I... suck!

[John-SJ]

Originally posted by vilemerchant


This is plainly ridiculous.

Not ridiculous at all. And I think you and Kuciwalker misunderstood me.

I make no attempt to comment on the game mechanics other than how they relate to enjoyment of the game. My enjoymnet. In earlier Civs, especially Civ II I enjoyed playing an ICS game now and then. It was (and still is, BTW) fun! The fact that this source of enjoyment has been removed from CIV is one of the reasons I enjoy CIV less.

[Robert]

The fact that this source of enjoyment has been removed from CIV

It's not been removed.
You just have to plan it better.
Assign merchant specialist to fund your ICS.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by John-SJ
Not ridiculous at all. And I think you and Kuciwalker misunderstood me.

Not at all. You're whining becuase your preferred playstyle was previously the only valid strategy, and was extremely powerful, and now it's a suboptimal strategy.

[wodan11]

I don't know... he's got a valid argument. Reducing player creativity is a bad thing. Where I think the argument goes astray is in terms of scope.

On the one hand, we had a previous strategy which was all-powerful. This strategy was brought into balance... it hasn't been removed, but it takes more planning and execution to perform. In that sense, this strategy is still possible and is open to player creativity. If we look at the strategy in absolutist terms, it has been weakened. From this perspective, player creativity has been lessened.

Meanwhile, other strategies are now on par or better than the previous all-powerful strategy. In this sense, player creativity has been greatly enhanced. Players now have a dozen or more very powerful strategies, none of which are hugely more optimal (except perhaps the idea of early warmongering, which is a different beef to be discussed).

Of course, all this talk just leads us to my main criticism these days, and that's the U.N. and Emancipation. But that's a different issue as well.

Wodan

[LzPrst]

we all have our critiscisms of game mechs wodan11. mine is the lack of viability for small nations and certain game mechanics.

[LzPrst]

and yeah. 1 strategy beats all is far more limiting to creativity...

[wodan11]

Originally posted by LzPrst
we all have our critiscisms of game mechs wodan11.

Well, sure. I'm saying that I think my criticisms are major issues rather than minor gripes.

mine is the lack of viability for small nations and certain game mechanics.

Viability in what way? Small nations can achieve a diplomatic win more easily than large ones can. Also, they can do cultural (though it helps if you have 9 cities, which probably is beyond the definition of "small").

Also, what mechanics, if I may ask?

Wodan

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by wodan11
I don't know... he's got a valid argument. Reducing player creativity is a bad thing.

As LzPrst said, having a single obviously best strategy reduces the number of options. John-SJ just happened to like that dominant strategy, and now that it's balanced with the other options he complaining.

[Arrian]

First off, if you like ICS, I strongly suggest playing Organized leaders. You can basically ICS then. FIN leaders can do similar things. ORG/FIN (Darius) can definitely do it, or at least something quite like it. REMEMBER: staying at 100% science (or 90, or 80) in and of itself does not indicate a healthy economy. An empire pulling in twice the commerce but running 60% science is researching faster.

What you probably want to do is quickly set up a strong core of cities and then pull up for a little bit to get some basic infrastructure up, and then expand again. The second expansion phase may be conquest.

On a standard map, try founding about 6 cities and then pausing to take stock of your economy. You need to pay attention to commerce (build & work cottages), get currency (+1 trade route/city, allows marketplaces), and build some courthouses if you wish to grow large. Sometimes you may have access to some nice commerce specials (gold/silver/gems, etc) that will allow for more expansion & less infrastructure early on. There are various things you can do with specialists & great people as well (I generally go for founding a religion and generating a great prophet for the shrine. Add in a marketplace in the holy city, and you budget will look a lot better).

How you play should depend on your traits, UU, UB and of course the terrain. Generally speaking, though, you cannot expand w/o regard for cost.

-Arrian

[John-SJ]

If you choose to call stating a preference whining, I guess that's your problem, not mine.

But the truth is, whether ICS was the best strategy in Civ2 or not made no difference to me. I seldom if ever played to win the earliest, get the highest score, or any of the other measures of a great strategy or great play. I play for enjoyment. Sometimes I play with a few big cities, sometimes I play with a single one (OCC), sometimes I play with a huge number of cities (ICS), and sometimes I play somewhere in between those extremes. But the goal is never to win the fastest or whatever, it is to enjoy the time I play, and that is where I feel CIV has let me down. Whatever it has and lacks, CIV (to me) is the least enjoyable Civ game. Doesn't mean I never play, doesn't mean I won't change my mind some day. It's just an opinion. If anyone wants to say it's whining, go for it!

[logicman49]

I Double Suck

Okay, let me get this. I tried building farms first and cottages elsewhere and everyone said build cottages first (go for pottery). That works so so but I do not gert those 20+ city sizes anymore. As for the expansion, I tried 6 cities first and attempted to build. By doing this the civ nearest me began plopping cities all over the place (happens most games) and then I cannot get out or get access to resources. ANd if I get attacked I do not have enough cities early on to build military and I quickly get overcome. So what's right and more importantly, WTH am I doing wrong???

Steve

[wodan11]

Re: I Double Suck

Originally posted by logicman49
Okay, let me get this. I tried building farms first and cottages elsewhere and everyone said build cottages first (go for pottery). That works so so but I do not gert those 20+ city sizes anymore.

Well, let me ask... what is your goal? If getting size 20+ cities is your goal, regardless of everything else, ... well that tells us something.

On the other hand, if your goal is to have large cities AND a large empire (large in terms of square footage)... well, that tells us something else.

Ultimately, what needs to be defined is the goal... max relative size early game, mid game, late game, or what.

Bottom line, what comes up is "I'm doing X which was successful in Civ3 and it's not now... what am I doing wrong?" Answer: nothing... the result depends upon your goals. Do you want to maximize your chances in the early game? Do A. Do you want to maximize your long-term changes in the late game? Do B.

No matter what, no matter what you do, you will do fine. You will enjoy the game. And that's what you wanted, isn't it?

Wodan

[Arrian]

Re: I Double Suck

Originally posted by logicman49
Okay, let me get this. I tried building farms first and cottages elsewhere and everyone said build cottages first (go for pottery). That works so so but I do not gert those 20+ city sizes anymore. As for the expansion, I tried 6 cities first and attempted to build. By doing this the civ nearest me began plopping cities all over the place (happens most games) and then I cannot get out or get access to resources. ANd if I get attacked I do not have enough cities early on to build military and I quickly get overcome. So what's right and more importantly, WTH am I doing wrong???

Steve

I picked the number 6, but I could easily have said 8. Or 10. It really depends on what leader you're playing, the terrain, and your tech path. Getting access to basic resources can be a good reason to stretch your economy a little bit. When you built the 6 cities, how was your economy doing? During the initial expansion phase, I often drop my research rate well below 50% for a time - that doesn't mean you're in trouble. You're in real trouble when you're down to 10% or 0% and losing money.

The best thing to do would be to start a new game and post the initial save (4000 bc) and then some later ones(1000bc, 1AD) so people can look at them. Or at least post some screenshots.

I started a new game recently. I built 5 cities of my own before launching an attack on my closest neighbor, capturing their 3 cities. I then built several more cities. Then, a bit later, I built a few more. And now, slightly past 1000AD, I'm looking at expanding again, either by settling some small islands off my coast, attacking another neighbor, or both. Going from memory, I have 17 cities (standard map).

Of course, I'm ORG/FIN and lucked out with access to some early gold mines & floodplains (my 3rd, 4th and 5th cities had floodplains, gold, or both). So that impacted my ability to expand w/o really suffering any economic hit. I really only stopped b/c I had other things I wanted to build (like a respectable army and some wonders). Actually, I'd have pressed my early rush on to the next neighbor, but it was the Maya with their evil resourceless spearmen - the ultimate nemesis of my Persian immortals.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

So I'm coming around to the idea that I'm not a failure if my science rate is below 100%, but I always feel kind of disappointed because it means that I could be researching faster.

What it really comes down to is, I don't know how large a tech lead I need to have before I should feel comfortable. I understand that there is more to a civilization than technological advancement, and that having all the best techs doesn't translate into the best civ if you don't have the infrastructure to make use of those techs, but I always get worried when I see other civs creeping up on my tech lead.

How far beyond other civs do you need to be before you can relax?

Also, if you're behind in tech and trying to catch up, can you ever feel comfortable with anything other than the most beakers you can possibly manage?

[gdijedi7]

If you don't have Modern Armor going against Archers, you're not playing the game correctly.

That was a joke by the way. But really, I never "relax" until I have Futrue Tech 1. But I ALWAYS try to stay at least one unit ahead in the arms race. ie, Jet fighters to their fighters.