To Cheat, or not To Cheat?

[Blinking Joy]

For a while I got used to "cheating" like crazy: I would save constantly -- practically every turn from 1AD onwards -- and sometimes several times per turn. Before every battle -- heck, every attack -- I would save; before unloading caravans or diplomats; certainly before uncovering a mystery hut; in short, I took all the risk out of the game, and made it into a kind of "civil engineering" project, where I could almost shape and mold the whole world, one turn at a time.

Today I decided to end saving entirely (except for the automatic saves every 50 turns). WOW! I even released a "horde of barbarians" in 3700BC with a militia (who died) and almost lost my one city. I didn't map out the whole land before going back and building my cities according to a general plan, like usual; I slowly expanded, and founded cities quickly on the best locations I could make out with limited knowledge. I happened to be on my own small continent, though it was hilly and grassland was scarce, so I only made six cities (nice production, however). My triremes found an occupied neighboring continent very early, and I rapidly made trade routes -- I believe that getting Trade ASAP and making routes as soon as you find a neighboring civ is incredibly important. In no time I was advancing like crazy, getting Invention around 1000BC (at King level -- I only play on King level).

Around 1AD, the Russians landed a chariot and a militia on a mountain next to one of my fringe cities. It had only one militia in it (non-veteran to boot), and no city walls (oops! I forgot that when you don't save, you don't have the luxury of keeping cities barely defended). Oh no! I was in the process of building Musketeers at the time, and this city's neighbor was building a Musketeer for it that very turn. I unfortified the building city's Musketeer and moved it along the road -- but it wouldn't make it to the besieged city until the next turn. Oh dear. I threw two nearby settlers into it, figuring that at least the city couldn't be taken even if all the Russian's attacks were successful. Which they were -- the chariot killed the militia and a settler, and his MILITIA killed the other settler. Did I mention that this city was actually built on a hill??? The city was now empty. End of turn.

Next turn I threw the Musketeer in there and fortified. And yes, his chariot died. He fortified his militia there (it's still there, five hundred years later -- the city is now well-protected, and I see no reason to bother the militia. It's on a square I wouldn't be using yet anyway).

Recently (in the same game) I landed three caravans off of a frigate next to a Babylonian city (Sumer) -- there were no safe roads two squares away, so I gambled. I paid "King" Hammurabi (he was "President" before I landed, but naturally the Babylonians had a revolution) 350 gold for peace. I end my turn: he sneak attacks my caravans. Again, not saving, this is the kind of silliness we can expect. I love it!

I don't think I'm ever saving again. The game is completely different when events take their course...

 

[Whelkman]

I don't think I'm ever saving again. The game is completely different when events take their course...

That's the greatest part about this game: everyone can make up their own rule sets and play completely different scenarios. I like the term "civil engineering project"; that perfectly describes my goal.

 

[Acadien]

Blinking Joy,

Welcome to what is, in my humble opinion, the best way to play the game (that is, the role-playing style of playing). I only use the saves in case my computer crashes or if I have to go to bed or stop and continue later. I never use a savegame to go back because I play each game as a story.

With such a mindset, even "loosing" and being stuck in a struggle for mere existance is exciting! On "king level" and without going back when something does not go your way, I find that most games are a tight struggle all the way, especially if you play non aggressively and center on developpement as opposed to frenetic conquering.

 

[Blinking Joy]

How wonderful! Both philosophies and play styles rule. I won't completely give up the save-and-shape type of game -- I foresee a time when I'll try to create a one-city tiny-island scenario again, for example. But since I haven't played a "non-save" (i.e. a very risky and adventurous) game in, like, forever, it's really appealing to me right now. I forgot how scary some turns can be...

 

[Diviner]

i only saved sometimes before attacking a city-walled city. i felt my combat chances so low (which is true eventually), too low and rebalance the game. i went for as early conquest as i could in these times, so my score should be high. now i gave up the idea. no saves in every turn of war, only once 80-100 turns to prevent my game largely concerned by a blackout for example

 

[Blinking Joy]

Yeah, when you don't even save for ANY combats, the game can be quite a roller coaster. You might lose centuries' worth of built-up units in a couple of turns -- lose them unexpectedly, for example, if you're using cannons and knights to attack an unwalled city with a phalanx or two in it. You should win, but sometimes luck is against you -- and the best laid plans of mice and men...

So indeed, I find that those games where I don't "cheat" (it isn't really "cheating", of course -- it's a game meant for fun, so however you play is the right way to play) can have some epic tales to tell, sagas of struggle and tragedy and sometimes total failure...but even those games are fun, as I desperately try to save my last city or two against a massive onslaught of technologically superior forces...hilarious!

 

[Acadien]

when playing without the save cheat, playing defensively and focussing more on building-up your own civ is less risky than all-out conquest. This means you are not all-dominating early and the game but if you get ahead in technology and production, you can be the dominant force latter in the game. One way to lessen the difficult odds is to be the first to get some of the strong units (cannon, battleship, bombers) and be the first to industrialise, and do lots of trade routes. Howerver, it is always risky to try to conquer everythings in sight (you can loose alot of units in a short time). If land is scarce and military expansion is in order, carfully choosing which city to conquer and which city to tolerate is a good way to go if you want to avoid high risks in a no save-cheat game.

 

[Blinking Joy]

I like what Acadien says. Combat, and conquest, are sometimes necessary -- often I'll want to have a whole continent to myself, and that means killing off other civs early on. Units are important, of course, and when I play a no-save game, I invariably get The Wheel right away, and build barracks very, very soon. That way I have a small army of chariots waiting in the wings while I expand. If I encounter another civ, I throw all my chariots at him.

The problem here, of course, is when I am alone on my own continent from the beginning. By the time I find that out, I've already built barracks and a few chariots -- time and resources "wasted", which could have been used to build temples and more settlers...

But when you don't save, you don't have the luxury of knowing beforehand what you'll need a dozen turns down the road.

 

[noushina]

I usually cheat in that I save about every few turns. THen I go back many times. Especially early on when loosing a city can pretty much mean the game. I usually play at king level.