Exquisite Kingdoms vs. Practical Decisions

[jubilation]

Gentlemen-

It often happens that the best practical approach to a given Civ situation is at odds with esthetic values. I'm writing to see if others have run into this conundrum, and what approach they've taken.

For instance, when playing England I feel compelled to build lots of boats and explore around. If I run into India or Iroquois I *have* to colonize them; it's like a spinal reflex. I pay much more attention to trade matters with England. Of course, no capturing of foreign workers; "Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free".

My favorite is France, but when I play them I feel compelled to act with honor; no slave-raids, no razing of cities, however tempting. Above all, no Republic until the 18th century! Monarchy all the way. And Knights. Lots of Knights. Must figure out how to rename them Chevaliers. And of course, eternal, bitter rivalry with England, Germany, Russia, and Babylon (standing in for the Moors).

When I'm feeling mean I'll play the Romans. "Hi, we're your neighbors, the Romans. We invented the word 'decimate'. We raze cities and take slaves. It's fun!" Every so often I'll have a revolution for no reason, because that's the kind of guys they were.

When playing the Aztecs ... well their whole society was based on taking captives and killing them. So after I hit a certain size of empire, some 8-10 cities, I'll eschew further city conquest and go on massive slave-raids ("flower war", we call it), and add them to my own cities. On higher levels this often causes the whole world to dogpile on my civilization and destroy it. Oops.

Do others play with self-imposed restraints based on notions of how a civilization should "behave"?

-- J

[Theseus]

No.

Win, whatever your style.

The specific situation rules, not your civ (although its strengths and weaknesses play a part).

[vmxa1]

Not me.

[Jethro83]

I always try to use my own style.

I never for one second actively try and play out in the exact style of the civ I'm using.

I really don't believe that I have to behave in a particular way depending on the civ I'm using.

In some cases, such style could screw you over. Why hoard up a huge navy as England when everyone exists on one pangaea continent? Why rush out to try and capture workers to 'sacrifice to the gods' as the Aztecs when you're alone on the continent? Why master culture and science at expense of military as Babylon when you're surrounded by the likes of Xerxes, Cathy, Montezuma and Shaka? That to me makes no sense whatsoever.

[MiloMilo]

Hear, hear! I don't adapt my style to the civ I'm using as much as you do, jubilatino, but I often let my values, and fun factor, get in the way of sheer domination.

For instance, I dislike genocide. I'll trim down my neighbors so that they are no threat to me, but within their boundaries I encourage their culture to flourish.

I'll even go so far as to commit my resources to protect nations on the verge of being gobbled up. It bothers me how the AIs tend to gang up on nations when they're down.

Stuff like this makes me more inefficient and the game, therefore, more challenging. Which is a good thing.

Theseus, what ever happened to the metagame?

[Catt]

Originally posted by MiloMilo
. . . I often let my values, and fun factor, get in the way of sheer domination.

Exactly how I play. I won't try to recreate history the way you do, jubilation, but I do tend to play out the mid-game and late-game in line with a "personality" of my civ that has sprung up in my mind from the game's beginnings depending on how those beginnings progressed - greater immersion means more fun for me.

I do have one question for you regarding your playstyle however,

My favorite is France, but when I play them I feel compelled to act with honor

I can't for the life of me understand this compulsion.

Catt

[jubilation]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I always try to use my own style.

[...]

In some cases, such style could screw you over. Why hoard up a huge navy as England when everyone exists on one pangaea continent? Why rush out to try and capture workers to 'sacrifice to the gods' as the Aztecs when you're alone on the continent? Why master culture and science at expense of military as Babylon when you're surrounded by the likes of Xerxes, Cathy, Montezuma and Shaka? That to me makes no sense whatsoever.

There are a couple answers I can give you here.

One ... that's how it sometimes played out. When the Spanish invaded the Real Aztecs (tm), the azzies were hampered by their cultural bias toward going for the capture instead of the kill. When the Crusaders invaded the Levant, they were hampered by their disdain for archery.

Second, it's so much fun! I love trying to get into the mindset of my chosen civ, and telling myself the story from their perspective. I find myself cheering when my Chevaliers avenge a previous defeat, and enraged when those *barbaric* Persians kidnap my poor peasants. It makes the game much more engaging than the purely mechanical application of optimized strats ("okay, I'll beeline for republic while doing a 2-space borg, then IFE some templage"); for me, it makes the game come alive.

Lastly, I don't play on the higher levels, so I have some leeway to experiment and still remain competitive. And on that glorious day when my mighty Aztec slave army pop-rushed and IFE'd (azzies can lumberjack, they're like that ) a spaceship into orbit even as the Chinese, Americans, Romans, and Babs were cheerfully rampaging through my disintegrating empire ... well, I was as surprised as they were!

These little quirks of mine are hardly good training for multi-player, but I do have a great time.

[TacticalGrace]

When playing Russia I try to expand across the world, including all the tundra squares. When it comes to the modern age and I'm on the verge of war I randomly disband elite units and then compensate for my weakened military by building stacks of conscripts. In the early stages of war I'll tend to pillage my own territory and then withdraw.

When I'm playing the English I let everyone invade me for the first few thousand years but then eventually get my act together and build ships. Lots and lots of ships. I "acquire" colonies around the world. Eventually I get sick of the corruption in these colonies when I realise that they cost me more to maintain than they give in taxes. I give them away to other civs and watch on the sideline as they collapse into bloody civil war. I do retain one or two tiny colonies which are near enough to other civs to make them jealous. Preferably they should be on the other side of the planet so that when war inevitably breaks out the world can marvel at how I can win a war with 2 marines, one paratrooper and a few ships when the supply lines are 30 times larger than the enemy's.

When playing America I try not to exist till the 16th Century. I make lots of deals with the Iroquois but then a few turns later break them. Every time there is a world war I say clear of it because of my peaceful nature. I wait a few turns before changing my mind and converting all production to planes, ships and guns. I ensure that wars never take place in my territory. Because of my peaceful nature I never build more than 6 aircraft carriers, 100 modern armour, 50 ICBMS, 100 tactical nukes, 50 interceptors and 20 stealth bombers.

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
When playing America I try not to exist till the 16th Century. I make lots of deals with the Iroquois but then a few turns later break them.
[...]
Because of my peaceful nature I never build more than 6 aircraft carriers, 100 modern armour, 50 ICBMS, 100 tactical nukes, 50 interceptors and 20 stealth bombers.

Seriously, though, I tend to follow meta-strategies like Jubilation's -- not always tethered to history, but based a sense of my civ that emerges in the context of a given game. Over the course of the early ancient era, usually, I will develop a sense of my civ's personality, and tailor my strategy accordingly. Even apply some arbitrary internal rules. (Overseas colonies will be a priority for me on this game. ..... Or, since I've started up here in frozen, godforsaken arctic territory I want to conquer as much of this world's tundra as I can find. ... Or, I will keep half the jungle squares in a particular region for my mystical warrior-priests. ... Or, every city gets a marketplace.) It heightens my sense of a particular world and civ.

[jubilation]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
When playing Russia I try to expand across the world, including all the tundra squares. When it comes to the modern age and I'm on the verge of war I randomly disband elite units and then compensate for my weakened military by building stacks of conscripts. In the early stages of war I'll tend to pillage my own territory and then withdraw.

Y'know, that last might be a good idea; say you're about to lose a city to the heathen (whoevers). If you're ruthless enough, it might make sense to abandon the city and pillage improvements to deny their value to him. If the AI were smart, it would have the first computer civ the player fought do this... the player would end up with lots of undeveloped land which would take precious time to exploit, instead of ready-to-go cities.

When I'm playing the English [...]

When playing America I try not to exist till the 16th Century. [...]

As to America ... wouldn't that be a great AU game? Imagine trying to catch up if you don't build your first town until the other civs are halfway through the medieval stage. Might be a bit of a bother avoiding barbarians & neighbors until that time, but there are ways... Possibly a map with a galley-impassible gap between "the world" and a small American continent, plus no barbarians. You could sit around for a few thousand years, then see how far you could catch up.

Sure, I recognise the (ahem) pointed reminder that you can take the historical accuracy thing too far, but I suggest that the thought experiment is interesting.

[ducki]

Originally posted by jubilation
These little quirks of mine are hardly good training for multi-player, but I do have a great time.

This, I think, is the Golden Rule of gaming.
Do whatever it takes to make the game more fun for yourself - it is a game, right?

If roleplaying does that for you, kudos!
If being the Best of the Best on Deity is your bag, cheers!
If you don't dig the late game (Modern Era), then by all means, quit early, or win early, or lose early, whatever makes The Game into A Game for you.



I love ideas like this, and I really like it when people post histories of their civs in story form instead of as a sort of meta-game play-by-play.

Don't get me wrong - for a budding player like me, the play-by-play really helps me learn, and knowing about things like IFE, ICS, pruning, etc. all help make me a better player - but I just can't seem to get into the Play By the Rules mindset - you know, Warrior-Warrior-Settler x2 on every new city and such.

When my game is reduced to a formula, then it's not a game for me any more. Then again, I'm only playing at regent right now.


All this blathering just to say, if it's fun for you, then that's the point. I may try this out soon, especially if the step above Regent is as hard as I think it is.

[ducki]

doublepost, sorry.

[Inverse Icarus]

ghandi the ai doesn't preach nonviolence in all the instances i've played him, so why should you?

IMHO, it's reversed. your game type determines your civ choice.

[Gen.Dragolen]

What better endevour than to persue total war against an arogant, ignornat, and ungrateful leader who has the foolishness to attack?

My latest challenge has been to learn the strengths and weakeness' of all of the civilizaitons. As a test, I have made it a policy to try and finish another civ in 10 turns, since democracies demand a short sucessful campaign.

The only part of the game that is influenced by the individual civ and their abilities is the early game: the ancient age UU's decide when the GA's occur and how long they are effective. The building patterns are similar for me since I like having all the improvements possible to speed wonder construction (never seem to get enough GL's to help out).

One thing that is lacking is any differentiation between civ's after the ancient age. There should have been at least different unit graphics for units like knights and pikemen. Each civ in history had different strengths and weaknesses for similar units types.

Tactics will always remain the same as will the overall strategy: cut away at the neighbours to make room for your own cities, deny them resources, bleed their gold away with trade and when the time is right, crush their cities with overwhelming numbers of combined arms units.


D.

[jshelr]

Interesting. I suppose that, when you play the Iriquois, you would refuse to use the Mounted Warrior on the grounds that the Iriquois never had horses. American settlers should be their UU and should have guns!!