hutdweller
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 14
Here's a general question from a new player to civ 4 (played a moderate amount of civ 3 many yrs ago).
For me, the Space Race victory is the path of least resistance. IIRC, just about every victory I had in Civ 3 was space, and my few games on Civ 4 so far have gone that way too. There's been times where maybe I could've pushed for military victory, but by that point I'm so far ahead in tech that it seems an unnecessary and risky ploy to push it toward domination. I'm not a peacenik - I fight defensive wars, and agressive ones in order to grab new territory. But modest success there usually leads to advantages in economy that obviate the need for global military domination.
Would others agree that space race is sort of the default victory? Or is it just my playing style?
I'm interested in trying diplo & cultural victories. I've read a few articles on those subjects, and they all pretty much say that if you want to have a chance, you have to commit to it very early. Let me know if anyone wants links, but that seems to be the accepted wisdom.
Here's my problem with that. If my goal is to win, and always do what gives me the best chance of winning (which is the goal for most games), committing early to cultural, for example, seems foolish. If I start putting all my resources into culture, I fall behind in military and tech (which weakens military further). Seems all it would take would be one good AI attack to take me out. Of course, you try to use diplo to avoid that, but in the end that seems out of my control. Why roll those dice, if I have the capacity to just stay ahead in tech myself, which gives me much more security?
So are the other victories really viable strategic options for a player just trying to win? Or are they just self-imposed challenges for folks who've gotten bored of winning the "regular" way?
It would make sense to me if the alternate victories would be good options for a player that had fallen behind in overall economy/tech and didn't look likely to catch up. I actually tried diplo in a recent game like that. (Ended up losing, but some of the votes came close. Seemed like my best chance.) But that's where the "you need to start early" advice trips me up. By the time I find out I'm behind, seems it's generally too late to switch over.
Any thoughts or rebuttals welcome. I'm still pretty much a newbie, so if I'm missing something I'd be happy to be set straight.
BTW, playing vanilla so far (am planning to pick up BTS).
For me, the Space Race victory is the path of least resistance. IIRC, just about every victory I had in Civ 3 was space, and my few games on Civ 4 so far have gone that way too. There's been times where maybe I could've pushed for military victory, but by that point I'm so far ahead in tech that it seems an unnecessary and risky ploy to push it toward domination. I'm not a peacenik - I fight defensive wars, and agressive ones in order to grab new territory. But modest success there usually leads to advantages in economy that obviate the need for global military domination.
Would others agree that space race is sort of the default victory? Or is it just my playing style?
I'm interested in trying diplo & cultural victories. I've read a few articles on those subjects, and they all pretty much say that if you want to have a chance, you have to commit to it very early. Let me know if anyone wants links, but that seems to be the accepted wisdom.
Here's my problem with that. If my goal is to win, and always do what gives me the best chance of winning (which is the goal for most games), committing early to cultural, for example, seems foolish. If I start putting all my resources into culture, I fall behind in military and tech (which weakens military further). Seems all it would take would be one good AI attack to take me out. Of course, you try to use diplo to avoid that, but in the end that seems out of my control. Why roll those dice, if I have the capacity to just stay ahead in tech myself, which gives me much more security?
So are the other victories really viable strategic options for a player just trying to win? Or are they just self-imposed challenges for folks who've gotten bored of winning the "regular" way?
It would make sense to me if the alternate victories would be good options for a player that had fallen behind in overall economy/tech and didn't look likely to catch up. I actually tried diplo in a recent game like that. (Ended up losing, but some of the votes came close. Seemed like my best chance.) But that's where the "you need to start early" advice trips me up. By the time I find out I'm behind, seems it's generally too late to switch over.
Any thoughts or rebuttals welcome. I'm still pretty much a newbie, so if I'm missing something I'd be happy to be set straight.
BTW, playing vanilla so far (am planning to pick up BTS).