choraltrickster
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 84
tl;dr
I'm a wide-player, pretty warmonger-y, but into commerce and CS politics and prefer Diplomatic Victory over other VCs. I just played Assyria and loved them. Who should I play next (first time on Immortal). Tips appreciated. Thanks!!
My play style: wide, rapid expansion, achieve Diplomatic Victory through warmongering and CS love. I generally strangle my first opponent with cities and maintain good relations for as long as I can or until it makes sense to remove them. Of my next encounters, I choose one target and try and befriend the others. Eventually I'll have taken my continent and the continent of two other Civs and go into the end game carefully targeting capitals and manipulating my remaining opponents into warring with each other while I buy up CS council votes and dominate the council. As they all move to eventually hating me and only taking terrible lux deals in response to my aggression, I buy off their CSs and attack one civ at a time. Other traits? I'll try to never occupy a CS unless it can provide a very strategic beachhead for conflict on a new continent. I try and liberate CS's whenever the opportunity arises. I take every happiness policy bonus and build every happiness building pretty much as quickly as possible. I am usually right around 0 happiness, slipping below during wartime. I try to never raze cities and never use nukes. While I warmonger a bit, I also try to be loyal to my allies and try to get the AI to make the DoWs (with some encouragement!) I could never play tall and go all science. Once I gain the upper hand, I want to strike! (That said, I still go rationalism)
My most recent game: Emperor, standard, standard. Finished with 4026pts, DV on turn 441. My city progression went something like: expand to 6 via Liberty, take 6-7 more from my first two victims, and in then be more discerning about annex/puppeting with priority on capitals and wonder cities, ending with 18. This game confirmed that Assyria, is the civ for me (to date). I often lag behind in science with my playstyle, but Treasures of Nineveh and Royal Libraries allowed me to keep pace, not to mention contributing to my army. Going Liberty instead of Tradition was mind-blowing. I loved how quickly I could get to six cities and still manage to build some wonders along the way. Then concurrent Commerce/Rationalism/Ideology.
The civs I've played successfully in order of enjoyment: Assyria, Poland, China, Shoshone, Austria, Aztec. Austria's UA appeals to my expansionism and I had one of my best games with them, but it wasn't really enjoyable. Poland is Poland. I loved China for the gold bonus and the double-strike of the UA along with the general bonus. Shoshone were great for getting a hot start; they're probably a good one for my play style. Aztecs are too war focused. I do wage war quite a bit, but it isn't ruthless and unbridled; I really like diplomacy, CS influence, political intrigue, espionage. Like I said, so far Assyria has seemed to suit my play the best, but I'm looking to graduate to Immortal as well as try an unplayed civ. Who do you think would be best for me? I think Rome and Japan might be the best fit, but I'm not excited by civs with two UUs. I'd love to hear your suggestions on which others civs might suit me. Also, any strategy suggestions for my style of play would be appreciated. Thanks everyone!
(an aside, but there were so many threads here that helped me with my last game; the building wide thread, the Shoshone deity game thread, the best/worst wonders, gifting cities--instead of razing them--to puppeteer inter-opponent tensions. I've learned so much this week! Thanks again!)
I'm a wide-player, pretty warmonger-y, but into commerce and CS politics and prefer Diplomatic Victory over other VCs. I just played Assyria and loved them. Who should I play next (first time on Immortal). Tips appreciated. Thanks!!
My play style: wide, rapid expansion, achieve Diplomatic Victory through warmongering and CS love. I generally strangle my first opponent with cities and maintain good relations for as long as I can or until it makes sense to remove them. Of my next encounters, I choose one target and try and befriend the others. Eventually I'll have taken my continent and the continent of two other Civs and go into the end game carefully targeting capitals and manipulating my remaining opponents into warring with each other while I buy up CS council votes and dominate the council. As they all move to eventually hating me and only taking terrible lux deals in response to my aggression, I buy off their CSs and attack one civ at a time. Other traits? I'll try to never occupy a CS unless it can provide a very strategic beachhead for conflict on a new continent. I try and liberate CS's whenever the opportunity arises. I take every happiness policy bonus and build every happiness building pretty much as quickly as possible. I am usually right around 0 happiness, slipping below during wartime. I try to never raze cities and never use nukes. While I warmonger a bit, I also try to be loyal to my allies and try to get the AI to make the DoWs (with some encouragement!) I could never play tall and go all science. Once I gain the upper hand, I want to strike! (That said, I still go rationalism)
My most recent game: Emperor, standard, standard. Finished with 4026pts, DV on turn 441. My city progression went something like: expand to 6 via Liberty, take 6-7 more from my first two victims, and in then be more discerning about annex/puppeting with priority on capitals and wonder cities, ending with 18. This game confirmed that Assyria, is the civ for me (to date). I often lag behind in science with my playstyle, but Treasures of Nineveh and Royal Libraries allowed me to keep pace, not to mention contributing to my army. Going Liberty instead of Tradition was mind-blowing. I loved how quickly I could get to six cities and still manage to build some wonders along the way. Then concurrent Commerce/Rationalism/Ideology.
The civs I've played successfully in order of enjoyment: Assyria, Poland, China, Shoshone, Austria, Aztec. Austria's UA appeals to my expansionism and I had one of my best games with them, but it wasn't really enjoyable. Poland is Poland. I loved China for the gold bonus and the double-strike of the UA along with the general bonus. Shoshone were great for getting a hot start; they're probably a good one for my play style. Aztecs are too war focused. I do wage war quite a bit, but it isn't ruthless and unbridled; I really like diplomacy, CS influence, political intrigue, espionage. Like I said, so far Assyria has seemed to suit my play the best, but I'm looking to graduate to Immortal as well as try an unplayed civ. Who do you think would be best for me? I think Rome and Japan might be the best fit, but I'm not excited by civs with two UUs. I'd love to hear your suggestions on which others civs might suit me. Also, any strategy suggestions for my style of play would be appreciated. Thanks everyone!
(an aside, but there were so many threads here that helped me with my last game; the building wide thread, the Shoshone deity game thread, the best/worst wonders, gifting cities--instead of razing them--to puppeteer inter-opponent tensions. I've learned so much this week! Thanks again!)
In general if you truly intend to conquer the world autocracy is the superior choice. Order can work, but is more geared toward developing the large empire, whereas autocracy is geared for taking cities while staying happy and stealing opponent's tech fast to keep up.
Deity AI produce loads of unit spam so with full-honor you can sometimes stay afloat just by skirmishing and killing units and pillaging. I've seen a lot of players use this to stay afloat even while in debt. I think yung.carl.jung and a few other players here are really good at this, I have less practice with conquest on Deity so I can only give you theoretical pointers. 
