What's your typical game strategy? Poll

[aimlessgun]

For some reason I voted non-specialized civ then looked at the thread and it's probably not that correct. I mean you inherently specialize your cities because of the terrain, there's no helping it. Some cities have lots of production tiles. Some cities have lots of good cottage tiles. I just build the cities to fit whatever is there.

Mostly I like cottaging/teching, beelining Lib>Infantry for lategame war. Early war is just so slow and tedious...stacks moving at 1 tile a turn vs. tanks blitzing across the map with air support is no contest.

But really if opportunities present themselves, why not take them? I'll do early war if it's the obvious move. Though sometimes that annoys me in that I hit the 'turning point' of the game really early and it's all mop-up from there, especially getting a good enemy capital site early on a smaller map. I like the game being in doubt all the way to the space race

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Hybrid with a focus on production so I can unit spam and concur the world. :3

How does having a large army allow you to concur with the world?

 

[Earthling]

AV if evil; rarely OO or annoying Esus. Usally dom/conquest is the norm, with some good altar/tower victories are fun. FoL and Kilmorph always nice defaults; only 1 or two civs suited to Order/Empy apiece imo.

 

[katipunero]

i play the kiss ass then backstab strategy.

 

[Negator_UK]

How does having a large army allow you to concur with the world?

Well, really when you have a large army, the world concurs with you

 

[LegioCorvus]

The only time I have a pre-planned strategy is when I decide ahead of time to go for a cultural victory. Otherwise, it's play to the map. Which... isn't really mutually exclusive to opportunistic.

 

[TonyGillen]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

After getting back to the game about a couple of months ago and reading a lot of advice and strategies on the board, I find that I am an opportunist/go with the flow player. What I do in the game changes depending upon the situation as it presents itself.

For example, in my current game as De Gaulle I wanted to rush Hannibal so I beelined BW and IW. Turned out I didn't have any copper or iron and he did so I quickly had to become a peacemonger. Eventually I got Hannibal and the other biggest civ in my game, Churchill, to Friendly. When Charlemagne later DOW'd on me, I was able to get Churchill and Hannibal to join my war and I took five cities from Charlemagne.

 

[Rychord]

I chose the have fun strategy because really, that's the reason I play this game. I will often play a game to test out some new knowledge I got out of the War Academy, but even then I try to not be too strict with it and just do whatever is the most fun. In other cases I will simply try to play a combo of the map/leader, and since I almost always go with a random leader the start will determine my early direction.

 

[TheDS]

Sounds like you'll be interested in my Economies thread. See my sig for linky.

 

[Isikien]

Map and leader dependant

My intial thought process is something like this though:

1: What land is best to settle and develop? Where?
2: Who is near me and what kind of threat does he/she present? How can I shoot the competition in the foot?
3: How will my traits allow me to win the game?

War does play a massive role in my games though. Once I've got early infrastructure techs my next thought is usually BW and IW in order to protect myself. And then from the interest in protection comes the troops. Then stacks of troops. Then stacks of troops invading people.

 

[Thor7]

What the heck is a non specialized strategy? Where all your cities build a bunch of improvements that don't help them?

I think non specialized should apply to your entire empire. If you don't specialize cities at least to some degree you are sacrificing a lot of potential. Yet your whole empire doesn't have to be cottage spam or production focused.

So I put oppertunistic. If stone is lying around maybe I build the pyramids and libraries and a farm to run a scientist over an early cottage for example. Wars are also very oppertunistic. Certain tech paths as well. To box yourself into one strategy is foolishness imo. You may win, but you can will more easily by being flexible.

 

[ICNP]

I take whatever oppurtunity presents itself. There an excellent city with copper just over there? Settle it. Some religious whore built a Shrine rather than units, I take it. I have too many units lying around and not enough land? Someones getting an axe to the face (or bayonet, I'm not picky).

 

[IAM]

What the heck is a non specialized strategy? Where all your cities build a bunch of improvements that don't help them?

I think non specialized should apply to your entire empire.... To box yourself into one strategy is foolishness imo. You may win, but you can will more easily by being flexible.

I gutted your quote a little to make my point. A non-specialized civ is more flexible. Especially with the spiritual trait. Going to war? Switch to military civs and produce units in every city. Race for Liberalism? Switch to science traits and have every city produce beakers. Like a dozen ballerinas with flaming machetes the non-specialized civ is

 

[ICNP]

So what would be the ultimate non-Specialized Civ?
Spiritual/Creative (Hatemshuptet) or Spiritual/Organized (Asoka) Leader with a generic UB, and UU? I guess that would make Asoka of India the best, although his UB could be improved.

 

[IAM]

So what would be the ultimate non-Specialized Civ?
Spiritual/Creative (Hatemshuptet) or Spiritual/Organized (Asoka) Leader with a generic UB, and UU? I guess that would make Asoka of India the best, although his UB could be improved.

I think Isabella of the Incas is the best non-specialized civ.

 

[Thor7]

I gutted your quote a little to make my point. A non-specialized civ is more flexible. Especially with the spiritual trait. Going to war? Switch to military civs and produce units in every city. Race for Liberalism? Switch to science traits and have every city produce beakers. Like a dozen ballerinas with flaming machetes the non-specialized civ is

But you waste sooo many hammers building barracks, markets, universities etc in every city, it just isn't feasible. Your example of units is fine, since barracks are realatively cheap and often I do switch all my cities to producing units, but are you suggesting a non commerce city should really try to build banks and universities? That seems like a waste.

I have typical moves in my games like axe rush someone, get music first to start a golden age, grab liberalism first, but the map and game all change exactly how that happens. For example one game I'll research lib asap cus mansa is about to get it and I'll pop military tradition. Another game no one is going that path so I held off on lib long enough to pop physics with it. Crazy stuff.

 

[Uranus Reamerz]

I'm an opportunist/ religious, I guess. I take what the map gives me ... and if it isn’t to my initial satisfaction ... I regenerate. I have a set of general templates in my head that I am working for. Of course you gotta understand your nearby rivals. If I beeline anything its religion at least until I have priesthood and or the world center for a religion. Of course I'm pushing Bronze so I can chop chop chop. Horse and horseback riding ... build some Mounties and find a weak nearby rival and pillage the landscape for gold and extra workers ... usually difficult to take cities but you can sure push him to the rear of the pack. One of my first 3 cities, maybe even my capitol becomes the religious Mecca ... If I can get Stonehenge, Oracle and Moai in one city so I can get Moses and hiz buds to generate, establish a religion, build monasteries to get the 10% tech bonus, build missionaries to infect nearby civ get em to convert and extemporaneously build an early influence!
IMO the game is won or lost early on and the game only magnifies the trend as it progresses.
Late game this translates to corporations! … Maybe you could call me a infiltrator /gorilla

 

[IAM]

But you waste sooo many hammers building barracks, markets, universities etc in every city, it just isn't feasible. Your example of units is fine, since barracks are realatively cheap and often I do switch all my cities to producing units, but are you suggesting a non commerce city should really try to build banks and universities? That seems like a waste.

There are some basic buildings you build everywhere. Barracks, library, market can target more than one civ goal. The library gives science and culture boost, etc. How many cannons could you build instead of bulding banks? There is a dynamic synergy to focusing the entire empire on a single goal.