Can you see any connection between your personality and style of play?

[Megalou]

Can you see any correlation between your personality and style of play? Explain...!

I'm starting this thread because I'm curious as to how personality reflects game choices and progress.

As an example, I like things to be tough but I also want to minimize risks rather than go for the maximum gain. And I want to avoid nasty surprises. That's probably why I build lots of culture, why I don't play real-time strategy (including chess) and why I always check "Always wait at end of turn".

Do you agree that a game is at its best when you spot your real strengths and weaknesses?

 

[gozpel]

Absolutely yes.

I build lots of stuff to make me feel safe and I can never "exploit" the AI fully. I feel exploits are wrong and miss out on highscores because of that.

Defense is a good mecanism and "culture" is good as well. I guess I'm a typical "builder" and use my resources to my advantage.

GOTM makes me try to be a warmonger, I'm not too successful doing that kind of stuff though. It is not me.

I suppose I could be explained as a typical typical builder/researcher, but with threaths coming from left and right I have to retain "face" and am not really weak. But not a warmonger in any sense, just strong offensive defense with a few skills.

Yep, sounds pretty close

 

[Email10]

Yes, I'm so impatient irl. I hate waiting and I hate doing things that I don't maybe get immediate benefit from. This is also reflected in my gaming style. I don't finish my game so often. I like to start new games, play until things get a bit slower and then when I come to a step where I get too many cities to have full control of everyone I either stop playing or continue, but with maybe just 50% dedication, i.e. not playing an optimal game. This is also refleted on my Firaxis scores ofc.

 

[dojoboy]

Yeah, I do. For example, in GOTM27 I was asked why I didn't attack Spain in the late game. My reason was because they didn't have anything I desperately needed. I got what was needed through trade. I believe this style does prevent me from winning consistently on higher levels, such as emperor.

 

[Tech Step]

Yep.

I don't take crap fom no-one

If the AI attaks me I take it personally and don't stop until they are dead and buried.

 

[Grotius]

Good thread. In my case, the answer is definitely yes: my gameplay style reflects the strengths and weaknesses in my personality. Like the original poster, I'm a planner and risk-minimizer in RL, and in Civ I always end each turn manually, build lots of culture to prevent flips, garrison perhaps unnecessarily, and expand cautiously. In Civ, as in RL, I tend to shy away from confrontation too much.

Don't get me wrong, I love wargaming; I've played wargames all my life. It's just that Civ seems to bring out the consensus-building personality that I bring to the table in RL. That serves me reasonably well in RL, but it's not always a plus in Civ.

 

[Justus II]

I would say it is generally true for me also, at least in some respects. But other aspects are different.

Unfortunately, my financial management skills from RL carried over into Civ, at least initially. Until the last few months, I rarely kept more than 100g in the treasury, finding something to rush every turn, and it is equally rare that I have over $100 in the bank, as either my wife or I will find something to rush-buy! I have at least stopped gpt deals in RL (Credit Cards) and in Civ I have gotten much better at building my treasury, maybe that will carry over to RL and I can actually stick to a savings plan!

I am certainly more aggressive in Civ than RL, as frustrated as I get when neighbor kids traipse across the yard without an ROP, I have yet to Raze their house! I am actually a pretty peaceful person, in spite of my military career, whereas in Civ I have the habit of taking out early neighbors, because as I explained to my 10-year old son "They are on MY continent".

 

[IbnSina]

I was just thinking about this the other day. I don't usually submit gotm games
because I don't have that killer personality, required to get to the domination
limit quickly and receive a high score. I actually feel badly sometimes if the
course of the game forces me to attack an AI that has been nice to me all game.
On the other hand, if an AI stabs me in the back, I take it personally. Weird...

 

[jeffd210]

I find it interesting how my personality surfaces during the game. I love to take care of "my" people, and I take strong offense to sneak attacks by the AI. So I built up good culture to make my people happy, and I put a lot of investment in defence to keep my cities safe. I also value education, I don't want my people at a disadvantage of being relatively uneducated on the world scheme, so I spent a lot of effort on research.

I also happen to be quite competitive, and when I saw the GOTM results that trounced my own, I decided to get a bit more aggressive. There were lots of ways to optimize general skills, but my main weakness was being too passive.

I noticed that the successful GOTM players are very aggressive in expanding early on, before I thought it possible. In fact, they tend to leave defences a bit light, stressing a strong offense. For defense they use trading to keep AI happy. So I tried that and I was surprised at how well it worked. My people are happy, the friendly AI is happy right up until I back stab them, and I win the game by a larger margin at an earlier date.

So how does such a victory make me feel after spending 30+ hours on the game? I like that I do better against others in the GOTM rankings than before, but I don't like my methods. I get all countries to love me, and then I destroy one at a time. So playing recent games has been somewhat a compromise that leaves me feeling somehow off balance, lessening my overall enjoyment of the game.

Then I read about the ultimate victory: a complete cultural, no city attack victory. I forgot who posted it, but it was quite impressive. Simply using culture and selected skirmishes (to take out wandering armies, not to attack cities), someone won in a big way! That strategy appeals to me on all fronts, I will try it in a non-competitive game (i.e. not a GOTM) next time around to see if I can pull it off.

The game definitely has a lot of options for you to explore what feels right to you.

I just had a thought. Perhaps I should try a shared game, teaming up with some players with different, so that together we can build an empire that shines above all others. My ruthless partner can slaughter the neighbors for his brief reign, and then I could bring culture and peace during mine. That sounds pretty interesting.

 

[Drazek]

First, I was a builder. I built _every_ enhancement I could.

But when I learned this site, I was going for the score.
As I participated the GOTM, I first tried to play my game, build every
improvement, build my civilization peacefully. That was a disaster.
I was behind everyone in Firaxis score. I didn't submit. And when Jason
score was introduced, I didn't submit either. I was so low crap...

Then I decided try to go for conquest/domination. Wow, it was an enlightement. I changed my playing style. I was going for early conquest/domination. No extra improvements, I sometimes invest in Libraries, but mostly, no improvements at all. Just go for domination with upgraded horsemen.

Nowadays, I don't care if one opponent chooses to go after me and sneak attacks. I just think, heh, well, that was the move I was going to do, I'll just KILL you earlier than I thought.

So if you want a summary, I was a builder, I would build everything, but this GotM game changed my mind, I'm going to kill everyone as soon as possible!

 

[thasan]

absolutely YES!!!
i play safe and dont take risk. and like many other players, i dont attack until i have loads of units (30/40 attack units in the middle ages atleast). its a good reflection of personality

 

[captain chaos]

Yes for sure.

I like to explore every tile on the map even though there is no sensable reason to do so.

 

[Singularity]

I play civilization allmost like chess. I've played strategy games for so long that I only see the victory as a goal instead of the emotional and personal feedback I get from the game. So my personality doesn't reflect through my games at all... Perhaps a bit of my cynisism?

 

[Megalou]

If you think about it, chess is also vicious, all about "killing a king". It is odd that some people have affections for the faces in the F4 ring, while others treat them like most people treat chess men. The fear of getting my trousers pulled down by the AI is probably the reason why I, also, play carefully. The fear of losing is probably just like in real life, but like in RL, it goes away with experience.

 

[killerloop]

I answered no, as I struggled with the ambiguity of the question:
peronality linked with progress AND style of play.

What is meant by style of play? aggresive, diplomatic? I don't consider myself aggressive, but sometimes that's the style I play. Still I thinks personality & progress link up very much.

 

[jm chen]

Yes, because I have five or six personalities and each of them has its own preferred style of play!

 

[Garvarg]

Normally yes. I'm usually too conservative. Try to build a nice city with lots of amenities. I replayed GOTM 28 with a much more aggresive style and kicked some serious AI butt. Almost doubled my score.
I have decided to start this game of the month differently. I'll play nice and expand until there is now free land, watch a Leaf game, get pissed off and go back and let my frustrations out on the AI.

 

[Megalou]

Originally posted by killerloop
I answered no, as I struggled with the ambiguity of the question:
peronality linked with progress AND style of play.

What is meant by style of play? aggresive, diplomatic? I don't consider myself aggressive, but sometimes that's the style I play. Still I thinks personality & progress link up very much.

Sure, it's ambiguos and it wouldn't be possible to draw conclusions from the poll statistics. I suppose a clear-cut "yes" would be right only if you play in a certain way (and have a certain degree of success) because you can't help how you play. Some people have explained how their style of play is at odds with their wishes, feelings, interests, etc. (They can help it.) I find this very interesting. It indicates that the game, however good, could be improved much further in an emotional aspect. Either that, or you might say that some of us might love another game even more.

Like many others, I have more and more learned to set aside my emotions and more and more adopt any style of play. As for progress, I think I am a decent player but I will never be among the best, the most obvious reason being that I have so many different interests that I will never be a top dog in any of them. I do all kinds of different sports, for example. In my work I teach the very diversified subject of home language.

I recently watched a TV show here in Sweden and was struck by how seriously many other teachers take their careers and by the specific importance they attach to their teaching. I just do my thing, too busy to attach anything to it.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Yes, I put up a good front of being a really nice non violent kid, but deep down I am very destructive. Similar to how I make the AI think I am peaceful, until they see an armor tank division coming at them.