Primitive Conquest Comparison Game I

[Magic_gorter]

I have no preference which game you pick. The first seems a bit harder to start with (less shields)...but we should not make the game to easy for us. So mayby the first is the best after all. If my GOTM game goes well tonight I can start soon with comparisongame 2.

 

[Banach]

Why not give heavy ICS a try? Probably I'm warped, but I consider it elegant (in the sense of being a fairly simple optimal strategy). You can ease out of it after maybe 40 cities, if you want, so you don't have to micromanage a huge empire. IMO heavy trade (or even EL) requires more micromanagement than limited ICS. But maybe "elegance" and "micromanagement" are ultimately matters of taste, and clearly many players just don't like ICS.

Yes, elegance is a matter of taste. I understand where you're coming from - in the world of mathematics, simple is elegant. The appealing part of EL(to me, atleast) is the power democracy aspect. I love building an economy that can generate SO much gold that I can rush buy everything in every city, every turn, from scratch, including wonders of the world, and perform hyperexpansion in the style of Starlifter and Andu. Style of play in CIV II accomodates many different tastes - clearly ICS is better for EC. I'll give it a shot - we'll see how my expansion numbers compare to yours. I know you're the expert, so I'll consider you the benchmark - I'm sure you can give me advice. We'll see how this comparison game goes - I'll have to do it this coming week when I have time off for the holidays. I still have to finish this GOTM too.