Unpopular Opinion Thread

I often build monuments first--even with writing. The quicker border pops often justify building a monument first.

I'm not sure how unpopular this is, I thought that was standard play.
 
A lot of people say, "Why spend hammers on a monument and library when just a library will do?"
 
I think financial is over rated as an economic trait- yes it is top tier, but its only challenger is not philosophical, but also creative and imperialistic. I believe people often underestimate the cheap libraries of creative, and the power of the no effort border pop. As for imperialistic, settlers are the building block of any economy, and the ability to whip them out at two pop instead of three given the same hammer investment is powerful. The only reason it gets so much love is that it is easy to use.
 
A lot of people say, "Why spend hammers on a monument and library when just a library will do?"

Why spend hammers on a monument and library when just a monument will do?

I know, libraries also boost science. And I do tend to build them. But I often want border expansion before I can build libraries. Sometimes to claim resources, sometimes to cut off my rivals' expansion. The effect of libraries also is limited early game when commerce production is still relatively low.
 
I think financial is over rated as an economic trait- yes it is top tier, but its only challenger is not philosophical, but also creative and imperialistic. I believe people often underestimate the cheap libraries of creative, and the power of the no effort border pop. As for imperialistic, settlers are the building block of any economy, and the ability to whip them out at two pop instead of three given the same hammer investment is powerful. The only reason it gets so much love is that it is easy to use.
Imperialistic + Creative... you're not talking about my favorite leader, are you? :D

Playing as Catherine, I'm willing to send a Settler halfway across the continent, right against the border of a city. Just to block access to a rare resource.

Too bad the Cossacks are so late in appearing, when they finally arrived, usually they're good only for war of attrition...

And don't get me started on the uselessness of Research Institutes :mad:
 
Thanks a very good point. In such a case it offers a lot of choice in how you deal with the AI. That can be great fun.
 
I find the Navy SEAL very useful to build. (This is almost like one of those self-help groups :lol: "High my name is John, and I like the Navy SEAL unique unit. Oh and go time victory.")
 
Quintillus said:
I know, libraries also boost science. And I do tend to build them. But I often want border expansion before I can build libraries. Sometimes to claim resources, sometimes to cut off my rivals' expansion. The effect of libraries also is limited early game when commerce production is still relatively low.

Except that libraries allow you to run Scientists (assuming you don't already have Caste system active--unlikely), which means their effect on the early game is actually enormous.

jackelgull said:
I think financial is over rated as an economic trait- yes it is top tier, but its only challenger is not philosophical, but also creative and imperialistic. I believe people often underestimate the cheap libraries of creative, and the power of the no effort border pop. As for imperialistic, settlers are the building block of any economy, and the ability to whip them out at two pop instead of three given the same hammer investment is powerful. The only reason it gets so much love is that it is easy to use.

Financial might be called the "strongest" economic trait because it gives you benefits from playing "normally." All the other traits require tailoring your playstyle to leverage them effectively (e.g. Philosophical trait is much stronger using a specialist economy, Aggressive is useless if you aren't warmongering, etc.). I like to call Financial the "noob trait" because it is the trait that requires the least knowledge of the game in order to use.

To keep this on topic, I suppose my unpopular opinion is that playing the game on standard settings is boring. I always play Epic game speed, with at least 50% as many AIs as the default for each map size (e.g. 13 rivals on a Large map instead of the default 8), and with Unrestricted Leaders and Choose Religions turned on.
 
I will teach you all my noob ways...

1) I don't use fogbusters unless I explicitly plan to settle the area, because I like barbarian cities. They serve as idiot magnets for AI's to send their armies at, and also prevent the ai's from building too many cities.

2) I usually build stonehenge before I build any settlers, unless i have creative trait.

3) I never build archers unless I have none of horses, copper or iron. I'd rather just build 2 warriors per city until I get real units.

3) I don't tech alphabet since it's no longer a pre-req for great library. Instead I rush construction and try to take all my neighbor's good cities with city raider catapults + random assorted melee units. The AI's will eventually trade alphabet to me, or i can extort it out of them in exchange for peace.

4) I never raze cities. If it's not worth keeping its not worth attacking.

5) I never bulb techs, instead I settle all of my great scientists and great priests into my capitol, with one academy there.

6) I never build macemen, but I do build many giant stacks of knights.

7) If i can't take over the entire world with cannons, I usually ragequit, so despite being comfortable on emperor difficulty and sometimes playing immortal, I have absolutely no idea how to play late game. I have no clue what to tech after steel (liberalism? long gone, and won't save them from my giant mass of cannons & grenadiers, ha!). I don't even know how airplanes work.
 
...
7) If i can't take over the entire world with cannons, I usually ragequit, so despite being comfortable on emperor difficulty and sometimes playing immortal, I have absolutely no idea how to play late game. I have no clue what to tech after steel (liberalism? long gone, and won't save them from my giant mass of cannons & grenadiers, ha!). I don't even know how airplanes work.

I like Your "cannonade" style ! :D :lol: You should try industrial or modern start one of these days :) Cos it's a lot of fun to bomb with airplanes and missilies ;)

"Why generals always need shiny new bombers ? Have the people we've been bombing complaining ?" :D ;)
 
I always strive to build both Stonehenge and the Great Wall. If an AI beats me to the GW I usually quit. Not building the GW is a deal breaker for me. Oh, and I have never played an archipelago map.
 
People rly need to get over thinking SH is good :( I agree with pigswill's deity elitism, after all if you play deity you will know that SH is useless, since you're never able to build it :p (ofc if you play seriously enough to beat deity you would probably realize that it's a waste of hammers even if you could get it 100% of the time)

You're not missing much by skipping archipelago maps. They're the coolest looking maps, but the AI doesn't really know how to play them, and making a map naval focused is weird when navies are awkward and useless to begin with in civ. In fact the last strategy game I remember where navies weren't kinda useless was aoe2, and even that is a questionable example on most maps.
 
People rly need to get over thinking SH is good :( I agree with pigswill's deity elitism, after all if you play deity you will know that SH is useless, since you're never able to build it :p (ofc if you play seriously enough to beat deity you would probably realize that it's a waste of hammers even if you could get it 100% of the time)

This is unpopular opinion thread not ultra win on deity strategy thread :D ;)

You're not missing much by skipping archipelago maps. They're the coolest looking maps, but the AI doesn't really know how to play them, and making a map naval focused is weird when navies are awkward and useless to begin with in civ. In fact the last strategy game I remember where navies weren't kinda useless was aoe2, and even that is a questionable example on most maps.

I disagree ;) I used to think that navies were useless but I was wrong. I would say that in modern era they are essential to win any wars. Basically with tactical nukes, subs and transports with marines You can beat half of the world within a couple of turns (if not a single turn xD) :)

Furthermore going with the unpopular opinion thread flow I would say that Navy SEALs are really amazing unit ! And the Missile Cruiser "King of the Seas" - the strongest possible unit in Civ 4 - is totally worth it !!!! :) And I don't care most of the elitist deity playin' "score-board worshippers" finish their game in their stone age !! haha :D I'm a modern era fanboy (except modern ear music - the only thing I don't like about it) and proud !! :D
 
I agree with pigswill's deity elitism, after all if you play deity you will know that SH is useless, since you're never able to build it :p

hahaha yeah, I don't really play diety. Last time i did, they built stonehenge in 2720 BC. :eek: I disagree that its a waste of hammers though.. maybe it is on diety since you need so many early archers just to protect from barbs... but on emperor/immortal you don't need as many units to defend so you should have plenty of hammers to spare while your capital is growing.

It's easy to get on immortal though if you know what you're doing. But i usually stick to emperor unless i'm playing one of the OP civs like persia, rome, inca, etc.
 
Lol, no, not yet, and always Ancient. I'll never play any advanced start ever, lol, not even scenarios.
 
Top Bottom