Civilization Evolution

[Sashie VII]

Spoiler :

Nothing here

How has you as an individual changed since you first started playing? Has the changes over the year(s) also influenced or changed your playing style?

I was an optimistic teen with an innocent perspective towards the world. 6 years later, I'm still an optimist, though now with a healthy dose of realism in my expectations. Civ has been with me through the last two years of secondary school, then a year of pre-U and university.

I guess the influence was that I went from strict OCP to accepting CxxxC now. As I matured and learned to be focused on my goals in RL, I started doing the same in civ and progressed to Emperor, now dipping my feet on DG and Deity occasionally.

How about you?

 

[Turner]

Well, for a while there I was just learning and having fun playing. Then I got serious about it, and started trying to get as high as I could. I could win at Emperor, but I didn't enjoy it.

Then I took a long break, and coming back I'm playing Regent, but it's more fun. I'd rather not play the higher levels and have to have a formula to win. I'd rather just play and have fun then have a cookbook approach to winning.

 

[Sashie VII]

Then I took a long break, and coming back I'm playing Regent, but it's more fun. I'd rather not play the higher levels and have to have a formula to win. I'd rather just play and have fun then have a cookbook approach to winning.

I can relate. There was a time when I was so determined to beat Deity. Now I'm content with the level I'm comfortable with, and look for the enjoyment.

Perhaps it's another sign of growth and maturity - searching for contentment instead of achievement.

 

[Rodent]

I thought for a Second you were Referring to the game (Civilization Revolution)

Well, I like playing at a level which gives me headaches but which I can win when I put my mind to it. (Emperor)

Civ has made me a better Manager of Time and Space.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I'm slowly growing as a player, but in the last 2 years I went from owning Warlord to I can handle Emperor now by myself and can do higher as a team player. I'm not sure I'll play much past Emperor because of the level of discipline and the work involved. I'll play as long as its fun, and it still is after 6 years.

 

[Furiey]

I started playing Civ believing I was a builder. It didn't take me long to find out that behind that builder veneer there was a warmonger just waiting to get out...

 

[ecuwins]

It depends on whether I want to drink beer or not while playing. Drinking adds a full difficulty level as you forget to do things(like connect that lux resource) that you would normally do.

 

[Civinator]

Drinking adds a full difficulty level

 

[CarthageFTW]

I'm with you.

Anyways tho, i don't think Civ has changed me as a person lol, I'm not that much of a geek. But as a civ player I used to enjoy playing cheiftan, wiping the floor with the computer and laughing my butt off. Bad boy me . Now, I'm a Monarch player (which is like Deity to me, so i guess I'm more of a Regent player, but that's besides the point.) I like puting myself is difficult situations now instead of easy games. hence why I hate hate hate hate (I can't express this enough) conquest games. The fun of the game to me is outsmarting your oppenents with diplomacy, espionage, war, and occasionaly takeovers for military or diplomatic reasons. If i own a giant contenient and my 4 opponents share the other, I give them half of my empire just to up the ante. I love that because you're at a disadvantage and pure miltaryistic power is boring and sissy. So I guess I'm one of those players that likes being the underdog and trying to beat everyone else and supirse them when I do have to show how powerful I am. (I guess this explains why I enjoy mage & warlock classes in games. WoW exception, I'm a hunter)

 

[Sashie VII]

So I guess I'm one of those players that likes being the underdog

Try Deity, you'll always be the underdog whatever you do.


OP is about whether your RL changes and evolution as a person has influenced your playing style..say you become more aggressive in RL, did you consequently become more aggressive in Civ as well?

 

[ecuwins]

OP is about whether your RL changes and evolution as a person has influenced your playing style..say you become more aggressive in RL, did you consequently become more aggressive in Civ as well?

Not so much for me, Sashie. I like to mix it up. I would get bored building all the time or warring all the time. Most times I like to let the map dictate my game. If I realize I'm on an island alone, then I will go builder style. If I come across an AI city very close by, then I start preparing for war. This way you get a pretty good mix of games and victory conditions.

 

[Spoonwood]

Try Deity, you'll always be the underdog whatever you do.

*scratches head* no, not necessarily.

Since I started playing civ 1? Well when I started playing civ 1, I used something like OCP placement which I did most of the time for civ II also. Although, eventually on civ II I switched to smallpox city spacing. On civ III I started out at something like OCP and now use more like a CxxxC with heavy considerations with respect to terrain. I started as a builder and I still play as a builder.

 

[D.N. Pacem]

It depends on whether I want to drink beer or not while playing. Drinking adds a full difficulty level as you forget to do things(like connect that lux resource) that you would normally do.

For over 20 years I've had a few beers every night while watching TV before going to bed. I continued this practice when I started playing Civ III. As I moved up in levels, I found that my drinking adversely affected my game play, so I stopped. I'll still drink a few at a party, but my daily drinking habit is over, thanks to Civ III. Who needs AA?

The game is certainly sharpening my thinking skills, especially in regard to planning ahead and multi-tasking.

My real-life sensibilities haven't changed since I started playing, but they have caused my Civ strategies to evolve. (Check link in sig for details.)

 

[Sharwood]

Well, for a while there I was just learning and having fun playing. Then I got serious about it, and started trying to get as high as I could. I could win at Emperor, but I didn't enjoy it.

Then I took a long break, and coming back I'm playing Regent, but it's more fun. I'd rather not play the higher levels and have to have a formula to win. I'd rather just play and have fun then have a cookbook approach to winning.

Same.

As far as in RL, that highly overrated game we are all forced to play... I'm far more cynical than I used to be, and also more careful, pragmatic, and Machiavellian. That has affected my playing style, for the better mostly, although I could stand to be a little less agressive, just to try different things.

 

[Exwing17]

I just learn things each game...different tactics, different styles.

I play Monarch at the moment, but will be venturing forward into Emperor this weekend! I made this decision after always being able to beat the computer at Monarch, in any wars, because they don't have tactics. And I want better diplomacy...so we'll see!

 

[Sashie VII]

I just learn things each game...different tactics, different styles.

Did that influence yourself in RL?

 

[Exwing17]

Hmm...i'd say its mixed ways! If i really start to like a period of time in Civ, then I tend to read a lot more about it IRL! Now, as you probably know, I love Infantry in Civ and it was spurned my the book that i'm reading 1914 1918: A History of the First World War. I was amazed at how Civ changes the way wars get fought through the eras.

(You can always do the normal run around and smash things etc but the most effective ways of war change depending on the units & the age.

e.g. Ancient Age really favours the slightest bit of organisation, but it is literally a biggest stick theory. Combined with killing of innocent people (workers and ravaging the landscape).

Middle Ages I find to be the most leader dependant, knights & cavalry really are amazing, and often the best tactics involve fast moving troops that have the ability to meet enemy forces and fight battles not based on cities. The cities fall usually when there are fewer troops to defend the areas around them.

Industrial Ages are split. The invention of Infantry (and i presume trench warfare by the 6/10 stats), really puts them emphasis on slow but steady wars of attrition. The computer will tend to send troops against your large stacks without artillery bombardment, which you could do also, but infantry is and was 10000x more effective by intensive artillery bombardment. Cavalry effectively become quite isolated and useless. Until tanks allow a lot stronger offensive power with bombers acting as their arty!

Its so interesting and really clever how the scripting works that into the gameplay!