I encourage you reload a prior save and take the advice of the first person to suggest you "leverage protective" by inviting an attack. Then, when that fails horrendously, blame that person for causing you to lose and vow never to again ignore Civ reality, that is, the lay of the map, the opponents you face, and the course of the game. I suspect that, for an experienced player like yourself, ignoring the obvious and sensible advice your civconscious gives you is causing you emotional distress. Don't worry, you're not alone. I get that feeling while reading advice here but I'm spared from having to implement it.
I'm looking back at the advice people have given regarding a defensive war.
Here's what I wrote:
Seriously, setting up a target city and provoking a war is a viable strategy with Protective. As with so many other strategies, you do it if the map warrants it. It drags a neighboring Civ down in the dumps for a minimal hammer investment compared to the preparation involved in actually building an army capable of conquering them and the economic drags involved there.
Will it be warranted on this map? That's what scouting is for.
Here's what Kazapp wrote:
Meaning that if you include Washington and environs in greater Arabia, you seem to have all the land you need, so you don't need to invade Khmer right away.
That's a perfect opportunity to have a defensive war, where Ugly Evil squanders his economy by uselessly suiciding his armies against your defenses.
Notice how he's advocating wiping out America
first.
That's it. I just read through the entire thread.
If he follows my advice, he won't be in a defensive war because that's not what this map calls for.
If he follows kazapp's advice, he'll need to wipe out Roosevelt first (and probably Zara as well.=).
Traits, uniques, and leverage are not God. No one should worship them. They should not blind one from the world around him. Traits, uniques, and leverage don't get angry when you don't honor them. On the other hand, you can make yourself into a victim if you insist on trying to take advantage of traits, uniques, and leverage that don't actually give you an advantage over alternative choices.
Sisiutil said:
The idea of the All Leaders Challenge is that I'm going to play a game with each of the Civ IV leaders. With the help of all the posters who participate, I will attempt to make the most of the leader's unique characteristics: traits, starting techs, unit, and building.
I have to ask, LordChambers: If you object
on principle to the
entire point of the ALC series, why do you bother posting in the thread?
Camel Archers are godforsaken. Protective is essentially worthless. This is not your fault, nor is it your job to show try and make them look good.
Actually, that's
precisely what the job is, according to the very first post in this thread.
In fact, it may be the job of experienced players to demonstrate how trying to leverage some trait, perhaps a defensive one that only has use while BEING INVADED, is suboptimal and a red herring for actual Civ success.
Yep, Castles and Gunpowder units only have use while being invaded.
So I encourage you to continue with the game, as it will be very instructive on why not to play the leader.
I can empathize with it not being a playstyle that suits Sisiutil. I don't do well on Archipelago maps even if I'm Darius or Roosevelt, simply because watery play doesn't work for me. But that does not mean:
1) That Darius is weak;
2) That Roosevelt is weak; or
3) That watery maps are somehow a substandard way of playing.
, a defensive war against Roosevelt would also be a nice way to farm a Great General or two with the Great Wall. I think they'd be great settled in Gaul/Globe and Etruscan/Heroic like patagonia suggested. Then you could stay in Bureaucracy until Nationalism or Nationalism+Rifling.
