Game settings

[Rasputin]

Just wondering what is everyones fav settings...
Seems lots of people have now switched to the simul mode...

I havent made up my mind ree simul v turn based , havent palyed enough games at simul yet..

I much prefer largest world possible (125*80) with 7 players , but too hard to organsie enough regular palyers...

Lately I been jsut playing fill in games where I take over the role of an AI or missing player, this has been fun , but doens tallow you to plan any major strategy.

Do people now find that Civ2 has become a game of rapid expansionists , most players now seem to be going for rapid early growth at expense of any defence.
This tactic may be okay for low barb games but with Raging Hordes (my fav and only setting) makes it much harder,

I have encountered some palyers who only garrison with wariiors, my last game I could have wiped out the whole southern flank of my nearest rival, but chose peace first... I may ahv eto rethink this policy now and join the ranks of the warmongers....

[Ming]

The settings you play dictate the style you should use.

ICS'rs have a harder time with raging hordes because they don't defend their cities... they also have problems with smaller worlds because of the lack of room to expand, and the normal crappy terrain that comes with them. Yet on large worlds and lower barbarian and difficulty settings, good ICS'rs are almost impossible to beat unless you can catch them early with their "pants" down

I like small worlds... 2x production... raging hordes... Deity.... I like the type of game these settings dictate:
Quick contact with other tribes
A need to balance defense/offensive with expansion

While I've been "told" that this isn't civ, I would disagree. Civ has been disigned to be played in many different ways. I just happen to prefer the type of game these settings create.
There is no right or wrong way to play civ. The key is to play for "your own" enjoyment, which I do!

[Ming]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>&lt;font size=1&gt;Originally posted by EvilProphet on 02-03-2001 12:50 PM&lt;/font&gt;
Actually Ming I play 1x1x Raging hordes all the time and I never ever defend my cities. Defending your cities is a losing strategy. There is no need for defense.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I disagree... the bunch I usually play with won't let you get away with no defense... 16 vet crusaders crammed down your throat is a good lesson on why defense can be useful On a small world, where land is at a premium, defense is essential... because once you run out of room to expand, there is only one way to keep expanding

On a large world, you are probably right. With little risk of early aggressive contact, the odds say to use your production in a more productive fashion. Even if barbs show up, their damage is usually only temporary at best. Sure, they might take a city, but it is cheap to buy back....


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ming (edited February 03, 2001).]</font>

[Nap Bonaparte]

Rasputin....the answer to your question lies in the "Game Settings" you use. I have found pure warmongering only works in a small map 2 player duel. Conversely, pure rapid expansion works best on a large map at king level with few players. All other game settings lie somewhere in between. One corollary: the larger the map and the greater the # of players the less effective warmongering is as a strategy. Even if you annihilate your expansionist neighbor the other pacifist players will leave you in the dust. Ten elephants=8 caravans=MC(or 1600-3000 gold AND beakers if you trade them instead of building wonders)=5 marketplaces/libraries or whatever else you want to do with 400 shields. In my favorite game setting, 1x1x deity, medium map, 4 or more players I use a "Phased Expansion " strategy that is influenced by the riot factor. I get to 6 cities ASAP with defensive units to prevent revolt and then designate 1 city for SPC(wonders) and 1 city for SSC and build temples in those 2 cities, and then expand as rapidly as possible to 15 cities. With this strategy I almost NEVER get HG but I almost always get MC and on the way to MC I get the techs for elephants and crusaders(before anyone else) so generally never have a problem with defending myself. After MC I will build pyramids if available and then expand ad infinitum.

As an example I used this strategy in the final round of the Nominated Players Tournament. By the time I built Pyramids in 300 BC, I was "losing" to a rapid expansionist opponent by 22-15 in cities and 2-1 in pop. By 300 AD I had nearly pulled even in pop and by 900 AD I had pulled away in both cities and pop. As an aside, the MC and Pyramids combo is a very powerful tool for expansion.

[EvilProphet]

Actually Ming I play 1x1x Raging hordes all the time and I never ever defend my cities. Defending your cities is a losing strategy. There is no need for defense.

[Alexander's Horse]

Its interesting to read Nappy saying he uses a "phased" approach to expansion because all the "sure fire" strats run into trouble at Deity, especially with 1x1x, hoardes, and a mix of human and ai civs. I think all the good players used a "phased" or "mixed" strat with these settings. You just can't ISC or do the Markusf thing at that level.


------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

[Argus]

Ming I played a game with you and War4ever. I wasn't impressed with your military skills. I don't think I'd have to worry about these so called 16 vet crusaders. The only reason I'd ever defend my cities agianst you is if it was deity so I could keep my cities happy. That's the only reason.

[Rasputin]

Ok how do you prevent losing citys if they not defended how do you stop rampaging barbs, or the alleged 16 vet units from attacking... ????

[Ming]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Argus on 02-04-2001 08:23 PM</font>
Ming I played a game with you and War4ever. I wasn't impressed with your military skills. I don't think I'd have to worry about these so called 16 vet crusaders.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I wasn't impressed with your skills either

I'm so glad that after just one game you know all you need to know about my military skills

[Argus]

Ming you were building on Mountains. I think that says just about everything I need to know. Not only that but you play on a map that has incredibly bad terrain and lots and lots of squares for defense. That is not the board of a warmonger. That is the board of someone who likes to set up a nice perimeter of mountain cities and sit back to defend. Your attacking is a joke. I can tell exactly what you do when you do it and why you do it from just 1 save.

Ras for barbarians you

[Ming]

I see last nights Forum problems have resulted in some deleted posts... and even cut off some in mid sentence

Argus...I would think you would judge somebody based on more than one game. In the game you mention, yeah... I did sit back and defend myself. With you two fighting, and I having all the space I needed to continue expanding, why should I waste my development on getting involved in your petty war

I don't use the same strategy in every game, I let the situation dictate my strategy.
While I have never claimed to be Warmonger, I have crammed those "16 Vet Crusaders" down people's throat when the situation calls for it. And I enjoy nothing better than catching an ICS'er with his pants down.

As I said above, I actually agree with you on a large world. With the odds of contact with another player reduced, defense isn't really a high priority. I just said it was more important on a smaller world, especially with many of the people I play with

[War4ever]

Well one of my posts was deleted from this thread..... Eyes IIRC you quit once i took a "lucky" city from you located right nextto my capital ...... however in all fairness to you you did come back an hour and half later

Argus/EvilProphet/Eyes/Sean/QuickAcorn..... we have had this conversation before.... i respect your ability....i am pretty sure you ARE the best most of the time.....its guyz like me that beat you the other "unlucky" times

That said....next free time i have lets play!

BTW Ming is a great player .... i have been on the end of some real trickery.....

Are we on for tomorrow night Ming? I am off to a movie tonight!

[sekong]

Ming and war4, next time you guys have a game, may you count me in? War4 has my icq.106971385

[EvilProphet]

Ming I play on a small world with 2x2x and I don't defend my cities. Why would I even have to begin to worry about it on 2x1x? That is one of the key secrets to my game. I can leave my cities undefended and still not lose them. Think of how many shields you save by not defending your cities. Think of how many settlers you can put out at a faster rate by not defending. All I need is a couple horsemen to defend my entire empire.

Also what were you going to say last night that got deleted? It was in response to the quote "I'd see them coming a mile away. I'd know exactly when to defend and where."
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by EvilProphet (edited February 06, 2001).]</font>

[Species8472]

To get back to the topic of this thread: I like king 1x1x, medium map, no wonders, no huts, no bribing.

I also love to play king 2x2x on archipelago medium or large maps and make some frigates at 1500 bc.

my 2 cents,

woke23