I'm playing a game with a new strategy from this board. Its going well and it looks like my days of playing at Prince might be numbered (but I may be being lucky :mischief:).

In the past I have nearly always used random leader starts because one of the things I have always liked about civ was it being a game of discovery (since Civ1/2)

But I am wondering how long that will last under the "new Civ4 regime" - at higher levels some strategies seem to need specific leader traits and the fun of adapting what you have seems to push too hard against having the right tools to do the job well.

So I would like to ask people at what game level random leaders effectively become a waste of time, if ever, as if I stuck to this to my limit I would only win games as I randomly drew leaders that happened to have traits that matched my skills, which would not be a good use of my time at the speed I play (3-16 hrs per game Normal/Standard).

I can win pretty consistently with any leader at emperor, but I believe I recall Snaaty saying that you can do it with pretty much anyone at immortal. I'm not sure about deity, because that level gives the AI quite the boost with that extra settler...

If you want traits that match your skills, and you want to play random, you'd best make one of your skills adaptation, because most of the traits are pretty strong. Some do require a bit of adjustment however, or at least understanding of the game mechanics.

As you said yourself - random start is a game of discovery and it's interesting because you have to adjust your strategy to who you draw.

If you move up a level you could try a few games with leaders of your choice to get yourself used to the setting. But you shouldn't give up random leaders, if you think it is fun to play.

You can skip leaders you know how to win with (HC, romans, maybe ramses).

Persia is at least as overpowered as Ramses, if not more so. They're on par with rome/inca although IMO the Incans are in their own class. Rome is nothing special in isolation or with game situations without accessible iron (though the UB is always nice). HC on the other hand, has a UB that is ALWAYS useful, a UU that is ALWAYS useful to at least a degree (in isolation this unit is the cheapest barb defense in the game, dominating warriors and archers while fogbusting the entire continent for very little hammers invested), and the ability to build wonders or REX/cottage depending on land, space available, and game situation.

Although if you're playing random for change ups why not take the good with the bad :p.

I can win pretty consistently with any leader at emperor,

Can you win at that level because you have practised a lot of strategies with different leaders (and therefore have a good choccy box to select from), or because your play style simply got sharper and more focused on what worked as you moved up the curve.

The former would suggest I should take some time out of random leaders to try specific new strats (although I'd still be using random maps:crazyeye:), the latter suggests I should just keep my head against the millstone and sharpen up..

You can skip leaders you know how to win with (HC, romans, maybe ramses).

Certainly useful for time management, although using familiar leaders on a new difficulty might be a way of acclimatising oneself.

For me it was sharpened play - I learned the mechanics pretty quickly so jumping up a level has always had "tightened" play as a pre-req. For consistent emperor wins it was expanding enough (war or otherwise) without tanking research, and the beginnings of proper tech brokering/trading skills (although the latter becomes much more important on immortal, you can still get away with a lot at emperor).

When/when not to whip for efficiency, and especially running scientists as a means to keep research afloat while the slider is low from expansion were important lessons, as was city specialization (and in particular setting up early production cities for war when needed).

Everyone is different though, in both learning style and where they're strong/weak in gameplay. For example, I intentionally avoided the typical beginner tendency toward making wonders/buildings more than units because I read that higher up it doesn't work anymore. Similar thing with going for early religion (although I've found room for religion in my games, and have a series dedicated to the AP :lol:).

Anyway most of the time you don't want to play for the leader or his traits, you want to play the map. Most economic traits provide you benefit if you played just the way you'd have played if you didn't have them. Philosophical will enhance the GP farm, EVERYONE makes workers/granaries so expansive is nice there, etc. The exception is military traits - to make true use of them you'll have to fight (although I love warring). Aggressive gets cheap barracks but that doesn't do much if you don't use those to promote your already stronger units! Even so, attack when it's best, not just because you have free promotions. ANY leader can war in this game, after all.

Traits DO open up some interesting approaches or special tactics (amphibious gunpowder units after 2 promos for aggressive, very specific bulbing of key techs for philosophical, etc.), but you're best off learning to play without going for such things at first...because once your base gameplay is solidified, not only will you see the potential for these tactics but you'll find their execution isn't that hard.

What is needed to win is not "The Ultimate Very Best Uber-Strategy" (even if one exist - wher's the fun replaying it over and over again ?). You want a general awareness of the game situation and the strength and weeknesses of your Civ, Leader and Position in the game. And i think playing random leaders is the best way to get there (and the most fun).

Dave said once ( and in this I agree with with him ) that if you know how to win without relying in any particular trait/UU/UB, any of theose will be a nice extra tool ( and in reverse ( my addition ) that if you rely too much on one trait/UU/UB, you'll :cry: like a baby when you don't use it :p ). Random leaders give you more experience in that, so I don't recommend you to stop with it ( in spite of the time consuming nature of the thing... I'm pretty sure that I could be solid in Immortal now if I'd focused more in one leader... but I would be seriously lacking about the others, for a example )

But in the end you need to play the map far more than the traits or the UU/UB... Preats and quechuas lose much of their shine if you don't have a rushable enemy, Ind can near useless if you don't have good land to support wonder builds, ..... Playing lots of maps with lots of leaders ( and sticking with them until the bitter end... some situations are more easily turnable than they look and you'll not know that if you simply reroll at the sight of a Shaka SoD or if you don't have anyone where to try the new and shiny preats :p ) will give you far more insight of how to play and will make you a better player.

What is needed to win is not "The Ultimate Very Best Uber-Strategy"

Thats not my intention - I just lurve making choccy boxes and then picking strats from the according to circumstances....

For me it was sharpened play

.. however looks like its going to be head->millstone->zzzzzt !

When/when not to whip for efficiency,

Bum ! of all the things I hate doing/can't do whipping is it, too much micro - I tend to prefer the civic that improves workers just to get the cheaper maintenance and avoid whipping:)

Everyone is different though

Yes, but the game is the same and as you reach higher levels I suspect more ways of playing fall to the wayside until only a few (or one) remain viable. Although there are lots of ways to set the game up which might change things, I'll always want to max randomisation at heart.

you want to play the map.

Agreed, I found this out completely when I played Egyptian, intending to conquer (early UU) and got sod-all horses !

ANY leader can war in this game, after all.

You mean EVERY leader has to war - peace doesn't get a chance whenever I've tried it.

Traits DO open up some interesting approaches or special tactics (amphibious gunpowder units after 2 promos for aggressive, very specific bulbing of key techs for philosophical, etc.), but you're best off learning to play without going for such things at first...because once your base gameplay is solidified, not only will you see the potential for these tactics but you'll find their execution isn't that hard.

Head->millstone->zzzzzzt !

One could forgoe the quaint bragging rights of playing a random leader and focus on becoming a master player of specific Civ/leader. One could then take this expertise up successive levels and reach a level of artistry over hollow random follow the leader debauchery. :scan:

One could forgoe the quaint bragging rights of playing a random leader and focus on becoming a master player of specific Civ/leader. One could then take this expertise up successive levels and reach a level of artistry over hollow random follow the leader debauchery. :scan:


Verily yes truly :king:. However one is a simple minded Civ2 player whose philosophical foundations derive from aesthetically beating the blasted machine over the head on the highest setting one can achieve, within the realms of sporting fairness, and with all the bragging rights to which one is thus entitled.

Tally ho !

It's at least possible to win with any leader on immortal fairly consistently. Starting position and the map are often more important. Sure a strat like Snaaty's is a bit easier with financial/organized but it works fine without any of those traits and it just doesn't work or is very risky if you're boxed in or have Monty/Shaka near, in this case imo an early rush is a better proposition .

As some of the best players on this forum are now playing a deity SG with Toku i assume they think that any leader goes on deity too. On deity you can just have bad luck with any leader, being rushed before you have control of the diplo situation.

Difficulty level is not as important as "fun" level. When it becomes too much like work (micromanaging, using a calculator and/or dpread sheets to derive an extra 3.5 beakers, etc etc etc) it is time to either back up a level or get a life.

Marathon/Monarch player.

Generally here is my take

MY RPC games are strictly at Monarch because at this difficulty I can play any leader with any start and generally win the game. THe RPC rules add challenges that level off the difficulty and generally make the game FUN, as Civcorpse says.

When I play an off-line random leader at monarch difficulty I often restart now, especially if I get someone like Zara, HC, or Hammarabi.

When I play emperor I use random leader and will play it out until I am killed or win (at emperor it's usually killed).

To me the FUN of the game is getting a random leader at emperoro level and knowing I have to be at the top of my game to win, and properly exploit the leaders traits.

One way I fully learned this game was a self-limited challenge. I made a decision to win a game with every leader, alternating traits and civlilization, starting with the Americans/British/Frensh/Russians. Example, Washington (Char/Exp) would be followed by Victoria (Fin/IMP) to avoid two games in a row with the same traits. ONce victory was obtained the leader was retired. By the end I felt comfortable playing ANY situation or leader. I also set the map on shuffle so I get random archeopolego/continent/pange maps. Interesting combo like an isolated Khan taught me how to play those games, or Gandhi on a Pangea map with agressive AIs (talk about luck) taught me diplomacy (The Indians are deceptively good war-mongers.

The bottom line is to have FUN while trying to up your difficulty level.

Difficulty level is not as important as "fun" level. When it becomes too much like work (micromanaging, using a calculator and/or dpread sheets to derive an extra 3.5 beakers, etc etc etc) it is time to either back up a level or get a life.Immortal and deity level are not about extracting an extra 3.5 beakers or extreme MM. More about making a good plan and timing it well i think always taking account of what the AIs are doing (on deity you do need a little luck as well). Indeed the number of strats working on these levels narrow down somewhat as compared to lower levels, on the other hand if every strat works because there is not much competition from the AI the game resembles Sim city too much where you're just fiddling around on your own. Never liked that game too much for this reason.

No calculators or spreadsheets here... To win on immortal plan to be at war the whole game.

Difficulty level is not as important as "fun" level. When it becomes too much like work (micromanaging, using a calculator and/or dpread sheets to derive an extra 3.5 beakers, etc etc etc) it is time to either back up a level or get a life.

Well, fun is necessary and I don't like doing mental arithmetic, if that limits my progress, then so be it. But the important thing for me is the game must be able to win - playing Civ in a sandbox style may work for some, but it doesn't work for me.

MY RPC games are strictly at Monarch because at this difficulty I can play any leader with any start and generally win the game. THe RPC rules add challenges that level off the difficulty and generally make the game FUN

What is this RPC of which you speak ?
In the acronym guide RCP - Ring City Placement ??

To me the FUN of the game is getting a random leader at emperoro level and knowing I have to be at the top of my game to win, and properly exploit the leaders traits.

For me its part tech-wargame challenge, but also part adventure, hence my liking for black random starts. The problem can be when you are lucky or unlucky and have that affect your winning or not, but the adventure demands some of that.

One way I fully learned this game was a self-limited challenge. I made a decision to win a game with every leader, alternating traits and civlilization, starting with the Americans/British/Frensh/Russians. Example, Washington (Char/Exp) would be followed by Victoria (Fin/IMP) to avoid two games in a row with the same traits. ONce victory was obtained the leader was retired. By the end I felt comfortable playing ANY situation or leader

Once again - oh bugger ! - I've just taken 11 hrs to complete a game and if I have to study each leader in depth to get good at this then I may as well just fit a fridge to my computer and never leave my desk :confused:

I thought it might come to this which is why I decided to ask around ;)

Many thanks for the tips guys, I feel very enlightened, if a little depressed...

i'd say with a handle of Negator UK- take England and refine them to the empire they once were and build frigates and spitfires but beware Washinton.

What is this RPC of which you speak ?
In the acronym guide RCP - Ring City Placement ??


d...

RPC = Role Play Challenge which are a series of games where the player typically self-imposes game restrictions based on historical or AI personality.

I generally post ALOT of RPC games (I did not originate the idea) and a summary thread of the games are in my signature. They ar emeant to be somewhat educational (as far as CIV gameplay) but mostly for fun.

I used to be into the RPCs... I should get back into them now I found my copy of BTS again, I recall the Celtic game I was running was getting relatively interesting before I dropped off the map.

You can read the "mental arithmetic" on the forums, or basically their conclusions. You can come approximate strong micro pretty closely without thinking once you do. There's some things that just won't do you wrong generally...2 pop whips to avoid working unimproved tiles, settling cities with food resources early on, specializing cities based on tiles, etc etc. To an extent even diplomacy is this way - if you're a warmonger you want to isolate your target from bringing in help ideally.

You can't just use a cookie cutter strategy in this game, but the more things you learn how to deal with the more you can concentrate on the variance presented in the actual game.

You can't just use a cookie cutter strategy in this game

In the singular I'd agree, but make it plural (strategies)and it becomes more interesting. And to my view SE/CE/Hybrid are all choccy box strategies. They still need to be selected and applied correctly, which is where player skill comes in.

2 pop whips to avoid working unimproved tiles, settling cities with food resources early on

Look like more nice usable choccies to me :D

In fact I would interpret the phrase "cookie cutter" to imply a single strategy applied to different situations, either because its a comprehensive strategy or because you only have a hammer and all you can see is nails. But its an American expression, so I might be wrong.

My term "chocolate box" is more to imply multiple options that can be selected from to apply to a situation, although there's no inherent safeguard against always picking the hammer ;)

I'm playing a game with a new strategy from this board. Its going well and it looks like my days of playing at Prince might be numbered (but I may be being lucky :mischief:).

In the past I have nearly always used random leader starts because one of the things I have always liked about civ was it being a game of discovery (since Civ1/2)

But I am wondering how long that will last under the "new Civ4 regime" - at higher levels some strategies seem to need specific leader traits and the fun of adapting what you have seems to push too hard against having the right tools to do the job well.

So I would like to ask people at what game level random leaders effectively become a waste of time, if ever, as if I stuck to this to my limit I would only win games as I randomly drew leaders that happened to have traits that matched my skills, which would not be a good use of my time at the speed I play (3-16 hrs per game Normal/Standard).

I think the map layout is far more important than the leader you start with. Personally, I would consider a weak leader who has a good patch of land and agreeable neighbours (who hate one another) to be an excellent start, relative to the level. Whereas, being cut off on a snaky tundra peninsular, with Toku as your only neighbour, and no strategic resources, could prove to be disastrous for even the strongest leaders, barring Quechua rushes.

Sadly, there is no way of toggling the quality of your start. :(

In the singular I'd agree, but make it plural (strategies)and it becomes more interesting. And to my view SE/CE/Hybrid are all choccy box strategies. They still need to be selected and applied correctly, which is where player skill comes in.



Look like more nice usable choccies to me :D

In fact I would interpret the phrase "cookie cutter" to imply a single strategy applied to different situations, either because its a comprehensive strategy or because you only have a hammer and all you can see is nails. But its an American expression, so I might be wrong.

My term "chocolate box" is more to imply multiple options that can be selected from to apply to a situation, although there's no inherent safeguard against always picking the hammer ;)

It's a good point and it kind of highlights how I play/why my games seem relatively fast. I wasn't trying to make the phrases "cookie cutter" and "chocolate box" the same thing because they aren't (and from my understanding of the terms you pointed out the distinctions as I see it) - my advice was to players who might have read what I said and thought they could repeatedly do the same thing every game.

As you say though, if you have enough different "cookie cutters" or whatever that you can appropriately react to most or all situations, then you're good to go with using them...and you'll no longer need complex math or heavy micro to do well.

By the way, what constitutes *difficult* micro in this game? You can usually tell within 1-3 turns when a city's tiles need to be looked at from the main screen...even without mods. It's not hard to queue buildings or run specialists/work ideal tiles, and in the early game when these things matter most you'll have 4-8 cities. If you can tell whether they need to be adjusted without going into their screens, then you'll have to open up maybe 1 city screen every 3 turns on average. For me it's less actually...I think? Anyway between that and worker moves what "micro" is left? Unit movement? That's usually a 5 second endeavor when not at war. I'd say it takes maybe 10-15 seconds at war when not attacking (just marching)...and maybe a minute to take a city?

My guess is that most micro that actually consumes time comes from carefully analyzing the city screen and swapping tiles so that builds are optimized - something I admit I only do with my first 2-3 cities and only very early on (IMO it's important for something like an axe rush on immortal, an extra unit makes a difference), but after that I couldn't begin to imagine being able to stand doing something like that. Changing specialists or occasionally reworking tile assignments to avoid anger though? Easy.

The city governor can be pretty helpful once you learn the AI tendencies associated with "emphasize X". I use emphasize hammers and emphasize commerce a lot, and after a lot of checks to make sure it does what I want I realized that it usually does exactly what I want, and after 1 AD it's always either exactly or good enough :lol:.

When I have large #'s of cities and particularly after my core cities are improved, I actually still automate workers :blush::rolleyes:. Usually I consider the game won or myself in a strong position when I do this. I'll note that I was impressed with the workers improving cities based on their governor emphasis - particularly emphasize hammers or food. In future games I'm considering automating workers on a captured continent, unclicking "automated workers leave old improvements", and then trying to specialize the cities entirely via governor and automation. I bet it's sub ideal, but I bet it's a lot better than I'm willing to do when I have 2 continents full of cities and a tech lead...

@ the OP
First, what the hell are "choccy boxes?" After reading TMIT's post I am thinking you are saying chocolate boxes, as in a repertoire of strats with which you have knowledge so that you can pick and choose based on game circumstances? Am I close?

As for random leader, I am a firm believer and I almost always play this way. Moving up in difficulty is all about being able to adapt to different circumstances, not in having rigid strats that you have decided upon before even seeing the start. When I began to grasp this I permanently moved to immortal (though admittedly I only win about 50% on random leader). Not to mention, randomization is a fun way to see more of the game.

With regard to MM, I admit I do tend to meddle with my cities a lot and keep control of workers for almost the whole game. I count hammers a bit to make set up 2 pop whips a lot, especially if rushing. For me, its kinda part of the fun to relax and think about what to do next. I don't get through near as many games as TMIT but if you want to speed things up his tips for specializing without too much MM are good.

First, what the hell are "choccy boxes?" After reading TMIT's post I am thinking you are saying chocolate boxes, as in a repertoire of strats with which you have knowledge so that you can pick and choose based on game circumstances? Am I close?

You are dead on ;)

As for random leader, I am a firm believer and I almost always play this way

Me too, but there are a lot of posts and strategy articles out there that have as their first tip to select the right leader, something that doesn't compute with the random leader style. I also know this idea is part a selling point as far as the manufacturers themselves are concerned.

I started this thread because I wasn't sure if my sticking to random leaders was somehow acting like an obsessive trait and holding me back - my games take 10+ hours if there is a lot of war in them and I don't have the time to learn the game at that playing rate if I am making an fundamental error like that.

However it looks like at least you and TMIT don't think picking leaders is necessary, although madscientist did seem to go down this route. At this time I'll assume there is no reason for me to suppose I am banging my head against an immovable brick wall so I'll stick with it a while :wallbash:

The city governor can be pretty helpful ..

I've been discovering the governer myself today - if I set him to emphasise food then manually construct food and production around the city he grows the pop on the food and then works the production when there's no more developed food to be had - I guess there are a zillion tricks like this out there just waiting to be stumbled over...

I don't get through near as many games as TMIT but if you want to speed things up his tips for specializing without too much MM are good.

They certainly are - there are a lot of good tips in this thread - I'm glad I started it :D