Generic Non-strategy

[Smote]

Last game as Askia I was too focused on warring and ended up with 19 for 120 turns or so on marathon

Solution: give away your worst cities to AIs

 

[Martin Alvito]

America's best bonuses are in the early game via great scouting and city placement flexibility via cheap tile purchases. The units are fun but not game-changing.

The basic problem is that France is just better in that niche. France + Tradition = free, fast border pops. Not having to spend on tiles is always going to beat seeing further, since early is so critical and Hills and Forests are plentiful. Add excellent UUs to the equation and it's a no-brainer.

 

[neilkaz]

The basic problem is that France is just better in that niche. France + Tradition = free, fast border pops. Not having to spend on tiles is always going to beat seeing further, since early is so critical and Hills and Forests are plentiful. Add excellent UUs to the equation and it's a no-brainer.

I remain of the opinion that America is deep into the bottom tier of civs. If I had to win a game on Deity to save my life, they might be my last choice of civ.

 

[slobberinbear]

I remain of the opinion that America is deep into the bottom tier of civs. If I had to win a game on Deity to save my life, they might be my last choice of civ.

Let us hope that a game of Civ V is not a life-or-death proposition for anyone. In any event, I make no claim as to America's greatness in the game, and only state here what has worked for me while playing that civ.

I challenge you to try America, use a REX strategy, and fully abuse the tile-buying power to grab resources you have no business taking. It's self-perpetuating; grab extra resources (new ones or tradeable existing ones), turn into happiness and cash, and keep expanding. Do it early enough, and you can steal resources permanently from the AI and city-states. This obviously only works to the extent there are lands with a decent variety of resources and sufficient trading partners.

Again, I am not saying it is optimal, just that nobody is mentioning actually using Manifest Destiny to its fullest, which is the whole benefit of playing America other than having Uber-scouts.

 

[wcbarney]

I remain of the opinion that America is deep into the bottom tier of civs. If I had to win a game on Deity to save my life, they might be my last choice of civ.

I like playing America mainly because I love the B-17 and I'm a warmonger! After so many (dozens) of games playing as the other civs, all their UAs, UUs & UBs seem to average out.

 

[Blue Oyster]

To be proved:
There exists no single strategy that is optimal across all combinations of civilizations, difficulty levels, map types, playing speeds, map sizes, starting positions, and UI-configurable options.

 

[RD-BH]

To be proved:
There exists ANY strategy in ANY combination of civilizations, difficulty levels, map types, playing speeds, map sizes, starting positions, and UI-configurable options in Civ5.

Point:
In Civ5, playing the map isn't strategy.
... It is, in fact, the complete absence of interesting choices.
... I don't enjoy playing a game where the map dictates my play.
... Good map = win; bad map = lose
... ... This does not equal strategy.

Until game mechanics are improved ...
... Civ5 doesn't rate as 'pastime' let alone 'strategy'.

 

[DaveMcW]

To be proved:
There exists no single strategy that is optimal across all combinations of civilizations, difficulty levels, map types, playing speeds, map sizes, starting positions, and UI-configurable options.

Proof:

Assume that:
1. Such a strategy exists. For example, ICS with cities capped at size 2 running 2 scientists fed by maritime city states.
2. Firaxis still cares about the game.

It is easy to show that:
1. People will show off the dominant strategy on the forums.
2. As knowledge spreads, people either use the strategy or whine about how the game sucks to allow such a strategy.
3. Eventually Firaxis will release a patch that nerfs every element of the strategy.
4. There is no longer a single optimal strategy.

 

[Civsassin]

In Civ5, playing the map isn't strategy.
... It is, in fact, the complete absence of interesting choices.
... I don't enjoy playing a game where the map dictates my play.
... Good map = win; bad map = lose
... ... This does not equal strategy

I agree with your first statement. Playing the map is not a strategy, but it is an integral consideration to any strategy. A good map isn't automatically a win, and a bad map isn't automatically a loss. The AI deals with the same map that you do. If you cannot win on a particular map, your strategy is lacking not the game. If you can't handle a game where a map is part of the play, try checkers. That may should be static enough for you.

 

[RD-BH]

I find the choices dictated by starting location to be black and white.
There is a lack of gray area.

When I start in an area devoid of food, there is no real decision to make.
When I start in an area devoid of production/strategic resources, there is no real decision to make.
When I start in an area devoid of luxury resources, there is no real decision to make.
Taedium ad nauseam ...

There currently is a limited number of paths to reach midgame from the starting location.
Rather than choosing the path you want, you are forced onto a particular path by the starting location.
This path remains quite narrow throughout the game.

Then adding insult to injury ...
You win the game before you even choose how to win ...
... Oh, look! I own the world.
... Now I must make a decision:
... ... Do I force them to vote me to victory?
... ... Do I force them to wait while I build culture?
... ... Do I force them to wait while I build spaceship?
... ... Do I force them to wait while I move my forces into their capitals?
... ... Do I force them to wait until turn 500?
This is NOT strategy.
It is not even FUN 8)

I want a series of interesting choices with consequences.
I want to choose my own path and make it happen.
Currently every Civ5 game blurs into every other game; no strategic variety.

There aren't "Paths into happiness".
There aren't "Paths into production".
There aren't "Paths into commerce".
There is just "Path".

 

[Blue Oyster]

Point:
In Civ5, playing the map isn't strategy.
... It is, in fact, the complete absence of interesting choices.
... I don't enjoy playing a game where the map dictates my play.
... Good map = win; bad map = lose
... ... This does not equal strategy.

Until game mechanics are improved ...
... Civ5 doesn't rate as 'pastime' let alone 'strategy'.

I never mentioned starting position, or quality of map. "Map type" means, for example, archipelago; "map size" means, for example, "huge". Nothing about "good map" or "bad map" in the conjecture.

 

[RD-BH]

I never mentioned starting position, or quality of map. "Map type" means, for example, archipelago; "map size" means, for example, "huge". Nothing about "good map" or "bad map" in the conjecture.

I'm saying:
... whatever the combination of "map type", "map size", etc.
... the only determinant variable IS the map.
... once the map is generated,
... ... the play is linear
... ... with little to no strategic decision making

I expected to have multiple strategies available to overcome weaknesses in starting location/map quality.
Instead it simply does not matter what combination of game setup is used.
If you are short of 'a' you must have 'x'.
No choice of 'x', 'y', or 'z', and no choice of path 'm', 'n', or 'o' to get 'a' or 'x'.
The current economic model lacks robustness; forcing gameplay to be linear.

 

[Civsassin]

I'm saying:
... whatever the combination of "map type", "map size", etc.
... the only determinant variable IS the map.
... once the map is generated,
... ... the play is linear
... ... with little to no strategic decision making

I expected to have multiple strategies available to overcome weaknesses in starting location/map quality.
Instead it simply does not matter what combination of game setup is used.
If you are short of 'a' you must have 'x'.
No choice of 'x', 'y', or 'z', and no choice of path 'm', 'n', or 'o' to get 'a' or 'x'.
The current economic model lacks robustness; forcing gameplay to be linear.

You are simply wrong. If you see only one strategy based on the map/map types, you are missing a lot. You are playing at levels that are too high for you. I would suggest lowering the difficulty level to something that gives you flexibility in your strategy. Here are SOME of the many considerations that are integral to your strategy:

1. Chosen civilization - UA, UU, UB
2. Map factors
3. Luxury resource availability
4. Strategic resource availability
5. Proximity of other civs
6. Available city states
7. Difficulty level
8. Developing events during gameplay (risks/opportunities)

I've listed eight off the top of my head. Other players could add to the list. If you can't see it this way, then you probably have a bias against the game, or as I said previously, you're playing at a difficulty level above your skill level. Lower the level until you improve enough to be able to work different strategies. If that doesn't work, remember my checkers advice.

 

[slobberinbear]

I'm hearing RD-BH saying essentially that he is bored with the game due to his perception that he has exhausted its possibilities. It happens. But with Civ, I always come back.

My suggestion to RD-BH is that he try something completely different. Either another game, or a completely different take on Civ V. If you have a set of linear paths, then deliberately break that path and see what happens. Try a civ you never play and try to completely understand it, for instance. Or play a scenario with a fixed objective.

 

[Blue Oyster]

... once the map is generated,

You do realize that before the map is generated, you've probably made many choices, right? Oh, never mind. I have a good-natured suggestion, a lab experiment we can conduct right here on the forum.

Here's a little test I propose. You tell us your strategy. Then "we" (I envision some good players coming up with these communally, certainly not myself) will put together all of the settings for the game. The settings will be fiendishly chosen to exploit the weaknesses of your strategy. (Assuming the conjecture holds, there should be some weaknesses; otherwise, this may count as one piece of proof the conjecture does not hold.)

Then we give you a starting map based on the recommended configuration designed to thwart your strategy. Then you play the game, and show us how the map alone forces your hand and takes strategic decision making out of your hands. I expect the peanut gallery will have plenty of alternatives to offer, unless the conjecture does not hold. Perhaps others will play the map and show how different strategic decisions led to better outcomes. And that will disprove the RD-BH conjecture.

We could play this out on a new thread. Does that sound fun and appealing to you?

 

[Blue Oyster]

Proof:

Assume that:
1. Such a strategy exists. For example, ICS with cities capped at size 2 running 2 scientists fed by maritime city states.
2. Firaxis still cares about the game.

It is easy to show that:
1. People will show off the dominant strategy on the forums.
2. As knowledge spreads, people either use the strategy or whine about how the game sucks to allow such a strategy.
3. Eventually Firaxis will release a patch that nerfs every element of the strategy.
4. There is no longer a single optimal strategy.

Yes, the rules of the "game" change over time; I agree with that.
But are you saying that for every rule change/patch, there exists a single optimal strategy? That is different than saying there is a single dominant strategy.

I see strategies evolve between patches, which indicates that sometimes the one dominant strategy actually got bested. So I'm not so sure "dominant" means a given strategy is the best in all configurations, and I certainly don't agree that it is easy to show that. (You did not claim that it was, I do not mean to imply that.)

Has anyone played the same strategy for all the combinations? What the heck is a strategy, anyway? I'm for one can't define one.

I see plenty of evidence on this forum, as people question and learn and experiment and modify their strategies, and argue things out. Many threads that give a strategy specify civilization, era, speed, and so forth. The merits and demerits, exceptions, and so forth are discussed all the time. I've never seen a playbook that says, "No matter what, do these strategic things, every time, all the time." I believe the best strategy for a small game as Bismarck on Pangaea is different than a huge map archipelago as Elizabeth. And a true master, set down in a random situation, will suss out the correct one to follow, not just do what he or she always does, every time.

I'm not going to formulate another conjecture. But, if the two best players (whatever that means) were given the same starting conditions, I am not at all sure they would make the same strategic decisions all the way through. I am sure they would each "win", though. But I don't think it is easy to prove there isn't a better strategy, for that situation, somewhere. It is however easy to prove that another strategy is better, relatively speaking.

I think epistemological certitude is forever out of grasp. And that is a good thing, because it keeps the game fun if one believes that.

 

[Smote]

RD-BH, I understand what you are saying. The one decision that changes frequently is "when to make military" which is not always clear, because one does not have perfect information about opponents, or barbarians.

I would suggest you play vs people online. The outcome of a match will no longer be pre-determined by the fact that your opponents are brainless.

 

[RD-BH]

I'm hearing RD-BH saying essentially that he is bored with the game due to his perception that he has exhausted its possibilities. It happens. But with Civ, I always come back.

My suggestion to RD-BH is that he try something completely different. Either another game, or a completely different take on Civ V. If you have a set of linear paths, then deliberately break that path and see what happens. Try a civ you never play and try to completely understand it, for instance. Or play a scenario with a fixed objective.

Reading other comments here, I don't think I am communicating my thoughts clearly.

I don't think 'bored' is the correct word.
... I have yet to find a combination that offers strategic challenge.

re: different game
... Portal 2 is about to release, SpaceChem was fun, and there is still Chess.

re: Civ5
There simply are not multiple paths to multiple goals,
and others must have noticed this as well.
... or am I all alone?

 

[RD-BH]

RD-BH, I understand what you are saying. The one decision that changes frequently is "when to make military" which is not always clear, because one does not have perfect information about opponents, or barbarians.

I would suggest you play vs people online. The outcome of a match will no longer be pre-determined by the fact that your opponents are brainless.

LOL
I have not yet tried Civ5 Muliplayer, but I have been playing Civ4 Multiplayer.
Humans are certainly more chaotic (at least my circle of friends).

Do you understand what I'm trying to say about owning the landscape before you actually tech to the point of choosing a victory condition?
It feels like old RTSs where the first one to the superweapon wins.
Only this is at midgame and not endgame.

 

[SRG]

Reading other comments here, I don't think I am communicating my thoughts clearly.

I don't think 'bored' is the correct word.
... I have yet to find a combination that offers strategic challenge.

re: different game
... Portal 2 is about to release, SpaceChem was fun, and there is still Chess.

re: Civ5
There simply are not multiple paths to multiple goals,
and others must have noticed this as well.
... or am I all alone?

I think there are different paths. In the beginning of the game, your choices are somewhat limited, and the map is a huge factor.

I think perhaps we have forgotten the difference between strategy and tactics.
--A strategy might be... "I am going to REX hard, and then focus on setting up a specialist-running empire"
--A tactic relating to this strategy might involve "Getting into the Rationalism tree as quickly as possible", or "I need to take out this city, because it is going to screw up my happiness collecting (which I need for the REX)".


I can agree that certain specifics (map type, local resources, civ selection) can nearly dictate certain tactics (when I play Babylon, I ALWAYS beeline Writing on Turn 1). But to say that a map type dictates a strategy is reaching a bit, I think. A map type might lend itself to one strategy more than another...

Pangea is probably best suited for a Domination type game. It doesn't HAVE to be, though.
Archipaleago is probably best suited for a peaceful victory. It doesn't HAVE to be, though.