Playing as JC

[Sisiutil]

Sorry that this is slightly off the topic, but reading this interesting thread, has reminded me how different Civ settings just aren't the same game.

For instance, I always play huge maps / marathon/ monarch / emp or so and this strategy just wouldn't work as a) The Barbs would murder you and b) The nearest "potential enemy" is generally so far away as to be pointless in attacking (unless its just to slow them down).

I too like playing both Romans (doesn't everyone) but generally don't go a rampaging till after building around 7 or 8 cities, and no I don't wait for COL, you can generally keep your economy going by constant conquest

I tried a normal speed / normal map size emp game the other day, and after quitting the first one (I forgot you had to expand quickly, not used to that ), my other reactions were :- huh ? where's the barbs, they basically don't exist in comparison, and wow where's all this science coming from so quickly, and (even better) cool, look at all these juicy cities that are actually close enough to make it practical to keep them....

Civ really is several games in one

Interesting. When I play a larger map I usually go custom and add a few more civs than the default settings do, otherwise I find I'm all lonely without any victims... er, friends nearby.

Praets are just too good to wait until Catapults come along.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Interesting. When I play a larger map I usually go custom and add a few more civs than the default settings do, otherwise I find I'm all lonely without any victims... er, friends nearby.

Praets are just too good to wait until Catapults come along.

I normally play 12 total Civs, I suppose I could add more, but keeping track of all the "diplomacy" gives me a headache .......I do always play with random personalities and aggressive ais though, so you never know who's who. Gandhi often turns out to be Montezuma, and vice-versa (and I've noticed a probably obvious but strange fact...whoever gets a "Mansa" personality will always tech well, even if its Shaka or Monty, and in fact a "Mansa" Ragnar is possibily the strongest leader I've ever met, much stronger than a standard "Mansa")

And no, I don't wait for cats either, it's similar to Futurehermits start, cept with slightly slower early expansion, then half a dozen citys banged out, then war....only Rome generally gets any building fancier than a barracks or monument until the conquering has completely driven the econmy into the dirt. Then I survive be demanding cash off whoever I don't like until I get COL and Currency myself.......(mental note to self, maybe I should stop doing this, it makes diplomacy even harder later on )

 

[futurehermit]

Yes, clearly, AC is stronger than JC, this is just a strat to play around with. Like, for example, you are playing random civ and get JC.

Imperialistic sucks, but how to leverage it? Might as well start with some settlers, since they are cheaper. It's kind of like going worker first if you are expansive.

 

[cabert]

Yes, clearly, AC is stronger than JC, this is just a strat to play around with. Like, for example, you are playing random civ and get JC.

Imperialistic sucks, but how to leverage it? Might as well start with some settlers, since they are cheaper. It's kind of like going worker first if you are expansive.

imperialist doesn't suck.
keep settling GG in cities
CR3 praets don't need help until riflemen

 

[futurehermit]

Imperialistic does suck

 

[cabert]

Imperialistic does suck

is it a challenge?
you play AC, I play JC, monarch level, and we'll see which is best

 

[Sisiutil]

I don't think Imperialistic sucks, but it's a weak trait in comparison to all the others. It even makes Protective look good.

One of the best ways to leverage Imperialistic is to try to build the Great Wall. With its bonus to GG points from battles within your own borders, it combines very nicely with the Imperialistic GG bonus to give you even more Great Generals. If I'm playing as JC and have stone nearby, I will often make a diversion to Masonry and the GW. It's also nice to know that barbs aren't going to pillage my iron.

 

[futurehermit]

I don't think Imperialistic sucks, but it's a weak trait in comparison to all the others. It even makes Protective look good.

"It sucks" of course is a relative term and of course I mean "it sucks" relative to the other traits. Of course it is better than not having a trait, but I would rather have any of the others, except maybe protective (I see them both as about the same).

As for the challenge, it wouldn't make sense since I'm sure our skill levels are not 100% equal. Suffice it to say I feel Creative is a stronger trait than Imperialistic. Proving that is not easy, but if you look at the semi-consensus on these boards most seem to feel creative is stronger.

 

[Sisiutil]

"It sucks" of course is a relative term and of course I mean "it sucks" relative to the other traits. Of course it is better than not having a trait, but I would rather have any of the others, except maybe protective (I see them both as about the same).

As for the challenge, it wouldn't make sense since I'm sure our skill levels are not 100% equal. Suffice it to say I feel Creative is a stronger trait than Imperialistic. Proving that is not easy, but if you look at the semi-consensus on these boards most seem to feel creative is stronger.

Not easy to prove? Au contraire! Of course Creative is stronger! Your borders pop without effort and you get cheap libraries (and theatres and colosseums to boot). Having borders pop automatically and at double speed in the early game is HUGE. No wasting hammers on monuments or Stonehenge (you don't even have to research Mysticism at all), no concern about spreading a religion, your early Workers are safer from barb animals, you will claim more resources, no need to delay obtaining Calendar, you have more flexibility regarding your early city locations... Creative gives you a huge head start. By the latter portion of the mid-game it's petered out, but by then, if you've leveraged that head start wisely, it no longer matters.

Imperialistic might give you a couple of extra Great Generals (depending on how much you warmonger) and a slight discount off the price of Settlers (since it's only hammers, not food, that count toward the Settler build bonus). There's no comparison.

In the last 3 off-line games I've played as Augustus, iron showed up in the capital's already-claimed 3rd ring. Julius would have had to found another city to claim it, but Augustus can just send a Worker to the edge of his territory.

 

[mice]

is it a challenge?
you play AC, I play JC, monarch level, and we'll see which is best

Now that would be interesting.

 

[futurehermit]

Now that would be interesting.

Not really, JC and AC are too similar overall. Creative vs. Imperialistic really isn't much difference. I would agree that creative is better, but overall these leaders are just too similar for it to be a really interesting comparison.

By the time the medieval era rolls around, they are essentially the same civ.

 

[Sisiutil]

Not really, JC and AC are too similar overall. Creative vs. Imperialistic really isn't much difference. I would agree that creative is better, but overall these leaders are just too similar for it to be a really interesting comparison.

By the time the medieval era rolls around, they are essentially the same civ.

I agree that by mid-game the benefits of Creative diminish. As a result, the similarities (Organized trait, UU, UB) make both leaders very similar. What may be different are the circumstances in which they find themselves, since Creative results in a big head start. Either way, though, Rome is not a builder's civ; they're for warmongering. Once either leader's Praetorian juggernaut gets into gear, the results are going to be very similar.

 

[vale]

A versus leader challenge could be very interesting. Same start position on the same map, run ALC style threads concurrently and see the differences in traits and UU/UB if different civs come to life directly as two potentially very different games play out. I'd watch that. The ALC format might mitigate play style/ability differences since there is a general consensus approach to the strategy.

 

[futurehermit]

A versus leader challenge could be very interesting. Same start position on the same map, run ALC style threads concurrently and see the differences in traits and UU/UB if different civs come to life directly as two potentially very different games play out. I'd watch that. The ALC format might mitigate play style/ability differences since there is a general consensus approach to the strategy.

Yeah, but JC and AC? These guys are identical minus 1 trait, both of which taper off around the medieval era...

 

[mice]

Not really, JC and AC are too similar overall. Creative vs. Imperialistic really isn't much difference.

I meant more Cabert vs Futurehermit. We haven't had much in the way of fireworks on these boards for a while. I guess everyone is busy with other things, but it would be entertaining.

 

[cabert]

I meant more Cabert vs Futurehermit. We haven't had much in the way of fireworks on these boards for a while. I guess everyone is busy with other things, but it would be entertaining.

futurehermit plays a lot better than I do, it's not even a question
In my mind, he just misses the fact that rome is about warmongering early and a lot.
Creative is about land grabing, imperialistic is about warmongering.
SO IMHO, JC is stronger than AC. Not for domination of course, but for conquest...

 

[r_rolo1]

you play AC, I play JC, monarch level, and we'll see which is best

It would be fun to see human vs human, both with preats.... poor AI's .
Who would win? Probably the first guy to get xbows ( if both had iron almost at the same time, of course)

 

[futurehermit]

futurehermit plays a lot better than I do, it's not even a question
In my mind, he just misses the fact that rome is about warmongering early and a lot.
Creative is about land grabing, imperialistic is about warmongering.
SO IMHO, JC is stronger than AC. Not for domination of course, but for conquest...

Oh, don't worry, I don't miss the fact that Rome is about warmongering with Praets. I play a warmongerers game and enjoy the challenge, that's why I don't generally play Rome

It's true that imperialistic is more directly a warmongering trait. BUT creative greatly helps you get your early empire set up in the best possible locations, etc. etc. That can't be overlooked. As already mentioned, you'll get your 3rd border pop (beyond BFC) much sooner, which can help avoid the need for another settler--which, although cheaper for JC also cost additional maintenance.

I would rather have creative than imperialistic when playing directly a warmongering game. Since I only build 1-2 settlers--and they're usually whipped--the imperialistic bonus in that regard doesn't mean that much to me. The fact that military academies have been moved to the medeival era also make extra/earlier great generals less powerful imo. Sure, a mash unit is nice to have, but you only really need one. Sure, extra xp from settled great generals is handy, but praets are without the need really for extra help. I would prefer borders popping sooner to get the best tiles available to newly conquered cities so you can develop them faster.

And yeah conquest...it's a lot harder in my games, since I play continents, so domination is more plausible and creative > imperialistic for domination games.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I actually agree on creative being in practical terms, a better warmongering tool than imperialistic, mainly because of what you can do with captured cities (as Futurehermit partly said). From a size say 8 city, its quite easy to whip a library, monument, and even monk shop (sorry monastery, I call them monk shops), and then you're banging out 7 culture a turn. With early conquering, this is probably more than most surrounding cities are making.( And the ai is generally good enough to build you at least a granary in these cities )

As said though, by the middle ages, even though a cheap theatre can be added to the above list, creative is losing its power, because there is so much native culture already laid down on those newly captured tiles, it doesn't really matter what you build, they won't be yours for a long while.

Imp also though has benefits in the mid game, but only on huge maps where there is land / continents to be settled post astronomy. The trait can help get those settlers out quicker (and yes I suppose you could just build settlers earlier and fortify them in cities, per the ai..)
I HATE doing this, and refuse to. Settlers have one purpose, and thats not to hang around in sleazy seaports getting tipsy for 200 yrs while they and their decendants wait for you to discover a method of building ships that can travel on "biiiiiigg water". Settlers go to settle new territory, building them "just in case" is cheating

 

[cabert]

from a size 8 city, you can make a pile of ruins or 2 praetorians. who cares about a library?