Realpolitik CIV - An Interactive AAR

[Darth Caesar]

So do we PM our votes?

 

[Cull]

No. You post them here publicly.

Nobody has thus far voted, and probably not for a while because these elections can be VERY tricky, and you can't take back votes.

 

[Whosit]

2 and 2. Whosit, you no longer have EP.

Awesome.

Let the elections begin, y'all! We'll close up on Friday or Saturday.

(And MathNerd, PM me about what the hell is going on with Unity)

- Lighthearter

I vote for ... nobody yet, although I suppose casting a vote for my own party would be obvious.

Unity is just having some growing pains. Like Shinji. And Instrumentality.

 

[MathNerd]

I'm waiting till the last day to vote. God knows how everything will work out!

Are Aysee and Arya going to coalition again? But then again, you probably won't tell us until two minutes before elections close or something.

 

[ilduce349]

I vote for PCE, and will vote for MN's party (as it has seems its name change 3 times since he became leader I don't know what to call it)

 

[MathNerd]

Thanks for the vote, and sorry about the numerous name changes.

I should probably stop that soon. Come to think of it, I probably will stop, since my new party pictures are the coolest they've ever been.

 

[ilduce349]

Ilduce; While most places can build troops one or two cities should allways be building troops to keep you at the constant unit limit. In our case i believe it would be Scotland building tiremes and catapults and the city with the heroic epic (kent i believe?) building basic troops. We start building the most advanced unit like crossbows and reinforcing the frontline. Antium is easier to defend so if you want a basic army you would have to hold that while taking germany. *shrug*

I never build troops (I normally adopt pacifism). And due to my 2 soldier per city policy (if the city is lucky) I loose no money due to soldiers wages. It works well as it allows me to tech higher then everyone else due to my better economy. In my current game Kublia Khan just DOW me, bringing 8 crusiars (or whatever there called) and 26 trebs into my land, then turn after he did that, I had 2 infantry defending every city. I used the 3 cossacks that I had and pushed them about eventually, then sued for peace. YOU DONT NEED SOLDIERS TO WIN A WAR. As frustrating as this sounds, tech is more important. I once, (in one of the few militaristic games I have played recently) attack 1 infantry, with 30 grenadiers and lost. (Stupid Hill, city defense bonus) A strong economy is the most important thing. That is why I joined PCE.

 

[Cull]

But what if, and this is a BIG if, you have your two units/tile thingy, don't WBed in gems/move your settler, and while you are teching you get DOWed.

And I once, in one of the few Conquest victories I played, used mass amounts of cats and axes to attack a civ with longbows and maces.

 

[MathNerd]

I agree that a strong economy is the most important thing, but it's overkill to say that you can go without a military. I've played many games without using an offensive army, but you need at least some defensive units!

 

[ilduce349]

But what if, and this is a BIG if, you have your two units/tile thingy, don't WBed in gems/move your settler, and while you are teching you get DOWed.

Normally I don't move my city, but if my starting city has 2 or less resources (this is after checking for late game resource in wb) I will, rather then regenerate the map, choose the starting spot.

I generally like to sign defensive pacts with the world powers, to scare other civilizations away. But assuming it is before (insert whatever tech gives defensive pact): The huge advantage I have in my games over this game (In terms of why I don't have a large military) is I play island games, the map I play has alot of small continents, with 2 or 3 civilizations per continent. I mass units at the beginning, take the other civilization on the island early, (before Iron working if I have bronze) and then don't build military units from then on, just upgrade whenever I need to. I have about 2-3 greatest naval units of era per coastal city and so the enemy rarely gets a massive army past my navy. But my navy is never to good. My second of 2 losses ever resulted from Monte bringing 30 or so battleships to assist his transports, taking half my cities to overtake me in score and win a time victory (he over took me in score with 3 turns to go, it was so unfair). I have never seen a peaceful game, i will have been DOWed 3-4 times by the end of the game.

I used to play in alot of conquest victories, but once they got to easy I started trying for diplomatic and space victories. Which is what I currently do.

I have been DOWed in many games without expecting it (I only recently started playing Island games, before that it use to be pangea). I always play out the war, and then quit the game once I have won the war. Roads are a huge advantage when it comes to war. The enemy moves one square per turn while I move 3, I easily out maneuver them and slow there progress to my cities long enough to have sufficient defenders in the cities. Then I go on the offensive, take one of their cities, give it back in exchange for peace, then quit the game. Its not complicated.


The one time where I couldn't defeat the enemy during teching was a few months ago. Pangea marathon game. 8 civilizations declared war on my at the same time. this was before chrisitanity had been discovered (I was 5ish turns away from getting it) so no apostlic palace/defensive pacts. I decided I couldn't take 8 civilizations on at once and quit.

Point is, we don't need a military. If we are the most advanced civilization in the world, then generally people will leave us alone. Of course in our current situation, it will be hard to become the most advanced civilization in the world, but it is still worth a shot.

 

[Ravus_Sol]

Understandable. And i apologise, i keep forgetting the huge advantage a human mind gives you on noble difficulty. In my games it's usually a struggle to tech even.

So what would you consider sufficiant tech and political advantage to start having only a pacifist army? I'd say at least ahead by one full military advantage tech (infantry to riflemen) and perhaps leading the religious block etc. considering Lighthearters perchance for random events i'd want a stronger army presence then in a normal game.

Sounds like you play the enviourment as much as you play the enemy. On a island map what you are talking about is definatly doable. Could be here as well if we get a big enough navy and reinforce the eastern european border.

The spreading of the religion should get things moving politically in our favour. But untill things are set up in that regard (religious allies and tech advantage) we need a continued source of army units for when LH throws us the next curveball. One military city is enough to do that. Especially if we are using religion to get our currency up. Changing to organised religion will allow all the cities to produce missionaries.

-

EDIT:
I vote for the Stonehenge Monks
I vote for the Co-operative party (MN's party)

 

[MathNerd]

Your statements aren't very valid if you used WB. Play a game WITHOUT ANY WB, and then write it up, with savefiles. Then we'd be a lot more open to listen to something you say about your personal experience.

EDIT: X-Post. Oh, joy, who do I vote for now?

 

[ilduce349]

Your statements aren't very valid if you used WB.

My current game, I entered WB once:
Shaka discovered Toaism the turn before I did, out of rage, I switched the holy city from Mgbenuas (or whatever his city was called) to Moscow (this is one of two reasons I will enter world builder in a game). I have built 6ish units since I defeated the vikings, and am winning the war against Shaka and his Mongol vassal. I am 600 points ahead of Qin shi Huang, and 4+ techs ahead of everyone. this is Noble difficulty and yeah. I will post the save tomorrow after I take Zulus 3 last good cities and force them to surrender. This is my casual playing style, so its not my best game. I rarely use wb, just on the first turn to see them, and if I am 1-4 turns short of getting a religion. The reason I use it in the first turn is to see if the map is good. If I don't like the map, I regenerate it. If I don't I will end up quitting in 300 turns once I have determined the map sucks. It saves time.

I do have many weaknesses in my civilization strategy:
1) I will never find Confucianism, Judaism or Hinduism. They buildings look ugly so I rather research one of the others
2) I never covert to state property. I hate communism more then anything in RL, so I don't use it in game.
3) I try to build every wonder in my capital, it works normally, but I then have like no buildings other then wonders in my capital and my other cities lack the capability of gaining great people.

In my games it's usually a struggle to tech even.

Immortal???
Immortal I am normally in the mid-range when it comes to tech. My only Immortal victory was a Roman Conquest, but at the end I was at 10% science due to my ****** economy.

So what would you consider sufficiant tech and political advantage to start having only a pacifist army? I'd say at least ahead by one full military advantage tech (infantry to riflemen) and perhaps leading the religious block etc.

I'd disagree, 3-4 techs, no matter what they are. As we saw in Rome (just now) we can easily turn a war around even if they have triple our power. Its not hard to win a defensive war(especially because of my love of cavalry, i have 8 of them in the exact center of my land to go to where there needed when the war begins).

perhaps leading the religious block etc.

Its rare to see my religion have less then 40% of the world (I mass missionaries). Given that, I rarely am the leader of my religious block as ai's rather vote for ai's when it comes to apostolic palace.

considering Lighthearters perchance for random events i'd want a stronger army presence then in a normal game.

I would agree, however if we are to adopt Pacifism, I would rather have a max of two military units per city. I don't want a dead economy because we fear the man.

 

[MathNerd]

My current game, I entered WB once:

I'd call that entering WB, wouldn't you?

 

[arya126]

Ilduce the only reason we werent driven through Iberia and the low countries, was because the russians were attacking in the east with the vikings. We barely had to face ANY of the roman army.

Most of your content is the posts of yours are just bull.

3-4 techs no matter what they are? How does that help in anything but points? It matters what the techs are. I agree with Ravus in this one. You need to be WAY ahead in military tech in order to have a pacifist army, and even then i would be hesitant.

Entering WB once is still entering it. Even if you just get a peak at the map at the begining, it is still cheating. YTou have an unfair advanmtage that you shouldnt have. Its not valid. Also, WBing a religion just because you were close to getting it, it definitly cheating. No matter what, its still cheating. They beat you fair and sqaure in the game.

I hate communism in RL too. But its VERY useful in the game, and rightly so since if it was used the right way in RL then it would dominate the world by now. the problem is, its not used in the right way. Human nature prevents that from happening, especially on a large scale. Just to clear things up, i am a capitalist.

 

[ilduce349]

I'd call that entering WB, wouldn't you?

it didn't count: I WAS ONE TURN SHORT OF TOAISM, I would have rage quit or wb.

I hate communism in RL too. But its VERY useful in the game, and rightly so since if it was used the right way in RL then it would dominate the world by now.

BS. It is useful in the game, but in RL it doesn't work: Greed, Imperfection, not created equally, more then 2 people on the planet, limited resources: Those are 5 of the billion reasons why Communism cant work in real life.

3-4 techs no matter what they are? How does that help in anything but points?

It means you can tech trade with allies and when needed you'll be the first to the major techs. Mali and Orange never seem to have techs red. (there might be others). All you need is 2-3 units per city and if you have huge culture (as in at least level 3 on you cities) then its super easy to defend. I on noble have only on 3 separate occasions lost a city, and I have a pacifist army until the war begins. Its not hard to defend from a noble aggressor.

Entering WB once is still entering it. Even if you just get a peak at the map at the begining, it is still cheating. YTou have an unfair advanmtage that you shouldnt have.

Its exactly like playing a scenario, like the one we are playing. If you play a scenario you've played half a game through before. You know more then me looking at the starting situation for 3 seconds.

 

[MathNerd]

IMHO, it's better to simply rage quit than to enter WB. Next time, just keep playing, or tech faster.

Entering WB, whether it be once, twice, whatever, is still entering WB.

 

[Cull]

I'm bored, and its my turn now.

My current game, I entered WB once:
Shaka discovered Toaism the turn before I did, out of rage, I switched the holy city from Mgbenuas (or whatever his city was called) to Moscow (this is one of two reasons I will enter world builder in a game). I have built 6ish units since I defeated the vikings, and am winning the war against Shaka and his Mongol vassal. I am 600 points ahead of Qin shi Huang, and 4+ techs ahead of everyone. this is Noble difficulty and yeah. I will post the save tomorrow after I take Zulus 3 last good cities and force them to surrender. This is my casual playing style, so its not my best game. I rarely use wb, just on the first turn to see them, and if I am 1-4 turns short of getting a religion. The reason I use it in the first turn is to see if the map is good. If I don't like the map, I regenerate it. If I don't I will end up quitting in 300 turns once I have determined the map sucks. It saves time.

1. You said that you would either rage quit or out of rage enter WBed. You are too full of rage.

2. Your starting posistion doesn't matter as much as you think. In normal civ, they won't give you a sucky start. And so many people IMO think some GREAT capitals, full of wet grasslands, are horrible compared to the triple cow they roll. Honeslty, sounds like the same thing to you.

I do have many weaknesses in my civilization strategy:
1) I will never find Confucianism, Judaism or Hinduism. They buildings look ugly so I rather research one of the others
2) I never covert to state property. I hate communism more then anything in RL, so I don't use it in game.
3) I try to build every wonder in my capital, it works normally, but I then have like no buildings other then wonders in my capital and my other cities lack the capability of gaining great people.

1. The building look ugly so you avoid the key techs of Poly(some situtational wonders, and monstaries), Organized Relgion(OR civic), and CoL(Caste System and courthouses). That is just insane.

2. You never convert to state property in game because you hate it in RL. That is crazy. You see, we're playing a COMPUTER GAME. It doesn't matter 2 cents if you adopt it in a GMAE.

3. You literally build wonders in your capital, every one you can. Each wonder has its uses. The HUGE amounts of hammers needed would be better spent on workers, settlers, normal buildings, or military units.

Immortal???
Immortal I am normally in the mid-range when it comes to tech. My only Immortal victory was a Roman Conquest, but at the end I was at 10% science due to my ****** economy.

1. And you're in the only econ-focused party, and that party's leader. Joy oh joy.

I'd disagree, 3-4 techs, no matter what they are. As we saw in Rome (just now) we can easily turn a war around even if they have triple our power. Its not hard to win a defensive war(especially because of my love of cavalry, i have 8 of them in the exact center of my land to go to where there needed when the war begins).

Facepalm. You COMPLETELY missed the point of this post:

But what if, and this is a BIG if, you have your two units/tile thingy, don't WBed in gems/move your settler, and while you are teching you get DOWed.

And I once, in one of the few Conquest victories I played, used mass amounts of cats and axes to attack a civ with longbows and maces.

We basically massed cats and axes to attack praets. Quite similar I would think.

Its rare to see my religion have less then 40% of the world (I mass missionaries). Given that, I rarely am the leader of my religious block as ai's rather vote for ai's when it comes to apostolic palace.


I would agree, however if we are to adopt Pacifism, I would rather have a max of two military units per city. I don't want a dead economy because we fear the man.

1. Did you spam missionaries from the WB? Then okay. Doesn't apply here.

2. Pacifism needs Philo. We don't even have Machinery, Feud, OR Civil Service. Doesn't apply here.

3. You need to fear the man, because as MANY have said before, including myself, he makes events that can do long-lasting effects. The civ of Germany/Mongolia? One more potential ally in a world of many civs. An entire new layer of diplo.

I have been DOWed in many games without expecting it (I only recently started playing Island games, before that it use to be pangea). I always play out the war, and then quit the game once I have won the war. Roads are a huge advantage when it comes to war. The enemy moves one square per turn while I move 3, I easily out maneuver them and slow there progress to my cities long enough to have sufficient defenders in the cities. Then I go on the offensive, take one of their cities, give it back in exchange for peace, then quit the game. Its not complicated.

Doesn't apply here.

 

[ilduce349]

1. You said that you would either rage quit or out of rage enter WBed. You are too full of rage.

I blame it on ADHD

2. Your starting posistion doesn't matter as much as you think. In normal civ, they won't give you a sucky start. And so many people IMO think some GREAT capitals, full of wet grasslands, are horrible compared to the triple cow they roll. Honeslty, sounds like the same thing to you.

My main goal in Civilization is to build every wonder in my first 2 cities. (my capital and first coastal city). thats all I care about. I have done this on 3 occasions in regular civilization, and once in multi player (You don't know how pissed I was when my friend DOW me and razed the city, bypassing about 10 cities on the way)

1. The building look ugly so you avoid the key techs of Poly(some situtational wonders, and monstaries), Organized Relgion(OR civic), and CoL(Caste System and courthouses). That is just insane.

I start researching them right after the religion is founded.

2. You never convert to state property in game because you hate it in RL. That is crazy. You see, we're playing a COMPUTER GAME. It doesn't matter 2 cents if you adopt it in a GMAE.

Call me crazy but yes. I play civilization to have fun, not to win, besides I find corporations to be quite useful. I like corporations to much to adopt state property.

3. You literally build wonders in your capital, every one you can. Each wonder has its uses. The HUGE amounts of hammers needed would be better spent on workers, settlers, normal buildings, or military units.

I know. It does cost me and its almost impossible to do. I also have to skip some key buildings like libraries to do it.

1. And you're in the only econ-focused party, and that party's leader. Joy oh joy.

That was one game. Which proves my point, war destroys the economy. I would DOW a country, and as soon as I was done I attack the next, It was 1600 that I won the game, Immortal huge map.

1. Did you spam missionaries from the WB? Then okay. Doesn't apply here.

Nope, I spread them to civs, got them to help me. Also once you force them to convert the religion spreads relatively quickly. Especailly if the civ is spiritual, they love to mass missionaries. I don't cheat, I make sure the map is playble and then start playing.

2. Pacifism needs Philo. We don't even have Machinery, Feud, OR Civil Service. Doesn't apply here.

True, but I am suggesting that we don't mass units so when we don't have a dead economy from converting

3. You need to fear the man, because as MANY have said before, including myself, he makes events that can do long-lasting effects. The civ of Germany/Mongolia? One more potential ally in a world of many civs. An entire new layer of diplo.

He wont intentionally get our civilization destroyed

Doesn't apply here.

Does, unlike my brother I play through the war. I have only once lost a war to an ai (not counting diety) in a war and yet I don't build units before the war begins and don't enter world builder unless I loose with 90%. I quit the game, because normally I had to get off 100% tech to have the economy to win the war, and aren't doing as well as I had hoped. However I wont quit the game if the war benefited me more then hurt me.

 

[MathNerd]

Your comments are USELESS unless you play games without WB!!!!!

WB is cheating, that simple. Mods: Watch out for this guy in the Gauntlets, Epics, Adventures, etc.