Dumbest Civilization of All Time

[Peaster]

Just wondering if anyone has ever had a civ dumber than mine. At 2000 BC, my scientists have not discovered anything, and have only accumulated 2 beakers. I can take some of the blame, having gone mainly for taxes and food. Still, I think we are doing OK, with 4 cities and 2 settlers, and I plan to switch to science soon.

 

[Marlos]

I suppose that you could just wander around with your settler, generating ZERO everything, but maybe that goes without saying.

 

[McMonkey]

Whoa, that's dumb

 

[Peaster]

Yes, I think it's the dumbest I've ever had, and I'd be surprised if anyone else delays science as much as I do. Even those guys who play zero-city games will pop huts, and get some techs that way. I just finished the game. I gradually put some effort into science, got to Trade, and built Marco Polo in 825BC. After that, my science was OK.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

OMG.

Why would you deliberately keep yourself (your civ, I mean) dumb?

Unless I get 100 of whatever currency (in ToT), I prefer ancient wisdom/tech, new cities, new Settlers, or the occasional useful military unit for the first thousand years. After 2980, whatever pops up from the goody hut is what happens - but I refuse to allow my civ to be stupid.

As a consequence, I'm at least researching Trade by 3000 BC. Usually I'm building Marco Polo's Embassy by that time.

 

[Magic_gorter]

Sometimes it's better to grow big fast and having more money then science. Those who play early conquest games want to build a strong army quickly and one of the things you need then is enough cities and money. Science is after a certain moment not important (however at the start I think it is important) when playing early conquest.

Another factor might be bad terrain (which Peaster didn't mention-> he played GOTM 107).

 

[Peaster]

I'd prefer to have everything - science, gold, growth, military, Wonders ... but you gotta prioritize. The theory of ICS is to put growth first, which depends more on food and taxes than science. After I have tons of cities, I can produce beakers [and units, etc] faster than you, and pass you in science. Many many comparison games, such as GOTMs, show that this usually works. BTW - Why not give the GoTMs a try ? But you couldn't use ToT.

The game I mentioned above is pretty extreme. I may have postponed beaker production a bit too long. But another player had similar science problems on the same map - it seemed to have few arrow-specials. And I DID conquer the world before 1AD !

 

[Duckboy7]

If you start with 2 settlers you could build a city with the first one and with the second one roads,connecting to other cities, giving Trade leading to $$.

 

[Magic_gorter]

If you start with 2 settlers you could build a city with the first one and with the second one roads,connecting to other cities, giving Trade leading to $$.

You could even try the size 1 trick (only 1 city which is size 1 ->build a settler before the foodbox is filled and you get a settler without disbanding your city).

I prefer two use the seccond settler to build a new city soon (perhaps use it for building 1 or 2 roads). If you can grow fast in the early stages of the game it's a lot easier to win and easier to make even more money.

 

[candle86]

Sometimes it's better to grow big fast and having more money then science. Those who play early conquest games want to build a strong army quickly and one of the things you need then is enough cities and money. Science is after a certain moment not important (however at the start I think it is important) when playing early conquest.

Another factor might be bad terrain (which Peaster didn't mention-> he played GOTM 107).

I dunno getting armor by 1000BC while there still tring to kill me with archers makes conquest alot easier lol, though i still get annoyed when a warrior kills my tank

 

[Airstrike92]

Whoa, that's dumb

Quoted for truth.

 

[Theov]

Not so good.

 

[mpescatori]

I dunno getting armor by 1000BC while there still tring to kill me with archers makes conquest alot easier lol, though i still get annoyed when a warrior kills my tank

On the one hand, the Resistance fighters in WW2 Europe would kill tanks with molotov cocktails (tanks had gasoline engines, not diesels)

On the other, it's a bit like when I attack a land (i.e. cavalry or even settler) unit with my frigate, the land unit resists and the frigate is sunk ?

WTF ???

My ship got kicked to death by horses gone loco ? Or the settlers banged the ships with their hoes and spades ???



Next thing you know, a camel caravan will chew them to death...

 

[Peaster]

I dunno getting armor by 1000BC while there still tring to kill me with archers makes conquest alot easier lol ...

I assume this is just a joke ?

Conquest is easy enough with crusaders, or less - you don't need much science. But if you DO want science, you should generally grow your civ first, to create a strong flow of beakers from cities or trade.

 

[timtofly]

I assume this is just a joke ?

Conquest is easy enough with crusaders, or less - you don't need much science. But if you DO want science, you should generally grow your civ first, to create a strong flow of beakers from cities or trade.

You cut out the part "when a warrior kills my tank"

 

[Maniacal]

In the game it is a rather dumb thing to do but lack of technological research does not equal dumb people. People using the same stone and basic metal tools for 1000s of years were by no means stupid, their technology worked perfectly well for their needs and lifestyle.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

You could even try the size 1 trick (only 1 city which is size 1 ->build a settler before the foodbox is filled and you get a settler without disbanding your city).

I prefer two use the seccond settler to build a new city soon (perhaps use it for building 1 or 2 roads). If you can grow fast in the early stages of the game it's a lot easier to win and easier to make even more money.

I didn't know the size 1 trick, I'll try it some time.

When I had built my second settler, I used it to build some roads and irrigate a couple squares before I founded the second town. I don't know, but I think it's good to use some turns to develop the first town before I found another town. Because I'll not have any settlers once the second town is founded and it'll take many turns before I get another one. I prioritize Granary and a few military units for defense, plus exploring and hut popping.

On the one hand, the Resistance fighters in WW2 Europe would kill tanks with molotov cocktails (tanks had gasoline engines, not diesels)

On the other, it's a bit like when I attack a land (i.e. cavalry or even settler) unit with my frigate, the land unit resists and the frigate is sunk ?

WTF ???

My ship got kicked to death by horses gone loco ? Or the settlers banged the ships with their hoes and spades ???



Next thing you know, a camel caravan will chew them to death...

I don't have a problem with a tank losing against an ancient unit if it doesn't happen often, but a ship being sunk by a horse or Legion... it's just too crazy.