Making good decisions

[futurehermit]

I decided to try something strange last night. I decided to pick a leader I normally would never pick. I picked Mao. I view exp/pro as a poor trait combo. His UB doesn't do much for me as I don't normally go for a cultural victory. His UU is good, but I rarely attack much in the medieval era, preferring to leverage my ancient era war of expansion into being first to the renaissance to attack with more powerful units. I don't like the slog-fests that maces vs. longbows can be. Cavalry vs. longbows is much preferable

Anyways, I told myself that I would just focus on making good decisions instead of trying to play a certain way.

So, I got a coastal start with limited coastal tiles. Normally I might reload for an inland start, but I was just focusing on making good decisions, so I kept it. I had gold/marble/clam/cow in my bfc, so that was good. I teched fishing/masonry/ah to improve my resources while growing to size 4 (too low food to quickly grow to size 5).

Turns out I had Asoka reasonably close by. It went Asoka's capital-Asoka's city-my city-my capital. My city had horses and Asoka didn't have metal/horses. So, I chariot rushed taking Asoka out and razing a distant 3rd city Asoka had. I also built the cheapened oracle and took CoL.

I also had Suleiman and Ramesses on my continent, but they are far away from me, so I've made nice with them. I currently figure I can build peacefully to at least 15 cities now, which is the magic number I like to have by 1000-1500AD.

At this point I figure I can expand and try and use expansive and HR to grow huge cities with protective longbows then rifles for defense. If I manage to expand to Ramesses or Suleiman's borders by the medeival era I may consider attacking to leverage the UU. Otherwise I may decide to go for a cultural victory to leverage the UB--I already have 3 good cities picked out (My capital, my 2nd city, Asoka's capital).

The game definitely seems winnable at this point, despite what I would consider to be a subpar leader who I would rarely pick. Frankly, I don't see that the traits or UU/UB have or will help me that much this game, but I may make some use of them.

Anyways, I just wanted to share this story about making good decisions to put yourself in a position to win independent of starting traits UU/UB. It may seem obvious, but I often start my games with traits, UU/UB, and a starting strategy in mind, which often ends up not fitting the map very well. As a result I will restart until I get a map I like. Instead, I've now been thinking about just trying to make good decisions and adapt as much as possible, exploring parts of the game and leaders I normally would not. That may mean I end up going for more cultural victories or other strange things, but I see it as expanding my game.

One thing I'd like to do more often is taking the low road through guilds to banking/economics. I routinely go the high road through liberalism, but I think that the low road has a lot to offer as well. I just find I have a hard time teching the fairly expensive and difficult to lightbulb low-road techs.

Thoughts?

 

[endymion]

I always play like this trying to make good decisions and planning the game as it goes it most of the time end in either space or domination. i always take the lib path and dont know what u exactly mean by low road tech.

I personally play at monacchy at the moment just switched from prince up and have won my first game already a space race my second game is heading towards domination (i did a lot of warring already) what difficult level do u play?

 

[J4Ck]

i never reload if i got poor starting position. i try to improve my game. it makes it more interesting. and if at some point i figure i didn't play or AI just attacks me with lots of army ill load previously saved game or restart from the beginning and try to chose different tactics. That's why i like TBS games

 

[Phatkarp]

This is how I tend to play. The "pros" are that it's always a challenge and its always interesting. The "cons" are that it is easy to lose focus and fail to concentrate on a sharp and coherent strategy.

I try to enter a game with a rough strategy based on the civ I picked. As the saying goes, "no plan survives first contact with the enemy." I too often find myself compromising my plan to adapt to the situation, to the extent I "wake up" in the late middle ages wondering what the hell is going on, and how the hell am I going to win?

 

[Halt]

Funny you should post this!

I just did the same thing with Charlemagne. Decided to give him a try since he seems to be one of the weaker leaders.

However by focusing on his UB/UU and his mythos I got an Diplomatic win in 1525AD. Of course having three Vassal's helped.

His UU combined with a Protective Crossbows really shine.

One of the good decisions I made was to allow my biggest threats to get Horses (normally I would fight to block other civi's from having them) which turned out to be quite a wise decision. When the game ended I have Six great generals and three units 80+ in EXP including a supermedic/3xwoodsman unit.

Another good decision (another big change in my playstyle) was to be very diplomatic, which translated to my friend Gandhi asking me to Vassal him.

Finally I also built Castles (had Stone) and avoided Lib/Eco/SI tech keeping the Monastary/Castle bonuses until the last few turns of the game which had me generating huge 700+ EP points and 10% at the end of the game.

Your point is a great one. If you make good long term decisions you can be surprised by the results!

 

[madscientist]

A few comments

1) You are absolutely correct about making SMART moves. That is the key with any leader. Smart moves, playing the map for what it is, and leveraging your traits.
2) MAO. I like him, gives you alot of choices in game styles. The UB is great for cultural pressure as well as culture wins. The UU is a great defensive or offensive weapon and is further boosted by the protective trait. Expansive allows fast graneries/harbors as well as fast workers and the extra 2 health helps alot during industrialization. All arround I find him pretty balanced.
3) Speaking of smart decision and working the map, I started a thread on th worse starting leader. Well I randomly got Charlemange and worked the map I got, ended up with a massive domination win before I got assembly line.

It's all about how well you play the game. The traits/UU/UB are simply tools to try and leverage an advantage from your leader.

 

[CivMcNut]

For me the things that really get me thinking is not so much what Civics to change to but when, and which techs to trade an oppenent and for what and when. Those things seem to make or break a lot of the game for me, making the SMART move there can really do something.

I've never played Mao before. He does seem to have traits that you have to be pretty creative in order to leverage. I would love to try the UU out, I tend to war the most during the middle ages. It maybe tough to take the offensive but it's easy to defend.

Sounds like you had a pretty good starting spot, probably some big potential for your capital there.

 

[alex sword]

If I do not try Immportal challenge (which for now is quite a challenge for me), I always play random leaders.

If you want really unpredictable start, play random leaders. Also I recommend Fractal maps and never regenerate start (even "BTS forest starts" could be played). Having no "secret" knowledge what the world is, you will have to tune your research strategy and your diplomacy strategy during the game.

Perhaps, you will earn less scores than if with regeneration and world customization, but I guarantee, you will have more fun.

 

[johnny_rico]

Smart decisions are always a good thing. How profound.

FH,

I see your point though about a long term plan before starting a game vs. just playing the map for what it is. My games are about 50/50 that way where I will regenerate a map if it doesn't cater a bit to what I'm looking to do and other times just pick a leader (or random leader) and go.

 

[Artichoker]

I'll tell you about a smart decision I made in my current game. I felt very lucky to research Code of Laws first, so I founded Confucianism as a result.

After building to 4 cities, I had about 3 cities with my new religion, and then I decided to conquer Mehmed. Both Mehmed and I were sandwiched between Isabella and Wang Kon, on a Pangaea map.

Mehmed's capital was close to Isabella, and thus had Buddhism, whose Holy City was in Isabella's empire. During the war, Isabella came forward to ask me to change my state religion to Buddhism. At the time, I did not yet have a state religion, but I was planning to use Confucianism as a state religion.

I decided to switch to Buddhism, with the idea that since Wang Kon and Isabella were Buddhist, my diplomatic relations would be improved greatly as a result. This would benefit me in the long run, despite the holy city being in my neighbor's city.

After Mehmed was wiped out, I was blocked in by friendly empires (Isabella and Wang Kon) and made the most of my limited land, expanding to 11 cities eventually, while trying to make use of the space on my borders.

After several centuries of building under Organized Religion, I developed Friendly status with Isabella and achieved a tech lead, thanks to my slight advantage in land and population.

Wang Kon was also Friendly, but it was obvious from his diplomatic actions that he wanted to twist my arm as much as possible, using the diplomatic relation as leverage.

Once I got Chemistry and Steel, I quickly massed a strike force of cannons and grenadiers, and declared war on Wang Kon, easily taking his 2 biggest cities, which were both on the "top 5 cities" list.

Very soon, Isabella, despite being the same religion as Wang Kon and having a -2 relation due to "you declared war on my friend", offered to become my vassal! At that time I had a new enemy, Mansa, who was tied in tech with me.

So in that short span of time, Isabella's diplomatic relation toward Wang Kon went from Pleased to Annoyed, and I had solid control over her power through the vassal status, despite the -2 relations.

The war is not over yet, as Wang Kon still has about 4 or 5 cities, but it's certainly looking a lot better than the turn before the war.

 

[futurehermit]

Smart decisions are always a good thing. How profound.

I was just speaking to the impulse I have to dictate what I want to do based on the leader before I see the map and how instead making "the best decision possible, given what your situation is in combination with your traits/techs" is the best way to go instead of trying to force something on a map that isn't suited to it. This is common knowledge to a certain extent, but also easy to forget imo.

 

[johnny_rico]

I was just speaking to the impulse I have to dictate what I want to do based on the leader before I see the map and how instead making "the best decision possible, given what your situation is in combination with your traits/techs" is the best way to go instead of trying to force something on a map that isn't suited to it. This is common knowledge to a certain extent, but also easy to forget imo.

Oh, the irony. I actually wrote that in all sincerity, with no intention to ridicule or mock you at all. I just didn't know what to follow up with and thus, how profound. In the rest of my previous post, I agreed with you completely on forcing a strategy vs. playing the map.

 

[futurehermit]

Yeah, I know, I was just reiterating

 

[absimiliard]

I tend to play random leaders on random maps. This leads to a lot of games that focus on smart local decisions.

The downside to it is that you often don't achieve any of the runaway benefits that a focussed strategy can offer. (such as Oracle > MC > forged GE > Machinery with Mao allowing you BC-era protective Cho Ku Nus, followed by an assault on your neighbor of course.)

So in an odd way I'm trying to do the opposite of you. Learn to choose a strategy early based on my limited knowledge at the time and then trying to focus enough to achieve it.

I will grant that good local decisions is probably a stronger play-style. I just think the superior player should master both good decision-making AND the various tricks and strategies that exist. (which is what I'm often playing with these days)

-abs

 

[alex sword]

Good point, Absimiliard, I agree. Back to student years I used to play a lot in chess and I remember very well that true chessmaster remembers all the possible beginnings, but in the same time he always make "smart decisions" each turn according to the opponent's made moves. Civilization in some sense is very similar to chess with a random factor provided (map generation). However, Firaxis did their job not perfectly because good chess programs are able to challenge Kasparov without bonuses and cheating .