Does anyone play CiV realistically?

[I3 I1 T E 3]

I play to win. Of course I do - at the end of the game, I want to see the victory screen and my graphs to brake the ceiling. Losing is not fun and therefore it is not my goal, when I start a new game of CiV. So, am I one of these guys, that play *only* to win?

I don't know.

I like to role-play in CiV, too. I don't always choose the optimal SoPos, if they do not seem appropriate for the civ I play. (So: not the freedom/piety combo all the time).
I try to use different strategic approaches with every civ, based on their character (UA, UU) and not necessarily my well known "winning strategy" over and over again. But then, this might be the best way to victory, anyway.
I try to play with all available civs and not only with the one, I think is strongest.

So, what sort of player am I? Do I stand the test of time or am I just eager to win?
The only thing I know: I play CiV to have fun. And I do!

What sort of player you are?

You are exactly the same kind of player like me

 

[Drakarska]

How do you think empires stand the test of time? For example, where is the mighty, but gunpowder-less, Aztec empire these days?

At least in Civ5 you can fight a decent defensive war with a smaller military or one that is missing certain resources. In Civ4 you were a sitting duck until Gunpowder if you didn't have any metal.

Um, since when? Archers were great in any type of decent defensive terrain, and they upgraded to LB's.. XB's only needed machinery. Horses were good for hit and run tactics.
Granted, metal made things a lot easier, but early to middle ages you could defend yourself if you bee-lined the appropriate tech once you realized you didn't have access to any metal.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

Ususal base defense in previous Civ were a melee unit, anti cavalry unit and an archer, more so on higher dificulties, I don't remember any defensive unit requiring resources, he might be suggesting the city defense stand alone ability existing now.

 

[Drakarska]

Ususal base defense in previous Civ were a melee unit, anti cavalry unit and an archer, more so on higher dificulties, I don't remember any defensive unit requiring resources, he might be suggesting the city defense stand alone ability existing now.

Possibly. I was interpreting his Civ IV comment as that you needed metal or you were screwed until gun powder.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

That's how I read it too, Civ 3 was like that with the muskets, screwed till you can get riflemen. Your screwed in 4 if you want to go on the offensive much like 5. The only other idea was he doesn't know how to play 4 but I give people the benifit of the doubt and its been awhile since I've played 4.

 

[binhthuy71]

How do you think empires stand the test of time? For example, where is the mighty, but gunpowder-less, Aztec empire these days?

At least in Civ5 you can fight a decent defensive war with a smaller military or one that is missing certain resources. In Civ4 you were a sitting duck until Gunpowder if you didn't have any metal.

Wrong historical example. The Aztec empire was a tribute empire. Understandably, none of people under its domination were happy it. The Spanish allied themselves with the Confederacy of Tlaxcala. The Spanish and some of their Tlaxcala allies were allowed into Tenochtitlan as guests. Together they subsequently carried out a massacre in the Main Temple and the murder of Moctezuma before fleeing into the night on July 1, 1520. They returned to lay siege to Tenochtitlan in the spring of 1521. The city was eventually stormed and sacked. Historical accounts put the number of Spanish at 400 and the number of their allies at 150,000.

Efficient gunpowder weapons took decades to develop. During that time, good men with bows could hold their own against good men with gunpowder.

 

[The QC]

binhthuy71, you're right about the history, but I think his larger point still stands. In order for an empire to "stand the test of time", it always has needed (in history and in the Civ games) to "stand the test of killing off an invading army".

 

[binhthuy71]

binhthuy71, you're right about the history, but I think his larger point still stands. In order for an empire to "stand the test of time", it always has needed (in history and in the Civ games) to "stand the test of killing off an invading army".

Agreed. The Swiss were able to adopt to adopt neutrality because historically they routinely kicked the butts of any invaders.

 

[gps]

Agreed. The Swiss were able to adopt to adopt neutrality because historically they routinely kicked the butts of any invaders.

Well, it's called Zurich, is actually a city state and in no need to stand the test of time because all the big nations will hate you if you attack them.

 

[Jayman1000]

binhthuy71, you're right about the history, but I think his larger point still stands. In order for an empire to "stand the test of time", it always has needed (in history and in the Civ games) to "stand the test of killing off an invading army".

And in CiV it's just so easy to kill of the invading armies because the AI is SO EXTREMELY stupid. I dont know why anyone can find it interesting for more than 10-15 hours... its just the same again and again. Braindead AI marches its armies in front of your ranged units. Braindead AI gets slaughtered by your ranged units. Rinse and repeat a gazillion times. Win.

 

[smallfish]

And in CiV it's just so easy to kill of the invading armies because the AI is SO EXTREMELY stupid. I dont know why anyone can find it interesting for more than 10-15 hours... its just the same again and again. Braindead AI marches its armies in front of your ranged units. Braindead AI gets slaughtered by your ranged units. Rinse and repeat a gazillion times. Win.

Braindead AI comes back with Mech Inf and Bomber Stacks to your riflemen and artillery.

 

[Calouste]

Um, since when? Archers were great in any type of decent defensive terrain, and they upgraded to LB's.. XB's only needed machinery. Horses were good for hit and run tactics.
Granted, metal made things a lot easier, but early to middle ages you could defend yourself if you bee-lined the appropriate tech once you realized you didn't have access to any metal.

Terrain doesn't matter much in Civ4. You can just walk the SoD past whatever is put on a hill because there is no Zone of Control. Unless it is a mountain pass, but they were pretty rare.

Archers were pretty useless because their base strength was so low compared to swordsman and axeman, which means that all the bonusses had a lot less effect. A swordsman with one city attack promotion (and the build in 10% city attack) would be attacking a city at a strength of 7.8. An archer would need +160% in bonusses to get to the same strength. And of course by the time Longbows come around, the attacker will have Catapults and/or Trebuchets with their collatoral damage. And even if you had some decent defensive units, you still needed a number of units fairly close the number of attacking units (unless you had something like a Drill IV, City Defense III Longbow) to survive. In Civ5 you can fend of an attack of 4 or 5 units with one garrisoned archer and a wall.

 

[Calouste]

Wrong historical example. The Aztec empire was a tribute empire. Understandably, none of people under its domination were happy it. The Spanish allied themselves with the Confederacy of Tlaxcala. The Spanish and some of their Tlaxcala allies were allowed into Tenochtitlan as guests. Together they subsequently carried out a massacre in the Main Temple and the murder of Moctezuma before fleeing into the night on July 1, 1520. They returned to lay siege to Tenochtitlan in the spring of 1521. The city was eventually stormed and sacked. Historical accounts put the number of Spanish at 400 and the number of their allies at 150,000.

Efficient gunpowder weapons took decades to develop. During that time, good men with bows could hold their own against good men with gunpowder.

And that matters how? Any way you look at it the Aztecs didn't have the defense that stood the test of time.

Maya, Inca, Iroquois, Rome, Carthage, Songhai, Byzantium, Babylon and the Huns are also no longer with us.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

Terrain doesn't matter much in Civ4. You can just walk the SoD past whatever is put on a hill because there is no Zone of Control. Unless it is a mountain pass, but they were pretty rare.

Archers were pretty useless because their base strength was so low compared to swordsman and axeman, which means that all the bonusses had a lot less effect. A swordsman with one city attack promotion (and the build in 10% city attack) would be attacking a city at a strength of 7.8. An archer would need +160% in bonusses to get to the same strength. And of course by the time Longbows come around, the attacker will have Catapults and/or Trebuchets with their collatoral damage. And even if you had some decent defensive units, you still needed a number of units fairly close the number of attacking units (unless you had something like a Drill IV, City Defense III Longbow) to survive. In Civ5 you can fend of an attack of 4 or 5 units with one garrisoned archer and a wall.

Archers are not designed for attacking but for either defence (fortified) in cities as well as a defensive support for attacking units (during a siege, put them on foritfy just in case it takes more than one turn to take the city over). A swordsman attacking a town defended by archer would hurt the swordsman (depending on difficulty more defending units the better), likewise it would be a mistake to defend your town with a swordsman as they are built to be offensive units.

I use a mod for Civ 4 to bring back the bombard ability giving archers and artillery a bit more kick as opposed to the suicidal attack abilities they pretty much became in civ IV

 

[Sleepless CiVr]

I try to, but in the end, it's almost impossible:

As America, I try to play global policeman and liberate any cities or respawn countries from oblivion.
England, France, Japan: Naval based
Alex: Obviously grab all the CS I can get
Germany/Russia/Aztecs: Kill everyone (my personal favorite)
India: Totally opposite of the AI nuke-fest and try to remain peaceful, only going to war if I am attacked

The others depend pretty much on what mood I'm in. I try to go as realistically I can though no matter what game I play. If I meet a personal goal that I set for myself in the game, I might just stop then and not finish it off.

 

[smallfish]

As America, I am trying to turtle my way into the Stealth Age and smack Darius upside down before returning to my old foe the Ottomans.

This is all assuming they will let me pass through the ages that long without a DOW or three.

 

[Disgustipated]

I play semi-realistically. I say semi because I do play to win after all, and I do sometimes bulb scientists (in the late game- early game I go academy). But I prefer the game as a builder game, and creating a magnificent empire. So my main focus of the game is to create a realistic empire. Consequently, I don't play the higher difficulty levels. I maybe could go up in level, but I'd have to play in a way I don't want to play. Sometimes I'll build a carrier just for the hell of it. They are useless ships, but I sometimes build them because an empire of my size should have a carrier.

 

[HazzMadd]

Oh Jesus finally someone like me!

I'm probably the biggest advocate of civ realism (of course while still keeping it fun to play).

Whenever I play I play in the mindset of the civ, like right now I'm play a gme as Germany and I have personal goals of expanding into unclaimed 'German' territory, building a strong economy and protecting my borders. Althought has I approach the medieval age it seems a pre emotive war with France might happen.
That being said I do intend to win via the space race, but I still play after that. I always think of it as a metaphysical victory, sending of a colony to a clean world.

I'm still stubbornly hoping my dream mod is in production somewhere, with climate change, nuclear winter, a real UN, a slightly less mentally challenged/mentally I'll AI... Sigh...

 

[binhthuy71]

Oh Jesus finally someone like me!

I'm probably the biggest advocate of civ realism (of course while still keeping it fun to play).

Whenever I play I play in the mindset of the civ, like right now I'm play a gme as Germany and I have personal goals of expanding into unclaimed 'German' territory, building a strong economy and protecting my borders. Althought has I approach the medieval age it seems a pre emotive war with France might happen.
That being said I do intend to win via the space race, but I still play after that. I always think of it as a metaphysical victory, sending of a colony to a clean world.

I'm still stubbornly hoping my dream mod is in production somewhere, with climate change, nuclear winter, a real UN, a slightly less mentally challenged/mentally I'll AI... Sigh...

You will remain unfilled playing as Germany until someone mods Poland into the game.

 

[Loucypher]

You will remain unfilled playing as Germany until someone mods Poland into the game.

Well there is the city state of Warsaw, that could work?