The Breath of God: Only the Penitent Man shall pass

[punkbass2000]

Three spaces away, as in any 1 movement unit can get from one city to the next in one turn on my road system (and I've always got a road system).

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BRC
It's all in the style of play.

Yup. This probably explains why I'm going off on Religious, because I feel it may be the time for me to change my style, so I'm trying to figure out if Religious is the way to go. I started off as a Religious freak, then slowly went towards Atheism. Maybe I will return. Expansionist was a fun experience. Scientific (outside the realm of OCC) is almost totally foreign to me.

As you can see, much of the fun for me in Civ3 is exploring the possibilities.


Dominae

[BRC]

PB: Thanks. I'll remember this when I give Diety a shot.

Yup. This probably explains why I'm going off on Religious, because I feel it may be the time for me to change my style, so I'm trying to figure out if Religious is the way to go. I started off as a Religious freak, then slowly went towards Atheism. Maybe I will return. Expansionist was a fun experience. Scientific (outside the realm of OCC) is almost totally foreign to me.

Why do you need to change your style??
I saw nothing wrong with what you were doing. It was different than what I've ever seen, but I am realizing that it might take that to get UP on the higher levels (if that's possible). Like maybe with the Scientific trait.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BRC
Why do you need to change your style??

If you always keep the same style, you're not playing every civ to the fullest of its potential, IMO (nor are you having much fun, in my case). If I were to discount the worth of early Temples when playing a Religious civ (by not building them), I would be uselessly crippling myself. My comments about the usefulness of Temples and Culture apply only to other, non-Religious civs (or, civs in general). Lately, I've had some success with the "heathen" civs, and so I was wondering if Religious is really as great as everyone says it is. I'm just trying to figure things out!


Dominae

[Arrian]

Dominae,

I was getting comfortable at Emperor and then PTW came out, and it is a tad harder, so I dropped back while testing out the new civs. I know I can win on Emperor. But as you know, I don't want to just win.

"Arrian = Anakin?" Sorta, actually. I want this nice, big, cultured, developed, happy, efficient empire. I have discovered that the best way to get it is to do my best impression of Ghengis Khan.

Regarding your wanting to change styles and your relative lack of experience with the scientific trait, I offer up Babylon or Persia (or Ottomans). The Babs are slow to get going, it's true, but if you can get them rolling, they EXPLODE into the mid game. They save on a lot of improvements. In fact, I'm going to play them tonight. I had a very frustrating game as Egypt last night due in part to a terrible run of combat luck*, so I need a change of pace.

BRC,

Nah, I'd never waste shields on privateers when the game is close. I'm talking about an UP game where I've taken out 3-4 neighbors already, have a solid tech lead, I'm rich, wonderous, etc. This is usually when I'm approaching the industrial age (I probably have galleons & Cavalry, but don't yet have RRs & factories). There are two things I can do at that point:

1) invade someone
2) play nice, waiting for a couple of AIs to get in a tussle so I can sneak a city or two on their continent to grab luxuries.

If going with option 2, privateers help alleviate boredom while I'm waiting for the AIs to pick a fight. I often end up with a mixture of 1 & 2.

Sometimes I don't have enough productive coastal towns to build a large number of privateers, though (there is little point to building a couple of them. They're weak, and should be used in packs of 3 or more). It all depends.

-Arrian

* - there's bad luck, and then there is *cursed by the Civ gods* bad luck. I experienced the latter last night.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Arrian
The Babs are slow to get going, it's true, but if you can get them rolling, they EXPLODE into the mid game. They save on a lot of improvements. In fact, I'm going to play them tonight.

I'm was actually quite surprised and impressed you chose the Babylonians in our PBEM game. Although I did steal China from you (I was willing to give it up, really!), I thought you would go for one of the other "powerhouse" MP civs, like the Iroquois.

Funny you should mention the Babs, actually, because (once I finish my schoolwork), that's the first civ I'm planning to try out. My only experience with them in the past was my last Monarch game, and I was so dominant in Culture and Wonders that I gave up in disgust (...you know, when UP gets scary). Probably that game set me up for a general dislike of Culture I've carried around with me ever since.


Dominae

[Arrian]

My only experience with them in the past was my last Monarch game, and I was so dominant in Culture and Wonders that I gave up in disgust (...you know, when UP gets scary).

This is the fundamental difference between you and I. I *LOVE* it when UP gets "scary." That's what I'm after!

As for choosing them in the PBEM game... it was a total whim. I don't expect to win (though I'll try).

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

What do you mean by "UP"?

To learn the value of different trait combinations "Random" has long been my choice of civ.

To moderately increase the value of Privateers I gave them same numbers as Frigate, except for RoF: A/D/M=2/2/4, B/RoF=2/1.
Lot's of fun until Combustion, with AI privateers sneaking across the border, bombarding and retreating back to their home port. I had to build them too, in order to stop their incursions.

[Arrian]

"UP" = Ultimate Power. It's a term I kinda coined.... it basically means you have it all: tech, wonders, resources, military power, size, culture, etc.

I did a thread a while back about the concept (oddly enough called Ultimate Power), using a very dominant Chinese/Monarch game to illustrate.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

Dominae,
I was just looking at the Editor, Culture tab. Your culture ratio vs. your opponent is quite relevant in regards to:
Propaganda
Resistance; initial and continuing

[Dominae]

Jaybe,

Originally posted by Jaybe
Propaganda

Irrelevant, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by Jaybe
Resistance; initial and continuing

I've posted elsewhere that this isn't such a big deal if you know how to deal with it (what a pun!). But, I've been noticing lately that when I conquer other civs, I have to plan for a lot of flips, which slows me down somewhat. I'm not sure yet if this effect is big enough to convince me to "go cultural" before I go to war (or at the same time).


Dominae

[Catt]

Much to comment on, but not much time to post. I'd just leave for now this inflamatory commentary: if the goal is simply the most efficient method to win the game, consistently, while accepting the least risk of losing, then neither temples (early or late) nor any other city improvement other than (perhaps) barracks are required. Units, and conquest, win the game. The further you move up the difficulty tree, the more true this becomes. Imagine playing a "Super Deity" level where the AI builds at a 40% (or 30% or 20%) human cost. Units, units, and more units are the prescription for that ailment, IMHO, until at some point the game becomes "unbeatable."

But playing the game soley to win becomes stale quickly for many people, just as always employing an "optimal" opening play sequence might become stale. One fun challenge is to play in a manner that exploits the inherent advantages of your chosen civ, the map features, your neighbors, etc., even if such play style deviates from a more optimal approach. For some this doesn't make sense - the object should be to whip the game, as effectively and efficiently as possible. For others, this is the goal (ahead even of winning). Everyone finds their own comfort zone.

Catt

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
I'd just leave for now this inflamatory commentary: if the goal is simply the most efficient method to win the game, consistently, while accepting the least risk of losing, then neither temples (early or late) nor any other city improvement other than (perhaps) barracks are required. Units, and conquest, win the game.

Heh, I knew I set myself up for this reaction. Let me say in my defense that I do play the game for fun, and certain things I do are "sub-optimal"; city spacing, not checking the diplo screen every turn, and yes, building every darn improvement I can in my good cities. I would not enjoy the game if I felt I had to play Militaristic and build Archers until I win. But with this said, I believe there is still room for discussion of the relative merits of certain courses of action at certain points of the game (or else the whole Strategy forum would be for naught). And "intangible" as the Temple benefit appears to be, I think there must be good reasons to build (or not to build) them beyond "I have more fun if I build Temples", which is a great reason, but is not about strategy. Temples (and Culture) are definitely a big part of Civ3 (which is just great), but there must be better times and worse times to build them. That's my question.

All this said, my next game is probably with either the Spanish or the Babylonians. I want to prove to myself that the "intangibles" in Civ3 (mainly, the Commercial trait and Culture) are responsible for "tangible" success (victory and fun).


Dominae

[Brizey]

I personally beleive there is a time and place for each of the traits.

For example, with the Chinese, I do any early push with horseman, then a major sustained push with Riders and Cavalry. The GA is timed to help me beeline to Miltrad. The three move Rider makes culture flipping a non-problem. They move very fast, and so I usually leave the cities I capure lightly defended, if at all. If one flips, I send a rider or two back to retake it.

Here is where industious kicks in. It is very easy to over-extend with Riders. And we all know how poor the AI is at developing tiles. So I send my worker force in to rapidly clean up the mess.

So the point is that the three move UU mitigates the culture flipping problem. And well developed tiles can mitigate the production advantages of religious and scientific. Throw in three or four leaders, and you have a great combination.

That being said, I wouldn't choose the Chinese as optimal on a island map becaus it would hinder the Rider push too much.

Dom: I think that Comercial is under-rated. It adds production where it counts most: on the edge of you holdings. Two shields per city is the same as half-price ANYTHING, not just temples or libraries. One thing I have done lately is concentrate more on building courthouses and police stations.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae

Heh, I knew I set myself up for this reaction. Let me say in my defense that I do play the game for fun, and certain things I do are "sub-optimal"; city spacing, not checking the diplo screen every turn, and yes, building every darn improvement I can in my good cities. I would not enjoy the game if I felt I had to play Militaristic and build Archers until I win. But with this said, I believe there is still room for discussion of the relative merits of certain courses of action at certain points of the game (or else the whole Strategy forum would be for naught). And "intangible" as the Temple benefit appears to be, I think there must be good reasons to build (or not to build) them beyond "I have more fun if I build Temples", which is a great reason, but is not about strategy. Temples (and Culture) are definitely a big part of Civ3 (which is just great), but there must be better times and worse times to build them. That's my question.

All this said, my next game is probably with either the Spanish or the Babylonians. I want to prove to myself that the "intangibles" in Civ3 (mainly, the Commercial trait and Culture) are responsible for "tangible" success (victory and fun).

Wasn't targeting you or attacking your position at all! I just felt that one undercurrent of the long conversation I missed while away from 'Poly was whether or not their was an objectively "optimum" time to build temples (or other improvements). Though I felt the undercurrent was largely unspoken, you highlighted it and also pointed out that playing for "fun" more than efficiency is what keeps the game interesting for you. Arrian did the same. I thought it made sense to throw out my view that, as a baseline, units, unit factories (cities) and conqeust are all that is needed to win. This view is, I think, derivative of Vel's early strategy threads and the game-breakers he devised.

But I will also venture a guess that just about everyone who spends any time here doesn't play the game in this fashion. Indeed, I suspect that if one did play the game in the most brutally efficient manner possible, one would soon bore oneself to death with Civ 3 and would not be spending any time in the forums at all!

So, by setting my own baseline view of the most consistently "optimal" play pattern, I can discard it and argue the merits of other playstyles (without having to point out each time that it represents a departure from optimal play ).

Fact is, IMHO, playing a civ to its strengths, playing a random map to its strengths, playing opponents to their weaknesses, etc., and exploring where the boundaries of those strengths and weaknesses lay, are what makes the game fun and interesting. In turn, such explorations are the only things that make strategy discussions worthwhile (as Dominae points out).

Catt