Which of these victory methods should we consider? I know it's early on, and we'll know when we get later on in the game which are possible. Do we want to play to win? or for fun? Conquest or domination might be the most fun, but Playing our cards right could lead to a culture win. One I think would be very fun to try would be Diplomatic. All we have to do is build up a large amount of population, be able to secure our borders, and the final rounds of diplomacy would be very fun.

Thoughts?

Does Diplomatic even make sense in this game? Am I wrong in thinking that a Diplomatic Victory can only be achieved by most of the other civs voting for us as UN SecGen?

Maybe I should ask if this has happened in previous games like this.

Anyone exept the first ... I find war for the sake of war tedious and non-creative ... however I could learn from the war mongers in the team ;)

Voted for all victories.

We should we aim for any victory possible. Preferably one which doesnt involve warring (much). We should make use of our scientific nature, and aim for a spaceship or UN vic, or even 100k (cheap libs).

I am with CG, but the most likely will be the first one.

We should we aim for any victory possible. Preferably one which doesnt involve warring (much). We should make use of our scientific nature, and aim for a spaceship or UN vic, or even 100k (cheap libs).

I agree entirely. I am not a fan of aggression for aggression's sake. Much better to expand and dominate through Culture Push. Lots of cities; libraries, temples, universities, etc. in every city; dense core of cities around palace and forbidden palace to provide the trade concentration to finance everything.

Sorry, I missed this first time round.

If we consider the traits of our competitors, then a Space Race victory seems the most sensible. If we can get a decent infrastructure built early, we can just sit tight (waging the odd balance of power war) and cruise to Alpha Centauri while they are all working out how to make an Ironclad.

I don't usually go for Space Race victory but have won an easy one on Emperor (my hardest level) with the Greeks, despite being only the second largest civ in the game. In this particular PBEM circumstance it makes good sense to go for Space.

Consider also:

- We are not planning to build temples - there goes the culture victory.

- Are humans ever going to let someone win the UN vote?

- Depending on placement on the map, the others are inherently better suited to a dom/conq victory. But with enough of a tech leads that is also possible for us.

- If we face the Persians or Iroquios early we could be on the end of their dom/conq plans. If we fight fire with fire (attack with attack) we may lose to their early UUs. But if we fortify with our Hoplites and the odd fast unit to clean up, then they would have wasted their chance at winning the game and can cruise through.

Just some rambling for you, but I vote for Space Race, whilst giving a nod to the old Dom/Conq fave.

I voted for Space, Dom/Conq, and 1 city Cultural.

From the CivFanatics War Academy:
By Jesse Fletcher aka "Friedrich Psitalon"

True, long-term Civilization or “Epic” games between multiple players in the single-player style are somewhat more uncommon, but they can still be found within organized online groups. These games generally go from beginning to end using the traditional game victory conditions, but some are more common than others. If two players are not equal in skill, you will usually see a Conquest/Domination victory by the end of the Medieval Era. Space-race victories are the next most frequent means of winning, followed by Cultural (one city over 20000) victories. Diplomatic victories are extremely rare – since voting for someone else usually means losing, most players will not bother trying to build the UN. Score is still a factor if the players effectively “draw” and turns run out, since the highest score will win.

It can be important to remember that wars in multiplayer are very different than in single player for two reasons. The larger of these two reasons is that War Weariness is OFF in Multiplayer for very good, balance-related reasons. This means that wars for most governments are not as damaging to the economy of the civilizations involved as they would be in single player. Secondly, human players are less likely to make peace with you if they have no good reason to do so. Strangely, when humans are winning wars that they get no real reward from stopping, they tend to fight the war to the very end. Do not enter into war in Multiplayer unless you mean to finish it – because if you don’t mean to finish the war, that war may finish YOU!

@general W:
It's to Greece's strengths to play more defensively early. We've got hoplites – we know we can get Swordsmen. It's very likely that most of the other teams went "we'll never beat the Greeks to Philosophy" and aren't even trying.
(Minor off topic: I'm starting to think a more peaceful victory might be our best bet…) so getting to Republic ASAP could be a big advantage.


Are you suggesting a space race? I think we would trounce them all if we we able to get that far in the game. But I don't think the game will go that long.

As for Culture, I've never even tried a 20k victory, so I don't know how that works. But I do think we should build libraries soon, to play to our biggest strength.

I'm shocked that 20K is even possible in multiplayer. It seems to win a 20K game, you have to give up so much growth to load your cultural (and most productive) town with (sometimes not that useful) wonders that you would get slaughtered in the Middle Ages.

Also, is war weariness off in this game? If it is, I can't imagine anyone going for Monarchy.

Good Academy quote there Gen W. :goodjob:

How far a folks anticipating this game going?
When might we expect to be in a position to start the Spaceship parts (date)?

I also think the quote confirms my views about heading to a Republic early by researching Writing. Republic with no WW. Bring it on!

In my experience, War Weariness doesn't seem to affect human v. human wars. But I mostly use republic, and short wars against other players. So it's possible I've just missed it.

I've never tried for a 20K win in a multiplayer game - but mostly because I usually play with humans and at least 5 AIs. On Emp + difficulty, it's a waste of time to try to get early wonders. However, it "MAY" be possible to get a bunch if we really try. I'm not necessarily advocating this – but if we got a second really great settler factory location, and if the other players are neglecting wonders… I'd like to see this option stay on the table as a possible "fall back" victory option. (There are obviously a lot of "ifs" in that statement) A couple SGLs, and the math on cultural wins changes dramatically.

However – I see long wars against other competent human players as being both exhausting and expensive… which is great!! As long as it's our enemies fighting and not us. Space Race win is most appealing for Greece – if we can play nice and remain an ugly enough target that no one really wants to come fight us on our own land.

BUT – if one civ gets control of their whole continent… that may be an unstoppably large advantage… Argg.. this is why I love this game…so many possibilities!

Indeed, but I can't believe you are suggesting we shold try building Wonders. Now this PBEM thing is really stretching my understanding of the game :eek:! (but yeah SGL and bring it on!)

I only voted for Space Race, we need to use our advantages... We are the only scientific team, it is the easiest method.

I did some more digging on this War Weariness issue - as it has potentially very large ramifications when we get to Republic.

I PMed Ginger Ale, and he said this:
I am not sure if WW is on in MP games. But if it is, [we have a rule] to prevent teams in non-WW governments (like Monarchy) to declare war and stay at war without fighting. After a set number of turns, the war happiness for a WW government will run out and WW will kick in. This is how I understand it. Better safe then sorry.

Here's the forum where I read about WW being "off" for Multiplayer games
Read here: (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=38606)

Here's the key excerpt:
have been trying to get war weariness for 50 turns in a pbem game. Democrarcy, I have lost lost lots of units, lost over 50% of my cities, still no WW. Did firaxis disable WW in multiplayer?
I believe the answer is: No WW in pbem games, not even if you declare war as a democracy and lose most of your cities! I don't know about turnless etc.

Also here: (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=61628&page=4&pp=20)
Key excerpt:
As far as I've seen, war wearines does not seem to exist in multi-player games. The reason for this is that in PvP wars both players would have the maximum level of war weariness because they would typically never make peace.

Now – these are just people talking… so I have no idea how reliable it is. I've got another PBEM going with a friend of mine – I just got democracy, so we may be able to test it if he agrees to help me. We don't take more than 1 turn per day – so it may be awhile before I get solid results to report.

Any comments in the meantime?
EDIT: Sorry about that Ginger Ale! Don't know why I assumed the other way!

Btw, I am a he. :)

As long as you do not fight a fake war, the rule won't apply.

All you people suggesting space race need to remember that the game probably wont last that long (4 ancient age UU, 3 of them offencive)

Meleager has a very good point. It's been brought up before, but without much discussion. As to War weariness, it seems as if no team will be able to manipulate it; and that's all that matters. Obviously, if we suspect a team of trying to manipulate, we need only bring it up in the UN, as well as a PM to a game administrator, and we'll see some results (maybe severe). I'm not too worried.

I think that the admins will be going a good job at scrutinizing threads as well as saves ... manipulation will be very difficult to achieve ... especially within a team environment ...

I understand that manipulation is out of the question.

What you seem to be missing, is that IF WW is indeed off – Republic (and democracy) become much more attractive governments. Even without manipulation. I don't want any fake wars! I'm thinking about the real deal!

IF WW is off, long wars become a possibility for us – even while in Republic… which is why I brought this up in this thread… As has been noted – this game seems unlikely to go all the way to a space race. HOWEVER, esp. if WW is off, Republic is still to Greece’s strength, without handicapping our ability to engage in drawn-out wars when/if necessary.

P.S. I have begun testing WW in my PBEM game. It may still take a while for results. Stay tuned.

In a game as small as this, it has to be conquest, no question.

have been trying to get war weariness for 50 turns in a pbem game. Democrarcy, I have lost lost lots of units, lost over 50% of my cities, still no WW. Did firaxis disable WW in multiplayer?
I believe the answer is: No WW in pbem games, not even if you declare war as a democracy and lose most of your cities! I don't know about turnless etc.I have suffered from War Weariness in a PBEM game. It will happen.

Ok - I'd like to use this thread to re-open the question of our path to victory.

It's trite, but true:
If you fail to plan - you plan to fail.

How WILL we win this game? Now that we've met our first enemy, it's time for some serious soul searching. Whatever will we do.

For many intents and purposes, I LEARNED to play Civ from Ision - one of the true great players of Civ.

Here are some key things he had to say about the Greeks...

Commercial and scientific, oh how the money and the techs roll in!
...
For the human Greek player, Greece was a wonderful builder CIV. Their assets include: Cheap Libraries and Universities, tons of cash to hurry and upgrade quickly, better science research, a free tech every age, a strong defensive UU (the Hoplite 1-3-1) that may keep your military expenditures down in the early game, also that UU tends to make aggressive AIs far more leery of an early Ancient age attack. The Greek traits/UU lend themselves to a very efficient game play when ugly situations arise unexpectedly. In the late game the Greek commerce can be a game saver and an AI game breaker. Warmongering with the Greeks can also be very rewarding. The warmongering Greek typically starts very peacefully, amassing gold and preparing his infrastructure in depth, the Greek can launch a massive late middle age Cavalry rush. Correctly played Greece could mass upgrade the very turn of a major military unit improvement, which in turn will lead to the quick demise of any foe! Want to launch a Space Race victory, just try to beat the Greeks to those techs! Want to be the worlds banker, beloved by all, sitting pretty on a UN vote - just try to beat the Greeks! Want to beat the Greeks to a cultural win - even the Babylonians will have their hands full trying.
...
C3C has seen the resurrection of the science trait. The addition of the possibility of a Great Scientific Leaders for the first Civ to discover a tech makes for even stronger Greek play. The greater need to do your own research for techs also enhances Greece as a top choice. Once the 'bugs' are ironed out in the patch, the commercial trait will benefit immensely. The dynamics of the science/commercial combo will be accentuated to an even greater degree than ever before. The toning down of the Industrious trait alone, improves your workers ability in an indirect manner. C3C sees an already strong Greece, become even stronger.

Read the whole thing here: (http://civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/civ_greek.php)

Since we are up against all early UU civs - Ision's recommended "middle-late ages cavalry rush" sounds pretty appealing to me.

Let's really get this hammed out as a team! I'm open to whatever - but I really hope to see us have a clear goal by the time I leave office as president.

Final Note: My PBEM games tend to be peaceful between humans - maybe all my friends are just builders? So let me know if I'm just wildly/stupidly optimistic to think we can hold off war that long.

I think your optimistic. 4 ancient age UUs 3 of them agressive. There will be war in the ancient era. The iqrouis have an even better path to calvary destruction then we do scince they can use their UU upgrade to knights then to calvary. very useful. I think we are better to use our UU offensively. Nothing could kill a stack with a couple of hoplites on top.

I agree that we need to plan, but unfortunately my complete lack of multiplayer experience makes me fairly useless here...

I see a small window of opportunity very early. We can already build an army of warriors and upgrade to swords fairly early while it will take the Iroquois some time to research iron working, settle near iron (if necessary), and hook it up. If they ignore the Bronze Working/Iron Working route, they will not have any unit with a defense of more than 1 for a while. Since they will likely be an early Republic, they will either be short of workers, short of military, or have severe unit upkeep.

Is it practical to try to attack early? I have no idea. We still don't know their location, and it obviously will take time to build a force and move it that far (even though this is a small map, because there are only 4 civs, distances between civs are pretty big). I am sceptical about our chance of pulling it off.

If this window closes, then I think our next good opportunity will be with cavalry. We should be the tech leaders by then and get cavalry first.

I don't know that the Iroquois will be in any hurry to attack us early. Mounties against hoplites is an even battle whereas on the counterattack, swords should be very successful against spears.

The early decision is - do we build warrior/swords, or do we build chariots/horses for eventual upgrade (assuming we have horses)?

I look forward to learning from the multiplayer experts.

I hear what you’re saying about me being optimistic – but it seems like Greece may be in a uniquely good position to triangulate our way into a serious tech advantage... then start the killing.

Our hoplites (with swords for counter-attack) should serve as an excellent deterrent, as well as an effective practical defense if necessary.

We know there’s already animosity with TNT, and so far the KISSers and D’noughters seem pretty friendly.

I know I’m speculating wildly here – but we maybe the first civ to talk to 2 civs – another chance to be the tech broker!

Also – given our quick contact, has anyone considered that even though Rik said there were 2 continents, he never said it was 2 civs per continent? Given our early contact with 2 civs, maybe we’re all on the same landmass – with a virgin “new world” out there waiting to be settled?

Cautionary note for Chamnix: Iroquois don’t need iron – their mounted warriors serve as 2 move swordsmen – for the same cost in shields.

I think that if I were KISS (gallic swordsmen) I'd be very likely to go straight for Iron Working and then make an early swipe to knock back my neighbor. That's what I'm now afraid of here.

As for overall game stategy: I agree that we need one, just so long as we evaluate our progressevery so often, and assess how we're doing. If we are starting to lag behond our goals, we need to remain flexible enough to change course and look for new opportunities.

Am I suggesting a target timeline? I guess I am. Maybe we should set a target year for full Hoplite coverage. Another one might be a target date for completing research of Republic. Found our nth city by year X. And the big Kahuna: When shall we try for a Golden Age?

Once we have some concrete goals, we can reverse engineer the step required to meet those goals.

On big picture pschological :evil: level KISS and D-Nuts are already sitting close, sharing jokes and information ... how else did the KISS meet us ... and their messages reached us on virtually the same pigeon :eek:

We need to tread warily ... and assume that what one hears the other will as well ... they are a two headed beast ...

A two -headed beast is not what I'm afraid of. Together, we will all share the same goals. Maybe we should explore the opportunities of unity!?

We are weak. We won't be for long. We can all profit. TNT is the only other scientific. Ramp up our commerce, and we (allied with KISS and DNUT) can s-m-a-s-h TNT.

I know I'm getting way ahead of myself..

At the same time, though, we can d-i-t-c-h our allies after TNT is g-o-n-e, allowing us a clear field ahead....

Cautionary note for Chamnix: Iroquois don’t need iron – their mounted warriors serve as 2 move swordsmen – for the same cost in shields.

Mounted warriors are 3/1/2 - you are right that they don't need iron, but they do need bronze working for spears or they will not have anything with defense greater than 1.

Grasshopper ... a beast with two heads can easily be confused ... as to TNT smashing :devil: ... yes we can watch it all transpire and take the best of the pickings ...

I think up our economy asap ... we need to be the ones with capital information :evil: