SGFN-05: A work in progress

Styles of play do differ, don't they. I usually max on Writing if I start with Alphabet. I don't trade Alphabet until I see at least one other Civ with it, and I don't trade Writing until a few turns after I land it, unless someone beats me there (which depends on what other Civs are out there). We need to explore like crazy people. Even on pangea, there are often a few relatively isolated Civs we can exploit if we get to them first.

I'm OK with using Republic to begin with in this game, only because we are religious. If we get stuck against Hoplites before the MA, we are going to bog down some and will need the fall-back.
 
Styles of play do differ, don't they. I usually max on Writing if I start with Alphabet..

Same. Every now and then I do a min on writing.

I don't trade Alphabet until I see at least one other Civ with it, and I don't trade Writing until a few turns after I land it, unless someone beats me there (which depends on what other Civs are out there).

Yes, and I might even wait until I have CoL and I am halfway philosophy until I sell writing.

I'm OK with using Republic to begin with in this game, only because we are religious. If we get stuck against Hoplites before the MA, we are going to bog down some and will need the fall-back.

Agreed again. Warring in republic means we have to minimize war wariness, meaning:

- minimize being attacked;
- minimize losses;
- minimize foreign troops in our territory;
- absolutely avoid loosing cities: any city we conquer but are probably not able to keep should be razed;
- try to start the war with war happiness by letting the other declare; but this is probably not allowed by the variant. Does the variant allow that we engineer war happiness by phony wars against targets that are not number 1 on the list?
 
Does the variant allow that we engineer war happiness by phony wars against targets that are not number 1 on the list?
I don't think there's any problem there.
I had a similar question: suppose we're up against a really strong opponant, are we allowed to direct our main offensive forces against a weaker opponant first, and play things patiently with the stronger opponant? (staying at war with them, of course). I suppose it's possible, but I rather ask.

About war wearininess:
I'm not sure whether enemy troops in our territory have an effect on it. Our troops in enemy territory definitely have, I'm sure on that.
You like to be quick and effective in attack (in Republic). My experience is that pillaging sprees are generally not worth it. But if a defensive enemy unit - like a Spearman - comes wandering in my territory I will wait until it's off a mountain before attacking it. Well, if I've got the artillery to redline in on the mountain, I can imagine attacking it on the mountain, so it depends.
Risking a town getting sacked is a big NO! Huge war weariness there. But my remedy has always been, when a big enemy stack shows up at the gates of that awkwardly placed town that I cannot defend well, I simply gift the town away to a neutral, smaller civ in the game. I've never seen the big enemy then declare war on the small neutral civ just to grab that little town.

On Greece; I probably have even more respect for Greece's trait combo as for their UU. Scientific and Commercial; they often have techs and money. That means they can easily make alliances with other civs and engineer a dogpile. Greece is dangerous!
 
I think it depends on our opponents. In my test game, I had all the idiots and the tough guys in a bunch. Idiots were Germany, the Zulu and the Aztecs. Tough guys Persia and the Iroquois. The Byzantines ended up dogpiling me with those lackeys. So we'll have to be careful to avoid that happening, though some DoWs via alliance could get us some war happiness. I am about halfway through the first turn-set of the real game, no contact yet. We'll find out who everyone is at 3000 BC, as I do feel that F10 is a bit of an exploit.
 
Top Bottom