The paradox of playing too well

[Xard]

My experience

I'm playing a Warlord level game, huge map and 16 players.

First off: It's crazy. Good lord, do some of the computer players have a ton of cities. Of course, corruption doesn't seem to bug them, so...

Anyways.

I'm playing as the Persians (sci++) and so far am doing rather well. I rushed pretty early to get Monarchy, and I have been keeping with that gov't since I got it. I find it does the best as far as being both militarily and culturally good. As soon as I get it, I may try to change to Communism, but we'll see how that works out. I may even try one of those silly Popular Sovereignty governments, but I doubt it.

Current year is about 1750 or so, and I'm researching Electronics (hydro dam, save me yet). I should be in the modern era halfway through the 1800's, if a bit closer to 1900.

I'm more or less the standard Perfectionist player. I have about ALL my cities fully built up, and only those which are in crappy spots or recently acquired not having all the improvements. Civ III semi tripped me up in that you really have to expand a lot to win the game, more so than in the past games. This one is hardcore about having lots and lots of space.

As for wonders: I've kept all my wonders pretty diversified, and no city has more than 2, I don't believe. I don't have the observatory, but I do have Newton's college, but single cities don't produce enough beakers to be actual huge boons to researching stuff.

Also, it's important to note that I have traded techs when possible, and I think that that can greatly help you speed your research in an area if you missed going down that branch of the tree.

Just my two cents, I've lost track of where I was going.

[ICMB]

Re: The paradox of playing too well

Originally posted by squid
Has anyone else been able to research into the modern era (say, jet fighters) with Chieftain or is there some requirement now to trade and ensure that (as hard as it may seem) that your enemy is prosperous?

Hmm..

My first game of Civ3 on Chieftan, learning the new system, I had a Diplomacy victory in 1920 and went on to space flight in the mid-50s.

My second game, I had a pure space race victory in the late 1900s.

The third game, in Warlord, I barely beat another civ to space in 2020 or so. (With no wars, or even tech trading.)

I'm surprised to hear of some of the problems on the board. My personal strategy is pretty simple, usually. I spend the first part of the game expanding as the computers do. Ever notice the computer users have tiny cities for a long time? It's because they pump out the settlers and workers. Then, I get to upping my culture with temples and such as soon as possible. This expands my borderline nicely. I overfill the map, putting more cities than I could, as I always get into the entertainer/taxman/scientist which don't do much for me.

I research tech as fast as I can, wait to build an army for as long as I feel I can get away with it. Having the tech advantage is a major advantage in war, and although there are some obvious mismatches, I don't have as big a problem with the combat as others do. (perhaps because I've been playing on lower levels.)

When I get a new wonder available to me, I usually put my most productive city to work on it. (after the expansion phase). I actually concentrate on governments, usually going directly to Monarchy and then direct to Republic, and then filling in. I find that the early tech disadvantage is reversed when you get Republic early. Just pay attention to how many Civs demand Republic from you.

Then it's build, build, build, as I add every improvement I can, go as high as I can with science, and build up a force sizable enough to dissuade my opponents from attacking. Meanwhile, I overpay my buddy civs, and get them to do my dirty work by running interference.

In short, my strategy is to play as a wuss...quite a change from my "Mongol Horde" strategy of Civ1.

- ICMB