3 ms·

>I tried to reach the redditor to find out how things are going, but I got no reply. Maybe they've left that wasteland behind for greener pastures on another pl

by tedks 12y ago

>I tried to reach the redditor to find out how things are going, but I got no reply. Maybe they've left that wasteland behind for greener pastures on another planet. With Beyond Earth. What horrible reporting. I expect better from someone associated with the Washington Post. The save file in question has been uploaded and shared with Reddit, and the community centered around it is https://www.reddit.com/r/theeternalwar https://www.reddit.com/r/theeternalwar . As it happens, the thousand-year stalemate was the cause of the original player simply being bad at civ. He kept building tanks and trying to perform land invasions of his enemies, rather than crossing the oceans and attacking amphibiously. By using a landing force comprised primarily of Howitzers, and landing in a well-developed area, a new player was able to prevent the Vikings from obliterating his army with nuclear weapons due to his presence deep inside their homeland. By constantly reinforcing the army across the ocean, you can defeat the Vikings and move on the the Americans, which have a strong air force but a weak ground military. Ground forces can eliminate American bases and cripple their air force. The writeup is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/theeternalwar/comments/uzm4w/took_58_years_ingame_but_i_pulled_it_off/ https://www.reddit.com/r/theeternalwar/comments/uzm4w/took_5... This is literally on google, I can't believe the journalist was that lazy.

goldfeld 12y ago
Geopolitically, the stalemate's veracity would have to be assessed with either the same player trying to win with each of the nations, or playing it out with all computer players. As it stands, pitting a very good Civ player against the dumb AI determines how good the player is at Civ, not why the stalemate goes or doesn't go on. So the original player being bad at Civ seems to put him in the same league as his computer opponents, which is all to say: it makes for a more dramatic AAR.

by tedks 12y ago

goldfeld 12y ago

Geopolitically, the stalemate's veracity would have to be assessed with either the same player trying to win with each of the nations, or playing it out with all computer players. As it stands, pitting a very good Civ player against the dumb AI determines how good the player is at Civ, not why the stalemate goes or doesn't go on. So the original player being bad at Civ seems to put him in the same league as his computer opponents, which is all to say: it makes for a more dramatic AAR.