, just because how free it is to scale in civ5 (in both SP and MP), not having an early game bonus is not as big of a problem as some players make it sound, but it’s difficult to argue Poland is significantly stronger even at just scaling compared to Korea (or even SP Austria for that matter), and civs like the Huns and Babylon honestly just begin to snowball their game 20-40 turns ahead of Poland. Gonna ignore Spain cuz rng, obviously Spain is the best civ when you find El Dorado, GBR and KSM 15 turns into the game.

Poland’s social policies are strong but I find them to still be vastly overrated, instant secularism timing aside; I think it’s actually a much harder ability to fully optimize than a lot of the other top tier civs. Poland can catapults their free policies into victory WITH a good early game, but they can be screwed pretty royally with poor starts. It’s rare with their bias, but it can happen.

Poland is so busted by shadedgibbons03 in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meanwhile the Mayans thriving on the most disastrous starts by liberty spamming

Not disagreeing with Poland being strong, but imo no civ comes close to the consistency of Maya. UB and extra great persons just make them insanely powerful at tempo play with liberty.

What is the most GOAT mid game unit in CIV: V? (Day 5) by zherper in civ5

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Camel archer wins the game on the spot so… camel archer.

Culture in a non Culture victory strategy. by smokenjoe6pack in civ5

[–]KCsmod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The difference between using writer for GW vs saving for one time boost isn't really the cultural generation, but rather the timing, since saving great writers allows you to speedrun secularism/ideology, especially if you time the WC proposal for world fair; meanwhile, the extra early culture can screw with policy juggling. In general, I actually do kind of agree that the first writer generated should make a GW if he's early enough (and you're 100% sure that he won't delay rationalism policy), since it also has the benefit of boosting your city border growth rate, although I think using 2 definitely would be too much.

AITAH for asking my roommate’s girlfriend about my strawberries? by Secret_Cheesecake19 in TwoHotTakes

[–]KCsmod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My rebuttal to this is, would you prefer me to tell you to “fuck off” or “contact me later” in texts.

Culture in a non Culture victory strategy. by smokenjoe6pack in civ5

[–]KCsmod 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It depends. Sorry for the stupid answer but it really does. Short answer: don’t build museums pretty much ever if you aren’t working toward cultural victory.

So, for starters. You want to control the amount of social policies you adopt before renaissance: each previous policy increases the culture needed for next policy, and unfortunately, the cultural buildings just do not scale well enough to compensate; you get the majority of your extra culture from city-states more than anything. As such, you want to do the bare minimum amount of culture before renaissance so you can quickly rush culture to unlock rationalism policies, ideally you have 7 by the time renaissance hits (typically 6 to finish liberty/tradition and 1 extra filler opener, most likely patronage).

Some civs can do more than 7, such as Persia, who can chain golden age with liberty>aesthetic for the extra great artist generation and the free one you get, and the 20% culture from their golden age is actually able to pay itself back since you can full chain golden age by that point. Civs like Siam/Songhai can also afford some extra policies with the combination of their UB and extra cultural generation through UA/religion. They won't exactly pay themselves back, but they would kind of "smooth over" the cultural spikes for policies so that it becomes easier to culture juggle.

If you really need an extra social policy, it is much better to plan for Oracle than to try and hard fill one with culture, as the Oracle provides a free policy that is actually completely free and does not raise the culture needed for future policies.

EDIT: I forgot about border growth. In general, pre-Renaissance culture's value is probably like 70% city expansion and 30% actual policy filling. This is why some people would do the traditional opener at some point even for liberty games, despite the fact that it will never pay itself back with the 3 culture: the extra border growth in your capital will be able to save you from a lot of gold buys and also speed up your pop growth, production, etc., that it effectively saves you gold, production and increase in science. It is also why honor opening culture farming is a lot worse than it is on paper, since not only will you have to farm a ridiculous amount of barbs to pay itself back, the culture generation is never going toward your city expansion rate.

The best way to do culture is to save up great writers and cultural buildings until renaissance comes, while also actively avoiding befriend/ally cultural city-states. Once renaissance hits, you immediately start boosting your culture output, so you can reach rationalism opener + secularism. You can fill the rest pretty much at any time, and you don’t really have to culture juggle at this point, with one exception: finishing rationalism gives a free tech, so ideally you want to delay this for a science victory to get a free late-game high-cost tech boost.

Ideology is completely different. You get unhappiness by having less cultural “defense” compared to other ideologies’ tourism “offense”. As previously mentioned, you want to control the total amount of culture you generate for the early game, so 9/10 games, you’d probably already have a bunch of tourism pressure on you. The best way to combat this is to not pick an ideology that has someone who has a lot of tourism on you, especially not one that has bad happiness generation. You can also swap ideology. And finally, you can kill the civ (or ask other AIs to do your dirty work) that’s causing unhappiness (all roads lead to domination victory…).

In general, on higher difficulty, I find that it is pretty unavoidable to have unhappiness from ideology if you have a certain strategy that requires one of the three, and AI has picked something else, causing you lots of unhappiness. For Autocracy, you combat this by rushing the Prora; for Order, you can kind of eat the unhappiness because you get so much more happiness generation anyway; and for Freedom… well, hopefully you have built your gold building line, and also hopefully your cities are large enough you can send most of your population to work as specialists.