Cherry picking much? Why did you omit the next three words "At reasonable difficulties"... and the context which was that I play only at Expert and above?  Or before that when I defined land grab as at least 4 cities, counting the capital, which I do not find all that unreasonable.

And then when I stated that those are the things that one is expected to do in a 4x game, just like researching?  I mean, why should the game let you win if you do not hold enough land, have no production, etc...

Well, there clearly aren't a million ways to win.  But lets count the ones that exist.

You can win with an alliance victory.  I documented it with Karavox (standard) on ridiculous and by settling exactly my capital and 3 cities early on. 

You can win with a Master Quest victory, even with one city, if you, for example wall off your city from the rest of the world.  I did that with Relias on insane.

You can win by casting the spell of Mastery which I find unsatisfying as hell, but have also done recently, with only three cities, all conclaves, and by defending my patch of land with spells, high tech troops and a metric ton of healing.  Sure I had a good start, but this is why I decided to research and turtle.

You can win by designing a uber-sovereign and soloing the game. Minmaxing, for sure, but not metagaming.

You can win by designing a race for troop asskicking. Minmaxing, for sure, but not metagaming.

You can win by doing nothing special at all, but just fighting well in tactical, and slowly conquering with a mix of buffs, summons, a starting hero and trained troops, which I am documenting with Procipinee (the worst standard sovereign and non-ass-kicker extraordinary).  And only two native cities beyond the capital. (until after half my cities were conquests)

So these are the ways I have won and posted ARRs.  Sometimes they have been turn by turn accounts, that anyone could follow and even learn from. Anyone but those who shelves their games after they try one thing and fail.

How many of these did you restart in when you had a bad starting position? Or load up a save when things went wrong? Or using your previous knowledge of how the game works to setup a world that promotes the victory you're going for? How many were during the beta? You throw out these AARs etc but most were from the beta were they not?

And just so were clear this is you're final stance right? You're not gonna change it next time I post to troll me are you?

Well, I loved building up huge civilizations in Elemental, and I kind of feel somewhat limited in this game. I don't like having to traverse humongous stretches of empty terrain just to find the one other place I can settle. Granted, I am a new player to this game, but I have restarted my game about 4 times. MY very first playthrough was good, but I've been trying to get another good one and since haven't been able to.

For instance, on my current play through, I was only given a single place to settle. I had to declare war on a faction immediately just to get a second city. I don't see why you can't just settle anywhere like in the last game as long as you have the space. So on this playthrough I ended up at war within the first 15 mins of play, and then another faction declared war on me, and it was pretty much over.

Don't feel bad, chances are without more cities he would have declared war on you before too long due to you not being able to expand so your power ratings would remain low. I've had similiar games, but apparently its just me.

  Just like time Tuidjy told me the reason I lost is I didn't min max my sov to be able to kill a dragon on turn 37 because you know I KNEW that there was gonna be a dragon 6 squares away from my starting spot.

I have not restarted a starting lacation since .980.

Not once, except for crashes.  And because I do not reload or restart, I hardly ever crash.

You're confusing me with someone else. Have you ever read one of my play-throughts? I always have the same settings, and they are neutral.

None of the examples is older than .982, and that's Karavox.  One or two may be .992, but maybe not. In any case, balance has not changed much since.  As far as I am aware, it has not changed AT ALL below Expert, except to give some cheaper tools to the player.  You really do not know much about anything, do you?

Okay Tuidjy - Please... let it go.

Fact is that one can play the game on at least the challenging level without spamming pioneers. I did it with Altar - Lord Relias - on a recent playthrough where I had exactly 3 cities before getting into a fight with Magnar who had 12 cities. (He started it... and regretted it).

Fact some of the AI likes to spam cities - Magnar in my playthrough. But this is also a strategy that Frogboy likes to use in games and so the AI does this well.

@Fistalis -

I agree with you on the fact that the easiest strategy to win the game is a pioneer spam. When i do this I do not have much trouble winning the game. When I don't it is a constant but steady fight, but a win that seems impossible is possible.

-----

The real point to the power battle is the leveling game. If you lose the leveling game to the AI, you will lose the game. You can have 10 level 2 cites, but if the AI has 3 level 5 cities, then you will not be able to compete. These bonuses you get from higher levels are very important. So you must plan when you build cities to up the levels on these cities appropriately. Otherwise you will lose the end game.

The leveling of your champions is just as important. A level 7 champ is not going to compete with a level 15 champ on his own. So it is important to keep in consideration that underlaying the whole 4x structure is the RPG structure. Which levels matter and they should matter...

------

The original post, my suggestion is the following... cities are more important than outposts. You should try to build cities only until you get around 3 cities. The way I do this is usually my first city builds a pioneer first... sovereign searches with champ to find suitable spot to settle. Send the pioneer here. The first city is set to build what it likes now.... I may do a second pioneer if I have a second spot to settle, but the first thing I build in the new settlement is another pioneer. I follow this pattern until I feel I'm doing well with cities (usually after 3, can't help it if I find a couple of good spots I try to snatch them up). I don't worry about connecting outposts until I have at least 3 cities. Playing with less makes the game harder, but not impossible.

Late game you really want to have more than 3 cities and so I recommend a mid-game conflict with a weak faction to take their cities and beef up yours. Or go to war with the faction that is going to war with you.

And more personal attacks. I'm more than happy to leave you be, but you keep attacking me everytime I post something you disagree with. Not everyone agrees with you get over it. And believe it or not someone not agreeing with you is not a valid reason to constantly attack them, insult them, or spread falsehoods about them.

And you had the effrontery to accuse me of cherry picking.  In that post I explained to you why the dragon woke up, and suggested ways of making sure that you do not wake dragons up, and how to prevent the AI from waking them up, and how to lead them away with a cheap unit if they come at you, and finally I gave you one of the (at least) three builds that I know who could have dealt with the dragon anyway.

That said, I have at least three threads in which I try to convince the developers that this is a problem.

You may notice that in one of my playthroughs (yes, in 1.00) I very much avoid settling in prime spots because of dragons, and spend a lot of effort not to wake dragons/slags/golems up, and not to let the AIs wake them up.  And I keep saying that this is not good for the game, and the developers need to change it.

There's a difference between this, and saying "You can't win the game unless you have a custom uber-sovereign"

And I appreciate you sharing your knowledge of the metagame (I'm sure others will find it very useful).. but its the fact that  you need to metagame even on lower difficulties I take issue with.(Metagaming and high difficulties go hand in hand in most games so its expected there)

Matter of fact if I find It ill link it for the OP, or you can.

Edit: oh here it is.. funny doesn't look like anything but you saying "well I can do it" then telling me how i should min/max my sov. So once again facts are misconstrued.

Thats the WHOLE quote.. no cherry picking, since that's your newest in a long line of accusations in an attempt to slander me. So which part of that post did I cherry pick? It wasn't until I mentioned that not everyone wants to play your Min/maxed sov that you decided to share your other metagaming tricks with the monster AI.

Funny how you constantly make claims/accusations that are proven false eh? (like when you said pioneers don't take 9 turns to build and told me my math was wrong when I said they did and then in your current play through it took you 9 turns to build one) Its sad that you ninja edited your post after I replied with a civil response to make yet another false accusation. Maybe its just compulsive I don't know.. but I don't think its healthy.

I called the AI pioneer spamming whores as a generalization and this is not so.  There's at least one AI type "Expansionist" probably where this is the case.  Not all the AI get this, they get some traits randomly to make them interesting/different from game to game.  I get that.  Some play the exact opposite "Isolationist" trait I believe is the case. 

Anyways.  The number of crappy starts the AI gets in comparison is under realized I imagine as not everyone plays with Ctrl-U to look and see.  But that is in fact cheating if you use that knowledge.  It's probably the only way one can tell how the AI did for its start though.  Now  comes Ctrl-N.  Player don't like his start.  Bam.  New map.  Not everyone's like Tuidjy (The part about not restarting/ Hitting Ctrl-N).  I don't get a halfway decent start - I'm hitting Ctrl-N.  The AI gets dealt crap as well.  That's the nature of random. 

Right so anyways.  Have fun playing FE!

Howdy,

This is my first post on here. FE is also my first Stardock purchase, which I felt almost obligated to buy after dumping hundreds of fun-filled hours into Fall from Heaven 2, free of charge. Having a lot of fun so far. Keeping in mind that I only have like 10-15 hours of experience with this game so far, and am therefore talking out of my butt, I do have some thoughts:

I think I actually really like the amount of land you can settle being the way it is. Seems like about the right amount to me to keep things from getting all cramped and spammy. I also am a pretty big strategy game peacenik, and I think most players of that type will still enjoy this game, at least somewhat. I disagree on those two points, but it seems to me that Fistalis is actually really pretty much right on the mark on the main point.

Obviously you want to tame the land and settle cities promptly, but if instantly spamming out pioneers is always by far the smartest thing to do... Well, that just doesn't sound like the funnest way to do it to me.  On the other hand, I'm not big on having weird maintenance expenses to try to keep players from spamming either. Has anyone suggested something like this:

Let's say a Pioneer had a base cost of whatever, let's say 125 production, and maybe that first one costs only that, BUT the second one only costs 125 if you've reached a certain turn, let's say 30, when you start training it, and the third one only reaches the base cost of 125 if you start training it after after turn 60, and so on. And every turn before that adds, I dunno, let's say 5 production cost, so if you start building your third pioneer on turn 45, it would cost 125 + (5 * 15), which would be 200.

That way you have an interesting new way of looking at your options. You could still say, "Man, I should start training a pioneer to get that awesome spot.", but then you could also say "Man, if I build/train something other than a pioneer, then I'm also basically getting 5 free production every turn towards my next pioneer, while I also get my normal 20 production per turn towards this workshop."

It seems to me that something along those lines might give people interesting decisions to make. But then, I'm a newb, so maybe what I wrote doesn't even make any sense for some reason.

Hi ReturnOfTheZack,

Your post does make some sense. I don't see a problem with pioneer spam. I may be one of the few who do not choose to spam pioneers, but instead work towards high production buildings. My first city I tend to build a pioneer out of the shoot, because I know by turn 11 I'll have a pioneer and see a new spot to settle. But if I build my first city next to a forest, I build a lumbermill since my first pioneer will be out by turn 13 doing it that way. If I do research for a workshop, I can build that as well and get out the next units (not necessarily pioneers) out by turn 30 or so, and have around 3 cities going already. Since my new city will be building a pioneer / lumbermill / workshop at that time. (Sometimes a bell-tower, if I raised my taxes) If you ran a poll on what people do in the beginning of the game you would be surprised by the number of strategies. I think this next go around I'll build a militia unit or scout unit first to see how that changes stuff up. I remember the last time i did a scout unit (not playing Tarth) I actually was able to grab some REALLY good choices for second cities.

I believe the pioneer spam tends to be a problem when the AI searches and finds land by your territory. I'm waiting for the day when Brad allows us to choose the AI players personalities, then people can set them to all isolationists and never have to worry about spamming pioneers again. But, the current system you propose wouldn't actually have any effect on my playstyle. Since, I believe peoples problem with pioneer spam is the fact that their que is always full of pioneers, and they feel they need the pioneers to survive in game. I just don't see it, but who knows maybe I just get lucky with my maps and locations (of course these comments do not go beyond the challenging difficulty).

This is the last time I ever post anything in response to your bullshit.  I am tired of refuting every single point only to have you repeat nonsense again and again.  You are incapable of understanding anything, it seems.

In the log you take as an example of me building a pioneer in nine turns (fucking nonsense) my capital builds as follows:

Turn 1: founded, starts a tower of dominion

Turn 9: finishes the tower, starts a pioneer

Turn 14: the pioneer finishes.

14-9 = 5 turns.  In the thread where we had that argument, I believe I mentioned 4-5 turns... and in this play through, I did not have a forest nearby, thus 5 turns.

The next pioneer is built from turn 18 to 23.  Again, 5 turns.  And by the way, my capital has the worst production of ANY city I have founded in that game.  Every other pioneer in that game was built in 3 or 4 turns.  9 turns indeed...

It is not my fault you cannot read.  It is not my fault you keep using the word 'metagame' to mean something else than its accepted definition. It is not my fault you do not understand the difference between thread and post. And I have wasted enough time on you.

And by the way, that log is proof that one can win without rushing pioneers, customizing a side, abusing a particular strategy, or anything but just playing the game the way it is meant to be played.

there are many ways to play guys.

In my current game i'm playing with a variation of procipinee and resoln. I like high magic game so i have henchmen, with no questing to boost them them. Instead i have decalon to boost their casting ability while i use binding to create elementals to tank for me since i have the no armour weakness. It's kind of like using 40k eldar tactics  - powerful units, low resilience.

i settled my first town, then i found two or three shards, got some elementals, found some loot and destroyed ythril in the first 30-50 turns of the game. (thank god for my loot drops, i despise ythril if he gets going, diamond potion i love you)

You're play through says that NOW.. I'll reserve my judgement as to what it said before.

The accepted definition of meta game is to use previously gained or outside knowledge of a game to your advantage. For example when you  suggest we exploit the monster AI to keep them away from our cities. Thats not exactly playing the game, but rather exploiting your knowledge of how the AI works.

You STATED you said things in a POST, Which I refuted by quoting that post. You were trying to muddy the water with something you said later in a thread, which is not the same as a post.

 I'd be extremely happy if you would never again respond to my posts.. then every time I post you won't hijack the whole thread attacking me.