What do you do that is bad strategy?

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

And micromanaging every turn? I don't do that and I didn't think ANYONE could stand it, especially on a huge map. Let alone having to try and finish the game with all that delay! I do micromanage by maxing production and reducing surplus food to zero at pop 12 before Hospitals, including terrain improvement changes, making citizens Entertainers if it means WLTKD in corrupt cities and maxing production durign a GA, but no more than that! Do you top players really micromanage everything every turn?

My level of micromanagement is very high.

1) I only automate workers if I've already in effect won and I'm unusually impatient to get the game officially over with.

2) I try to keep an eye on when cities grow and make sure the tile combination worked is what I want.

3) From time to time and place to place, I'll do tweaking to optimize when particular cities grow or finish producing something beyond just checking when new workers are added.

4) In the early game, I move the luxury slider around a lot as needs change due to fluctuations in population. The problem there is that I'm not always careful enough, so I have occasional riots when I move the slider down and forget to move it back up when I need to. And losing a turn on a four-turn or six-turn settler pump is not trivial!

Nathan

[Master Zen]

Sometimes I'm such an order freak that I avoid better city cites just so my city placement looks neater

(only on emperor and below, never on deity)

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Arrian

Another thing: spending tons of cash on horribly corrupt cities to change them into merely mostly corrupt cities. I have a thing with battling corruption. It's a righteous struggle.

I have the same tendency when I can afford it. Then again, when we're that rich, does it really matter enough to be considered bad strategy?

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by BigFree
1. I sometimes miss a Barbarian whose snuck up on a worker...

Hate that. I'm pretty good about protecting my workers, but every once in awhile a Horse mounted barb swoops in and snatches one. Which reminds me of another bad strat:

- I get distracted by other goals, and sometimes forget to regularly sweep shaded areas for barb huts to get quick, easy gold and prevent an uprising. I hate uprisings. Not hard to defend against, but barbs pillage too much to let them roam free.

[Mountain Sage]

Another one,

I spend too much time on this forum and don't play enough. That's why this comment is so short...

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by cumi

Originally posted by Dominae
I almost always irrigate tiles with resources on them (if possible). I just hate the look of a Mine on Wines, Wheat and Cattle.

Hm? What's the issue with that? Don't tell me, that I don't get the food bonus if I irrigate on that!

During despotism, any food over 2 gets a -1 penalty. Meaning that if you irrigate regular grass, you will still get just 2 food. However, this doesn't apply to wheat or cattle (You get -1, which is 3, 4 if you irrigate it)

[Daz]

Good thread

1. I start wars WAY to late...
2. I dont trade as much as I should,
3. I REX like a 'roach which often leave me open to attack...
4. I build everything available...

[BigFree]

1. I sometimes miss a Barbarian whose snuck up on a worker...

2. I don't use Barbarian hunting to increase my units status enough, I'll keep attacking with elite units instead of trading them out, too lazy to switch 'em I guess..

3. I'll use the goto comand much to often, with the units missing/not using roads that were built after the goto command was issued.

4. I'll change my mind about improving a certain tile after having just finnished improving it.....

[Tattila the Hun]

Last-ditch, desperous attacks with inf against inf, just in case I win, to get that one city, just before I'm forced to negotiate peace because WW or other reasons. I end up losing hordes of troops, and usually don't get the city... And attacking the last 1-hp inf with 1-hp tank... Just to get Elite... With 4-hp vet's standing by... (Works more often...)

Also, waging wars for centuries... Literally. In Republic. OW!

Hey, BTW, is this right? I'm at war with the brits, on heir soil, and end my turn. Then the brits form an MPP with babs, my neighbours and buddies. And because I am on the britland, babs declare war... Stupid.... Needs chance!

[Egbert]

The worst thing I do is not going to war when I really should because I couldn't be bothered with all that moving about of units. Also, doing almost nothing when I am at war also because I all that moving about of units tedious.

[Quasar1011]

I seem to build less units per city than in Civ 2, which leads me vulnerable to: a) attack, and 2) civil disorder.

Sometimes when razing a city, I don't protect the workers I just gained well enough. Next turn, the enemy rescues them.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
How is that bad strategy then? I gather these bad strategies are not just alternative ways to win (warmonger vs peacenik), but more what, if you managed to improve, would help you win more easily, more comprehensively or more quickly.

I would say keeping a good rep would be harder, and you can't ask for a more comprehensive win than one made from a warmonger's stance.

Well in that case, sometimes I rush through games without thinking for example in that I should improve this tile or the other, I play many times by instinct (I NEVER do queues) so it may seem a little reckless but I still get good results so my instinct can't be that bad

What sometimes happens when I do this is that a city which is about to grow and I forget to give it an entertainier or move the lux slider even though it will go into disorder the next turn. I don't pay attention to that so I get more disorders than if I checked every city every turn. Booooring.

[Catt]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt


Hmm... Intriguing... I always equated the AI civ's attitude to your reputation. I never realised they weren't the same thing.

It's a common misconception, and too often the terms are used interchangeably when the concepts aren't interchangeable.

In answer to your questions through the case of my current 24 civ archipelago map, I may have broken a 20-turn peace treaty, but I was reasonably careful not to break any ROPs and not break a peace where I had a gpt or lux deal with them that had turns to go. I noticed some interesting things in this game though. I never broke anything beyond a peace treay (no turns left in the agreement) with England, on my home country. When I had vanquished them enough, I kept their last city around as a sucker for outmoded tech. They were of course furious with me, I having destroyed several of their cities.

I tend to watch my reputation very closely but still manage to foul it occasionally. Little things like barbarian galleys (or galleys from war enemies) blocking a coastal trade route with a third civ, a trading partner losing its last harbor during a war with another civ, etc. can jump up and surprise you pretty easily. If you've got a lot of trades and deals going on (as I can imagine on an archipelago with 24 civs) I can imagine its pretty easy to take a misstep without even knowing it.

When they made contact with other civs, those civs became furious at me as well.

I believe that both atitude and reputation work in a similar fashion as regards the outside world. In other words, if you do a bunch of things that would negatively affect AI attitudes or your reputation, third-party civs would only be affected if they gained contact with the "victim civ" (England in your case). Had you destroyed England, I believe all the thrid-party attitudes would not have been affected by your razing of English cities but may have still been negative due to other factors (like empire size, leadership position, etc.).

The Zulus attacked ME without provocation (never in their territory, never attacked them), and afterwards they not only were furious but only accepted HUGE gpt deals for techs, where about a half the total cost in upfront payment would staisfy them.

If they accept any gpt deal from you in exchange for tech, it means your reputation is intact -- with a blackened reputation, you can't even add "free" gpt or resources to an otherwise acceptable straight-up deal. An example: if Zulu would accept 500 gold for Feudalism, but your reputation is ruined, they won't accept 500 gold and silks for Feudalism.

Minor threadjack further here - not having known about the difference between attitude and reputation (beyond the AIs attitude towards you due to similar culture or Government type, which I see as minor things, and yes I have read BamSpeedy's article), I suppose having a civ angry at me has no bearing whatsoever on another civ's attitude towards me where those two civs have no contact. I draw this conclusion from the fact that a broken peace treaty (and nothing more severe than that) seems to cause civs to be angry at me where they have met the one I have attacked, whereas alienated civs are perfectly happy with me.

As above, I do think that the information that causes rep damage and attitude adjustments needs to be available to other civs before the changes take effect - no contact means no information. Also, even though you only razed English cities, razing cities affects all AI attitudes (those with contact, that is ), it just affects the "razee" much more strongly. If you raze 10 English cities, I'd guess the English are permanently furious, but the other AI civs will also reduce their opinion of you, too.

One last interesting note - the Babs have never been involved in any conflict with me, and as I said I have not broken anythin more than a peace treaty with no turns waiting on it with ANY civ. However, I found one turn they valued their Dyes at about 40gpt from me, then the next turn they devalued them to 35gpt! I had no significant pop change at that time (if anything it went up!) and no change in status with any civ. It seemed to me that, over time, whatever was seen as a transgression of mine to the Babs was having less of an effect on their trust in me. Sound correct?

Don't know on this one. There are a lot of variables to resource pricing and I can't hazard a guess.

Catt

[MrWhereItsAt]

How is that bad strategy then? I gather these bad strategies are not just alternative ways to win (warmonger vs peacenik), but more what, if you managed to improve, would help you win more easily, more comprehensively or more quickly.

I would say keeping a good rep would be harder, and you can't ask for a more comprehensive win than one made from a warmonger's stance.

[Master Zen]

Hmmm... bad strategies, this is actually a pretty interesting thread

Ok, all my really bad strategies are on monarch, I try and play emperor and deity as flawlessly as possible (obviously make mistakes just not on purpose)

Anyway, here's my BAD STRATEGIES on monarch:

1) Always OCP (esthetics)
2) Always irrigate all grasslands (looks much nicer)
3) Never hack forests (love those patches of green)

Oh, and I do have one bad strategy on Emperor:

1) I NEVER GIVE A DAMN ABOUT REPUTATION. If it comes to blows, I'll gladly start it. I always win anyway