Can you have your own play style...

[Sultan_of_ATL]

and still win at CIV IV. I see so many post that say use this strategy/method to win. Research this first, attack when this happens. It really is kind of disheartening to me. I'm not a master Civ player, but is there really only a few small ways to skin this cat? If so its really going to kill the game for me. I like having my own style at a game. But, if I have to be robot and replicate the exact same methods to win, that's not fun.

 

[Supr49er]

and still win at CIV IV. I see so many post that say use this strategy/method to win. Research this first, attack when this happens. It really is kind of disheartening to me. I'm not a master Civ player, but is there really only a few small ways to skin this cat? If so its really going to kill the game for me. I like having my own style at a game. But, if I have to be robot and replicate the exact same methods to win, that's not fun.

There are certain proven strategies. But, you can (and should) play the way that makes you happy. If you love building wonders, play as an Ind leader and have at it.

I like many different styles - for variety. I like playing different leaders/civs with different victory conditions on/off. Different maps also lead to different strategies.

 

[AfterShafter]

Difficulty level pretty much determines how much you can play around and still have a chance of winning. Playing Isabella as a true one-religion fundamentalist with intent to convert or kill the world on a huge, 18 civ archipelago map may be harder than playing Darius or Willem on Immortal with those same settings, but using any strategy to win. You don't have to play a certain way, and almost any not-completely ******** strategy works, but some simply aren't as effective as others and requires a less taxing atmosphere to work.

Basically, you can play Darius on Immortal and come into the forums and brag about how you're slaughtering everyone... Or play Commie Mao on Emperor and trying to set up a cold war with the free marketeers. Both will be a challenge, both can be done - but I'd suggest choosing whatever setting you think you'd have the most fun doing. Don't think, in the Mao Scenario "well if I was Darius and Immortal rushed this guy, and set up a mass CE, and sided with all the free market guys, I'd be doing WAY better than I am now." Think "Wow, what a great opportunity to wipe out the capitalist dogs once and for all! Come on Comrades, let's kick ass and chew bubble gum - you have nothing to lose but your chains!" Simply tweaking difficulty allows for any neat play-style to work, and there is probably a magic formula to make almost any play style fittingly challenging.

All this talk of Communist supremacy makes me want to play a Mao game and try and start a Cold War scenario - trade Communism around, etc... But I may have to drop down a level or it'll be too brutal

 

[Navarre]

I find Civ very similar to chess in that aspect : when playing for fun, versus casual opponents (ie at "low" difficulty), you can play the way you want and try weird tactics. When playing against more experienced opponents, you have to know what works and what doesn't, and you have to stick to it. That's the same for Civ. In my experience I can do pretty much whatever I can and still win at Prince and below, but I have to stick to the book if I climb up to Monarch and want to win.

So it's up to you to see what you want : have fun, or improve your understanding of the game's mechanics and then have fun. I still haven't decided myself.

 

[Dubai Vol]

I'm no expert, but I have my own style and do fine at Noble and even Prince, doing things others would shudder at. I never use slavery, and never chop a forest in my city radius! I let my production cities have commerce too, and vice versa.

I'm still learning, and just do what I enjoy. I've built cottage economies and specialist economies, won a culture victory, and so on. I think the problem with reading guides is that they all say "here's how it's done" without saying "this is just one way to do it"

I'm thinking of playing always peace no barbs and all victory conditions but time turned off.... (but just thinking, as I'm a warmonger at heart!)

 

[dragodon64]

It's absolutely possible.

I-
-research almost completely off the "standard" path and (almost) never do beelines or use GP to bulb techs
-build few farms and mines, instead opting for windmills, watermills, and later on workshops; cottages in moderation (few if Phi or Ind, lots in Fin)
-don't axe rush anything; most axemen I've ever had is probably 6 for skirmishes
-use musketman and marines (not together!) frequently
-build wonders in my production cities as well as my GP Farm and/or capital
-whip in tremendous moderation- I usually have enough production but lack food (from farms)
-get all the free GP techs
-use my GPs (except engineers and 1st prophet) for Golden Ages
-build most buildings that a city could use before troops (except main industry city)
-never build Great Wall (might try someday) or monuments (unless UB or Cha)
-never do mass chops to get wonders done
-never whip/draft/buy crucial units right after I discover tech
-never use Bureaucracy, Nationhood, Police State, Free Religion
-role play my civilization a little
and I do great on Prince (I've won on Monarch, but I can't be as liberal there). Space Race and Diplomatic are my most common victories, but I've won Domination and Culture before. Most of my near Dominations become Diplomatic before I can finish the deed.

 

[Nares]

and still win at CIV IV.

You sure can.

You may just need to drop down a difficulty level.

 

[thordk]

i don't play in the high difficulties often cause you just need to do some certain things in a very specific way. i'd rather have my monarch or emperor game and play to my likings.

 

[omnimutant]

Actually before I really knew what I was doing I won several victories. It was only when I decided to learn how things work that I started to suck. So yea if you keep to your own play style and it works for you thats whats important.

 

[oranges]

Not only can you develop you own style, but it's probably difficult to play the game well without one. I see strategies/methods people mention as elements in one's playstyle, which you use/don't use to various degrees, depending both on your own style and the circumstances in a particular game. Along the way, you'll come up with elements that are not so common that they've been named (such as cottage economy (CE) or axerush) and explained in detail.

You don't have to read a single strategy article to learn to play well (though it will accelerate the process), and you'll probably arrive at most, if not all, the basic strategies on your own. There is no single strategy necessary to win the game or one that would guarantee a win, but they all achieve certain ends. CIV4 is a wonderfully complex game and lends itself to many creative approaches.

 

[IronCrown]

After moving up to Emperor I felt that I really have to stick to a relatively fixed strategy (in short: early REXing, build GL, then lightbulb to Lib, rush to Rifling, conquer 1-2 neighbors, cruise to victory). If I use this strategy I win almost every Emperor game, if not, I'll be out of the game early. This is even more true for Immortal (which I've beaten only once so far).

On Monarch I can use way more elements of the game: Found an early religion, build more wonders, play peacefully, role-play my civ (ie: don't attack my best friends).

Both ways are fun, in a way. The higher difficulty makes the game less diverse, but beating a difficulty most players (well not in this forum maybe, but the casual players out there) think is outright impossible to beat is quite satisfying And if that play-style becomes too boring, I go down a level and play around with those other, seldom used strategies.

 

[jray]

Sure, you can use whatever style you want, and you can control how hard it is to win too. That's the beauty of this game! For example, I can win regularly on Monarch, but after trying Emperor a few times and begrudging the lack of wiggle room, I decided to go all the way back to Noble and *really* strut my stuff . I give myself a lot of mini challenges like trying to found as many religions as possible in a single city, and I have the freedom to go whale on some annoying AI like Joao if I feel like it. If I find that my tech lead is getting ridiculous, I just shunt half my research into espionage, in which case I can see what all the other Civs are doing and never have my water poisoned again. Win-Win!

 

[julienheadley]

if you have a "play style", then obviously you won't do as well, because you are basing your decisions on something other than winning.

that said, it is ridiculous to assume there is a "formula" that will deliver a win in any situation. this is evidenced by the fact that so few win at deity. expert play at the highest levels requires creative moves that take advantage of all possible conditions. many of these moves are surprising.

 

[Kranden]

The only strategy is MAKE MORE UNITS!

 

[occam]

I find Civ very similar to chess in that aspect

This is a very interesting observation!

At first, I was nodding my head! Noble and below was throwaway blitz, I had to concentrate for prince, any higher and I could profit from reviewing records even from the losses. Sounds just like chess, or bridge, or any great game.

But then I thought, hey, wait, lots of good chess players could preserve their styles at the very highest levels. For example, Karpov, Tal, Petrosian. And that's just from world champions, plenty of other GMs were even more stylistic... ie: Reti, Nimzovitch, Rubenstien. Etc. I don't want to throw chess names out there gratuitously, but hopefully you know what I mean by the difference between Petrosian and Tal?

So a very mixed analogy.

 

[v8_mark]

But then I thought, hey, wait, lots of good chess players could preserve their styles at the very highest levels. For example, Karpov, Tal, Petrosian. And that's just from world champions, plenty of other GMs were even more stylistic... ie: Reti, Nimzovitch, Rubenstien. Etc. I don't want to throw chess names out there gratuitously, but hopefully you know what I mean by the difference between Petrosian and Tal?

Have a look in the Strategy & Tips forum for obsolete's SSE walkthroughs (super-specialist wonderspam economy). Certainly a style that is way off the beaten path, which he makes work on Immortal.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Not only can you develop you own style, but it's probably difficult to play the game well without one.

Indeed. The difference on higher levels is that you can't afford much (if any) waste. So, rather than trying to do a bit of everything, you have to make very deliberate choices, and cut out anything that isn't absolutely essential to your strategy. Continual refinement of a very specific playing style is the most reliable path to victory.

For an example of just how far the drive for efficiency can be pushed, check out this HoF submission from Moonsinger:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=4173

There's no report, btw. Just read the Player Log.

And, no, your eyes are not deceiving you.

It's an extreme case, of course. But, where strategy discussions are concerned, the central aim is always likely to be the pursuit of efficiency. If any of the advice sounds like it'll dent your enjoyment, then just ignore it. If, on the other hand, anything takes your fancy, then you can absorb those ideas into your own preferred style of play. Everybody wins!

 

[AfterShafter]

Indeed. The difference on higher levels is that you can't afford much (if any) waste. So, rather than trying to do a bit of everything, you have to make very deliberate choices, and cut out anything that isn't absolutely essential to your strategy. Continual refinement of a very specific playing style is the most reliable path to victory.

For an example of just how far the drive for efficiency can be pushed, check out this HoF submission from Moonsinger:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?show=playerlog&dsply=0&entryID=4173

There's no report, btw. Just read the Player Log.

And, no, your eyes are not deceiving you.

It's an extreme case, of course. But, where strategy discussions are concerned, the central aim is always likely to be the pursuit of efficiency. If any of the advice sounds like it'll dent your enjoyment, then just ignore it. If, on the other hand, anything takes your fancy, then you can absorb those ideas into your own preferred style of play. Everybody wins!

"Settler was disbanded because of a lack of funds!"

Ouch... But that's what you get for Quecha rushing

 

[Winston Hughes]

"Settler was disbanded because of a lack of funds!"

Ouch... But that's what you get for Quecha rushing

I guess you can afford to lose a settler or two when you've got 60 cities in 500bc.

 

[Iranon]

Some playstyles work on all levels, others become problematic. Higher difficulties aren't simply harder, they play differently.

I had always preferred to get a mixed bag of GPs from spamming wonders in a Bureaucratic capital and settling them... I dislike traditional GP farms unless I'm running an all-out SE.
on Immortal, however, I often find that I have better things to do than building all wonders (and therefore occasionally grow specialists the 'normal' way). Popping for once-off benefits also becomes more attractive if your competitors have useful things for trade or you can leech a bunch of techs via espionage immediately.

Diplomacy and warfare also become a lot different... on high levels I often prefer to stir up wars for their own sake, even without plans for expansion. I'd rather be in a constant state of low-level warfare than giving a psycho whom I can't befriend time to build up monstrous stacks.
Also, Immortal allies or, better, vassals can be sort of nice; there are no sugar daddies on monarch or lower.

Details will be adjusted to circumstances (world, difficulty, leader...), but I have an underlying playstyle that applies to pretty much everything that doesn't have artificial 'roleplaying' limits (production junkie, conquer slowly rather than REX or exterminate, reluctant to give up long-term benefits, malicious diplomacy).