Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do You Alter Your Play Style?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Do You Alter Your Play Style?

    The reason I ask this is I noticed that, despite the fact that this is a game packed with variables, once I figured out a method that worked for me, I have been playing a single style and playing as the same handful of civs - and chasing the same wonders - that fit that style. I also end up taking only the strategy and tips from this forum that help me play this style more efficiently and reject those which don't. My ultimate goal, it seems, is to perfect a style and move up the difficulty levels with it.

    I was wondering how common this approach was, or if players were more flexible than this.

    And by play style, I mean not just the over-arching builder v. warmonger, but preference for tech tree paths, timing on wars, and other such game/play decisions.
    13
    Never
    15.38%
    2
    By Civ
    7.69%
    1
    By Map/Terrain
    7.69%
    1
    By Pre-Determined, Pre-Game Strategy
    0.00%
    0
    By How the Game Unfolds
    30.77%
    4
    By Mood
    15.38%
    2
    For AU Games/Scenarios Only
    7.69%
    1
    Banana
    15.38%
    2
    "Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription is ... more cow bell!"

  • #2
    I didn't vote because I had multiple answers. I change my playstyle based on civ, map / terrain features, opponents in the game, my mood, game events as they unfold . . . etc.

    The game is fun for me largely because it offers multiple different approaches to playing. If I were playing the same style game or the same civ / map settings I would have probably put the game on the shelf a while ago.

    Catt

    Comment


    • #3
      My playstyle varies depending on what type of game I want. I mostly play the warmonger, but occasionally the builder in me wrests back control and I play a (mostly) peaceful builder game.

      My specific strategy will also vary depending on civ choice and the map.

      If I play as Babylon, for instance, I will probably use a swordsman attack at some point (perhaps supported by a few horsies), since this requires the fewest shields to get going (warrior -> sword upgrade), and then lay low and build until the late middle ages, when - due to my religious/scientific traits, I've probably built all the necessary improvements in my cities. Then there isn't much to do but build hordes of units. I'm tellin' ya, leave Babylon alone for a few thousands years, and look out!

      Whereas if I'm playing a civ more suited for early warfare (China, Japan, Rome, Germany), I will do more fighting in the ancient & early medieval eras, and then probably settle down to build (keeping my eyes open for easy opportunities to grab sources of luxuries, of course).

      -Arrian
      grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

      The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

      Comment


      • #4
        I TRY to play differently, just for variation, but I find I almost always end up going back to an aggressive, militaristic style.

        Comment


        • #5
          i've recently edited maps so i get a decent-sized island all to myself and try to live peacefully, but there's always one civ that just wont be peaceful, often babylon, that will send over one transport with two obsolete tanks and then be done with its offensive.
          I use Posturepedic mattresses for a lifetime of temporary relief.

          Comment

          Working...
          X