Tweet
It's a testament to Civ 4 that I am still crafting my preferred strategies. By this point, I would normally be thinking about moving on to another game, but with Civ 4, I feel I'm still learning.
For example, I've been trying wildly different approaches looking for the style the suits me best. Last week I choose Ghengis Khan to give early game rushing another try. The Keshik unique unit looked awfully powerful for how early in the game it comes, and it doesn't require copper (IIRC). In short order, I had a horde of these bad boys and began, not unlike the Khans themsevles, to chew up everything in my path. It was great fun. Until, of course, I realized I couldn't afford more cities that early -- so I had to raze cities. I found myself thinking, "Hmmm, this is an interesting slash and burn dynamic that is likely to run out of fuel." While I managed to severely cripple one neighbor and was nipping at the heels of the next, my all or nothing approach began to implode: units were now disbanding because I had no money in the coffers (even after sacking cities as quickly as possible), and even that "crippled" AI next to me was now, by virtue of having kept he tech spending at least above my level of zero, producing counters to my one-trick ponies (well, Keshiks). Sure enough, whereas I was a terror in the early era, I was about to get whooped on. Game over.
My next game, however, I went completely in the other direction. Roosevelt. Price level. Small map. 7 Civs. This time around the goal was the opposite: Never let tech spending drop below 100%. In most games, I was comfortable dropping to 70% or even 40% at times in order to fund expansion, but something always seemed a little wrong with that approach to me because while I could match the AI on the number of cities, I think the AI handicaps make this strategy alone a bit tenuous as the AI will almost inevitably get a tech lead on you, which means you don't have much to trade, which means a spiral of insignificance can ensue for your civ unless you make key allies and work the game that way. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you have to be careful. So this Roosevelt game, which I won by Space Race last night, proved very interesting:
* I had only 3 cities for the bulk of the game and only had 6 cities by the end -- two of which were added only in the mop up phase.
* I never dropped below 100% tech spending, and this meant that I consistently had at least one good tech that at least one other AI was willing to make a great trade for.
* I kept fewer units -- but relatively advanced ones -- on hand for defense, and this allowed me to put more money toward tech spending rather than having a larger but outdated army around. That said, of course, my power rating was still never that high.
* I gave a lot more thought to how to think about alliances, and this proved central to the win as my two neighbors eventually became Jewish while I had gone with Buddhism. Well, I converted, gave my buddies some great trades, the occasional free tech, "joined" them (at least on paper, which seems a bit of an exploit) in was against their neighbors (who were far enough from me to pretty much ignore), etc. So, while my score NEVER looked all that great, I eventually had these two civs "Pleased" or "Friendly" with me through much of the game.
* I encouraged wars -- sometimes by giving away some awesome techs -- between the other AIs so that they would chew on each other. So with the exception of two anemic attacks on me (one, in fact, from one of my "Friendly" buddies after I entered a Defensive Pact with the other "Friendly" partner), I managed kind of a classic builder's strategy.
While the Space Victory itself proved a bit of a slog once all the geopolitics were in place and it was just a matter of building wonders (and space ship parts) like crazy, I must say that getting to this point was remarkably interesting. Most of all, I'm stunned that 3 cities (highly developed) pretty much carried the day. I also saw the power of a tech lead in all facets of play, particularly in bribing the AI to start wars against itself. The importance of religion --something that has taken time to appreciate-- became clear this game as 1) I wanted to grow individual cities as far as possible and needed the happines modifiers of temples, etc., 2) income generate and 3) device for fostering allies. These things already made sense on paper, but seeing them play out in a gratifying way has been fun.
So, two of the latest lessons for me are: Ignore score! Well, if you are playing for a timed victory, you *have* to worry, but in general I was pretty much last in score for most of the game, and that proved to be irrelevant. Yes, you can check the graphs to see how far behind you are in various areas, but I think sum of those outcomes is much, much less telling than the whole. The other important lesson is that it is quite possible indeed to have the smallest empire but the greatest tech lead, and this was an entirely new approach for me that ended in a fun win.
Actually, an great final lesson is simply this: Civ 4 has managed to put back some serious strategy in strategy gaming. Yes, there are still areas that need to be worked on (a rather dull end game, in my view, or allies that give you credit for "helping" them in a war even though you do nothing, etc.), but for the life of me I haven't had a game yet when I wasn't punished for not thinking through strategy well enough. Also, while 100% tech worked well for me this time, I'm willing to bet my optimal strategy will be more nuanced, involving *some* early pre-emptive strikes on neighbors, for example, so that I don't rely almost solely on good relationships to survived, etc. In other words, you can craft a challenging and dynamic victory for yourself in a number of ways that all involve careful planning and execution.
For example, I've been trying wildly different approaches looking for the style the suits me best. Last week I choose Ghengis Khan to give early game rushing another try. The Keshik unique unit looked awfully powerful for how early in the game it comes, and it doesn't require copper (IIRC). In short order, I had a horde of these bad boys and began, not unlike the Khans themsevles, to chew up everything in my path. It was great fun. Until, of course, I realized I couldn't afford more cities that early -- so I had to raze cities. I found myself thinking, "Hmmm, this is an interesting slash and burn dynamic that is likely to run out of fuel." While I managed to severely cripple one neighbor and was nipping at the heels of the next, my all or nothing approach began to implode: units were now disbanding because I had no money in the coffers (even after sacking cities as quickly as possible), and even that "crippled" AI next to me was now, by virtue of having kept he tech spending at least above my level of zero, producing counters to my one-trick ponies (well, Keshiks). Sure enough, whereas I was a terror in the early era, I was about to get whooped on. Game over.
My next game, however, I went completely in the other direction. Roosevelt. Price level. Small map. 7 Civs. This time around the goal was the opposite: Never let tech spending drop below 100%. In most games, I was comfortable dropping to 70% or even 40% at times in order to fund expansion, but something always seemed a little wrong with that approach to me because while I could match the AI on the number of cities, I think the AI handicaps make this strategy alone a bit tenuous as the AI will almost inevitably get a tech lead on you, which means you don't have much to trade, which means a spiral of insignificance can ensue for your civ unless you make key allies and work the game that way. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you have to be careful. So this Roosevelt game, which I won by Space Race last night, proved very interesting:
* I had only 3 cities for the bulk of the game and only had 6 cities by the end -- two of which were added only in the mop up phase.
* I never dropped below 100% tech spending, and this meant that I consistently had at least one good tech that at least one other AI was willing to make a great trade for.
* I kept fewer units -- but relatively advanced ones -- on hand for defense, and this allowed me to put more money toward tech spending rather than having a larger but outdated army around. That said, of course, my power rating was still never that high.
* I gave a lot more thought to how to think about alliances, and this proved central to the win as my two neighbors eventually became Jewish while I had gone with Buddhism. Well, I converted, gave my buddies some great trades, the occasional free tech, "joined" them (at least on paper, which seems a bit of an exploit) in was against their neighbors (who were far enough from me to pretty much ignore), etc. So, while my score NEVER looked all that great, I eventually had these two civs "Pleased" or "Friendly" with me through much of the game.
* I encouraged wars -- sometimes by giving away some awesome techs -- between the other AIs so that they would chew on each other. So with the exception of two anemic attacks on me (one, in fact, from one of my "Friendly" buddies after I entered a Defensive Pact with the other "Friendly" partner), I managed kind of a classic builder's strategy.
While the Space Victory itself proved a bit of a slog once all the geopolitics were in place and it was just a matter of building wonders (and space ship parts) like crazy, I must say that getting to this point was remarkably interesting. Most of all, I'm stunned that 3 cities (highly developed) pretty much carried the day. I also saw the power of a tech lead in all facets of play, particularly in bribing the AI to start wars against itself. The importance of religion --something that has taken time to appreciate-- became clear this game as 1) I wanted to grow individual cities as far as possible and needed the happines modifiers of temples, etc., 2) income generate and 3) device for fostering allies. These things already made sense on paper, but seeing them play out in a gratifying way has been fun.
So, two of the latest lessons for me are: Ignore score! Well, if you are playing for a timed victory, you *have* to worry, but in general I was pretty much last in score for most of the game, and that proved to be irrelevant. Yes, you can check the graphs to see how far behind you are in various areas, but I think sum of those outcomes is much, much less telling than the whole. The other important lesson is that it is quite possible indeed to have the smallest empire but the greatest tech lead, and this was an entirely new approach for me that ended in a fun win.
Actually, an great final lesson is simply this: Civ 4 has managed to put back some serious strategy in strategy gaming. Yes, there are still areas that need to be worked on (a rather dull end game, in my view, or allies that give you credit for "helping" them in a war even though you do nothing, etc.), but for the life of me I haven't had a game yet when I wasn't punished for not thinking through strategy well enough. Also, while 100% tech worked well for me this time, I'm willing to bet my optimal strategy will be more nuanced, involving *some* early pre-emptive strikes on neighbors, for example, so that I don't rely almost solely on good relationships to survived, etc. In other words, you can craft a challenging and dynamic victory for yourself in a number of ways that all involve careful planning and execution.
Comment