Is the technocracy dead?

[Arius Mephisto]

I've been waiting for Civ3 for some time... and when I first started playing it a while ago, I played with a strategy that has carried me pretty well through Civ1 (oh.. the days when your units were just pieces that were dead or living....), Civ2, and the Call To Power series especially....

It's generally called by my whiny opponents "Technocracy"... though that's actually a govt. type in CTP... I'm the nicest friendliest guy around.... until you get a bullet in the head in 900 AD... It used to work out pretty well that if you were MEGA technological, isolationist, and kept a relatively (reltive to other civs) small number of cities that were the model cities.... you could tech up at an outrageous rate... and then just shoot off to space or obliterate archers with tanks....

It seems the strategy is relatively dead thanks to a combination of realism... and stupidity...

Realism- The strategic resource issue is what makes this impossible in real life.... and that's what makes it impossible in Civ3.... being isolationist and having a few very strong cities doesn't give you acess to the saltpeter or the oil when you need it...

Stupidity- Tanks lose to archers, now and then.... it's really obnoxious and I'm beginning to miss the "firepower" system of Civ2....

Oh yes... I forgot... Limited Timeline- This is one of the things I was praying they'd take from the CTP franchise.... why limit Civ3 to where we have now, technologically? I MISS MY PLASMA TANKS!

If anyone's found a way to make the system work, or if anyone else is an "evil technocrat" like me.... I'd be glad to hear from them

 

[Xevion]

I used to play a technocracy style civ in Civ 1 and 2, I am finding it just isn't very effective in Civ 3. Except at chieftan, where you can do nearly anything and win.

On a warlord game of Civ 1, I managed to get riflemen in BC. Now that was fun.

While it would be nice to see a strategy that works, I honestly don't think a pure technocracy would work in Civ 3, unless you at least went for culture at a minimum.

 

[Arius Mephisto]

Actually I got a lot of culture when I tried it out... so much that I converted a bunch of cities on my boarder heheheh

 

[Dragon2]

I just won at Emperor level with a despotic rush on a 2-civ continent followed by pure technocracy. Pure luck -- my continent had all strategic resources. I attached the 4000 BC map to the thread "Incredibly, the attached map is winnable at Emperor."

It was just like playing Civ 2 except for having to trade for luxuries every 20 turns.

 

[Zooey]

What I would call my strategy is "Technospansionistic Cultrich." I build loads of cities, try to stay away from people as much as possible, and never ever trade my World Map (which is almost finished by the time the other Civs have explored their continent). I go wild on culture, and try to take as many cities as I can from other Civs. About 1800 maybe, when I've got tanks and they're just getting riflemen, I mass up about 40-50 tanks at the border and declare war on the nearest Civ. At that point I've got railroads set up to quickly replace dead troops (if any of them die) and just take city by city. If one of my cities gets culturally stolen, the railroads from my forever-tank producing cities get units there fast.

But yeah, I almost always take the isolated technology way. If you want to be most efficient, get an industrious Civ, their workers work twice as fast I believe. Having cheaper science buildings or an explorer at the beginning of the game just doesn't compare with being able to build a road and a railroad in 2 turns near the end of the game thanks to Leonardo's Workshop, Democracy, and your Industrious Civ.