The Smaller Empire

[loffenx]

For quite some time now I have more or less consciously avoided large empires. Not because it is the best way to play, but because too many occupied cities without any clear purpose bores me. I like to cuddle up in my own empire, usually the forested lands of the Svartalfar. Sometimes I conquer nearby lands and convert them, but after a certain number of cities I usually focus on improving what I have rather than conquering new. Needless to say, I don’t aim for domination/conquest

What I would like to hear is if anyone else play like this, or with similar self-restraints. I’d also like to hear any ideas about how to make a smaller empire as effective as possible. I have been tinkering with God King alot, and some aristocracy. Since I often nurture good relations with a selected bunch of AIs I have discovered the economic power of trade routes.

I have also tried to come up with a number of tricks about what to do with the ruined lands of my enemies, since warfare is usually unavoidable and often rewarding, even if you do not want to occupy your enemy’s lands permanently. I usually try to find some weak backwater AI without too many enemies that want any city it can get, and set them up as a dependant though non-vassalized neighbour, to whom I can give away the cities I do not want. Another option is of course to leave a couple of Esus-followers to take down any future settlers that might come to claim the land.

Anyone else play like this? I guess you could call it “buildes”-style, though it is not like I mind or avoid warfare.

 

[readercolin]

Have you tried playing as the Kurotaes? They are practically perfect for this kind of play (limit to the number of cities you can have, but each city can work 3 rings of tiles). Other civs that tend to encourage this kind of play are the elves (either of them), the khazid (keep those vaults full), and possibly the calibam (huge cities are FAR better than small cities).

The only question then is - what kind of victory condition do you go for? ToM? AoL? Cultural? Religious? Does it vary depending upon the game?

For myself, I tend to build a core of 2-6 cities (depending upon map size and crowding), and make them the greatest cities I can manage, then have a varying size empire (depending upon how many dead bodies I stacked my empire over ) of more minor cities. Personally however, I find general building games a bit boring, so I tend to go more for the whole conquest thing.

-Colin

 

[loffenx]

The pronlem with the Kurioates is that I find the whole centaur-thing a bit lame, or well, I don't mind them in the game as neighbours, but I'm not really interested in playing them.

The others I play regularly, though not the Khazad, perhaps I should try them out next time.

I used to go for religious victory since it suits well with the whole sphere-of-influence-thing, but lately I've been tinkering with the religions a bit and played alot of Council of Esus, so I've been aiming for tower victories. Though I rarely finish games, once I have the minor towers and the income to save up to the last in a reasonable amount of time I usually loose interest.

 

[MasterofDisasta]

I also am I fan of gifting away lots of conquered cities to an ally. Usually I try to become friendly with someone and then gift them all the cities I don't want. I try to sign a defensive pact with them, and if that doesn't work, you can always just ask them to declare war.

Sometimes I find it useful to summon the mercurians for this tactic. You get a permanent ally with a huge standing army guarding those conquered lands, so no is going to take them back any time soon.

 

[Emptiness]

On a standard size map I tend to stop my growth at 12 cities. After that point I start vassalizing enemies and let them take and control cities. Managing too many cities gets tedious, and allowing vassals to manage them for me solves the problem. 12 cities isn't really all that small, but in theory one could stop growing with fewer cities and shift to vassalization earlier.

 

[loffenx]

Oh, can you gift cities to permanent allies? I did not know that.

 

[Micky Onimusha]

I'm not a fan of large empires either. Too much micromanagement. I especially hate it when you conquer a large city in the late-game and have to spend ages getting all the "usual" buildings setup (Market/Courthouse/Monument) to start getting it semi-functional. The Basium idea isn't a bad one. It means you can send a stampeding army through and let the AI deal with the micromanagement. The real problem is getting a City that can build the Mercurian Gate that isn't a city you want to lose. Usually I'd just turn to a Great Engineer though (and I know I'm not the only one). Just be careful of him dragging you into wars you don't want though >.<

 

[MasterofDisasta]

Yeah I tend to only summon them when I have an great engineer around to use for it. And I know what you mean about the wars, if AV starts spreading the diplomacy gets a little ... chaotic.

 

[Senethro]

Why not play smaller maps?

 

[loffenx]

I play small maps, atm PerfectWorld which I however believe generate larger-than-standard maps /size. To me it also has alot to do with the fact that I like a world populated with a variety of civs, I like the diversity and the diplomacy of multiple factions/civs/blocks etc.

 

[Worm4life]

I play small maps, atm PerfectWorld which I however believe generate larger-than-standard maps /size. To me it also has alot to do with the fact that I like a world populated with a variety of civs, I like the diversity and the diplomacy of multiple factions/civs/blocks etc.

I'd like games like this, but it always ends up with 30+ second turn calculation times

Sometimes I raze enemy civs instead of capturing them just to keep the turn time down