Tweet
I was just reading Dexter's "Machiavellian Doctrine" thread and had some thoughts about warmongers and builders (refer Master Zen's popular definitions of these play styles on that same thread) that were kinda off topic, hence this new thread.
I find it increasingly difficult to pursue a predominantly builder focused strategy (as per MZ's definition) as you move up in difficulty levels. This makes it almost impossible IMHO to achieve a cultural or space race victory in Emperor/Deity (and I always have these turned off since it's a sure fire way for me to lose!). Cultural will usually require several early wonders and you just won't get them at the higher levels unless you wage a lot of early wars and generate a few GL's (errr....but then you're not a builder I guess). And forget Space Race (particularly at Deity) unless you get the most fantastic starting position on the planet - even with adroit tech trading you're likely to be languishing in the late industrial age just getting your production ramped up with factories and power plants when the AI is building those spaceship parts. And playing until 2050 is risky, since you generally will only start catching up with the AI leaders two-thirds the way through the game - often too late to overtake them on points.
So at the higher two levels, you are generally forced to conquer the world with military might.
My conclusion here really is that "play style" (if there is such a thing) can often be forced upon you by circumstances, which really are shaped by the level at which you play.....and that play style (ie, builder vs warmonger, in general terms) does not necessarily determine the victory condition you are hoping to achieve. A player who is predominantly a builder will find that at the higher levels he is forced to wage war more often and that to achieve ultimate victory must usually crush and then annihilate his opponents, since the other victory conditions are too difficult to achieve. And of course, being forced into regular wars requires you to maintain a larger defensive army, which in turn gives you production bottlenecks that prevent you from churning out the building improvements - almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
One thing that must be mentioned though is the importance of diplomacy at the higher levels, simply to keep your civilisation from being marauded every few years. Also, keeping a good reputation may help you to a diplomatic victory, but again that's usually a pretty huge risk and a great way to lose a game that you may clearly be dominating. So again, diplomacy alone will not bring you a reliable victory path, which brings me back to where I started.
On the other hand, maybe I just don't know how to play at the higher levels very well (a distinct possibility!!).....so feel free to blow me out of the water!
I find it increasingly difficult to pursue a predominantly builder focused strategy (as per MZ's definition) as you move up in difficulty levels. This makes it almost impossible IMHO to achieve a cultural or space race victory in Emperor/Deity (and I always have these turned off since it's a sure fire way for me to lose!). Cultural will usually require several early wonders and you just won't get them at the higher levels unless you wage a lot of early wars and generate a few GL's (errr....but then you're not a builder I guess). And forget Space Race (particularly at Deity) unless you get the most fantastic starting position on the planet - even with adroit tech trading you're likely to be languishing in the late industrial age just getting your production ramped up with factories and power plants when the AI is building those spaceship parts. And playing until 2050 is risky, since you generally will only start catching up with the AI leaders two-thirds the way through the game - often too late to overtake them on points.
So at the higher two levels, you are generally forced to conquer the world with military might.
My conclusion here really is that "play style" (if there is such a thing) can often be forced upon you by circumstances, which really are shaped by the level at which you play.....and that play style (ie, builder vs warmonger, in general terms) does not necessarily determine the victory condition you are hoping to achieve. A player who is predominantly a builder will find that at the higher levels he is forced to wage war more often and that to achieve ultimate victory must usually crush and then annihilate his opponents, since the other victory conditions are too difficult to achieve. And of course, being forced into regular wars requires you to maintain a larger defensive army, which in turn gives you production bottlenecks that prevent you from churning out the building improvements - almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
One thing that must be mentioned though is the importance of diplomacy at the higher levels, simply to keep your civilisation from being marauded every few years. Also, keeping a good reputation may help you to a diplomatic victory, but again that's usually a pretty huge risk and a great way to lose a game that you may clearly be dominating. So again, diplomacy alone will not bring you a reliable victory path, which brings me back to where I started.
On the other hand, maybe I just don't know how to play at the higher levels very well (a distinct possibility!!).....so feel free to blow me out of the water!
Comment