ACR, HTC, DCSS and other Civ1 neoligism

[trada]

Here's a list of Civ1 exclusive jargon that's been used over the years. It's all about summerising different playing styles in just a few cheap letters.

ACR: Ancient Conquest Rush.
The mass building of primitive offensive units in the first stages of the game in order to win through a Conquest Victory as early as possible. Also, this means building many, many cities (city spamming, ISC, call it whatever) so that one can have more centres of production. One can win usually before 0AD and have up to 40 cities by then with 20 or so chariots roaming around pwning up. VERY effective stradegy. Very. A skilled ACRer can beat Emperor 80% of the time. Works on all levels as the dumb AI is never prepared for one.

HTC: High Tech Conquest
The player refrains from starting a mass take over of the world until the modern times of ARMOR where they promptly start a world war. Plsayers often aim for a HTC in order to have some darn fun! Cause huge, terrible HTC wars are one of the highlights of Civ1. Truely. Ask any vet. of this game. Long nights in front of the computer screen lowly, calculating every stab and push, tactical retreat and city capture... Steel against steel. Battleships, Artilliery, Nukes. Trust me.. Ancient battles have nothing on this.

DCSS: Defensive Civilization [aiming for] SpaceShip [victory]
This is what Acadien was talking about in his thread. In fact, that thread joilted me to finally get around to writing this one. This is where you aim to realisticallyish simulator a real empire and it's capabilities. Acedian's idea is somewhat like this, expect perhaps his motovation is more game centred rather then simulation centred. So basically this is the complete opposite of the ACR. A person who employs DCSS knows they could win easlier with a ACR but refuse to. Instead, they build cities to full up their island and refrain from any major conquests overseas. Letting the dumb AI have a chance to win is, IMHO, more fun then any CR (Conquest Rush) being ACR, MACR or HTCR (figure those out ). One must have a tough defence set up be it navy guarding your waters, at the ready ARMOR or a series of forts.. the DCSS is probably five times as challenging and potentially five times as fun as a ACR.

So, feedback guys. What do you think? Are you a ACRer? Ever tried a HTC? What's the most fun style for you? Do you think you could win Emp. with a DCSS? Might be fun to try sometime.

 

[Ifrit9]

Yep, large-scale battles in modern times are the most fun. But the proper situation rarely happens in my games . I never play ACR in its classic style 'cause IMHO it's more of a work than of a game and nobody pays me for my Civ score . But I often use "Chariot conquest" - constantly creating Frigates with Chariots/Cannons and sending them to the nearest enemies (usually all of them would be defeated before Transport is invented). You don't have to build too many cities to use this one, 15-25 is enough.

 

[void]

Great post trada!!

BTW, in the other thread you wrote:

ISC coupled with an AC rush is makes even Emperor easy as.

Hah! My Aussie friend always says things like "busy AS." hahaha awesome, I guess "Kiwi's" say that to.

 

[trada]

Thanks void. I like to type as I speak, speak as I type. I didn't even notice I used that expression. And btw, most likely your Oz mate stole it from *us*

Um.. What else to say, Ifrit9.. I guess your 'Chariot Conquest' fits into the ACR catagory.. just not as intense ACR

 

[Osvaldo Manso]

I agree with void: what an interesting post this is!

I'm definitely a DCSS. Sometimes HTC is lots of fun because you use very different military units (air, naval and ground units) but I don't like to use this strategy for global conquest. I use it mainly for punishing aggressive civilizations.

One thing I have noticed, through all these years of playing, is that later in the game the AI only respects you when you capture at least one of their cities. After losing one city, they normally calm down and offer peace which I usually accept. It is fun to target an important city, preferably with some wonders, for capture.

I never tried ACR. For me, it doesn't make sense. In my opinion, Civilization is much more about playing than just winning. I even continue playing after Space Ship victory. My ultimate goal is to contain the remaining AI to just one city and colonize every continent.

 

[Dack]

Yep, large-scale battles in modern times are the most fun.

This about hits the nail on the head for me. I'm always hoping for a moderate size island with only a few other civilizations on it. Too many others and they don’t get to develop. My first city, I build 3 militia units and spread out and locate any other civilizations on my Island. Then work for mathematics get catapults and hammer them. If all works well shift to democracy and work for modern times (Charles Chaplin 1936) which I define as Advanced Flight. Then I go looking for trouble and hopefully find well develop civilization to do battle with.

Trust me.. Ancient battles have nothing on this. .

Total agreement here the AI might not be very smart but they will fight to the death and if they get mechanized infantry can be a devil to dislodge

After losing one city, they normally calm down and offer peace ...

I stick with democracy and don’t talk with anyone, The occasional slip into anarchy can be troublesome.


trada, I’m glad you defined your acronyms.

 

[Acadien]

Hey Trada,

I always play DCSS. I just don't have the interest in conquering and eliminating other civs. I seem to play Civ as a story-oriented game, with interests focussed on how things will play-out from the beginning to the space race. For me, world conquest equates with abortion of the game's process. Sure I do some conquests, but only necessary ones and then I redivert all resources to building up my civ. This Means that I really never reach incredibly high scores. I even prefer to geographycally mingle my cities with other frendly civs rather than conquer all their cities for myself. This can mean alot of headaches sometimes, but hey, makes for interesting diplomacy challenges.

 

[Osvaldo Manso]

I even prefer to geographycally mingle my cities with other frendly civs rather than conquer all their cities for myself. This can mean alot of headaches sometimes, but hey, makes for interesting diplomacy challenges.

I also like to play this way. It is far more real being in a continent with several other civilizations than having an entire continent for yourself. In real life, I think that only the australians are in such a position. All others need to share the land with neighbours unless they occupy relatively small islands, like Cuba, Japan, Madagascar, UK, etc.

 

[Ifrit9]

I even prefer to geographycally mingle my cities with other frendly civs rather than conquer all their cities for myself. This can mean alot of headaches sometimes, but hey, makes for interesting diplomacy challenges.

Unfortunately there're no friendly civs in CIV 1. They are friendly as far as they are weaker then yours. And it's really hard to constantly maintain military superiority playing DCSS.

 

[Ifrit9]

These definitions can be added to Civ Wiki.