Your Unique Play Style ...

Alchemind

Warlord
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
132
I don't consider this a multi-player game so I dont really get to see others in action in how they play. I'm kind of interested in whether they choose to play due to pragmatism vs idealism, conscientious vs restless, etc. Considering you are playing to win, does your play style differ from game to game? What is normally your distinct play style you prefer?



I like Org/Chm and seek peace-mongering, mainly in the interests of spreading a religion and founding a Shrine for income. I build lots of missionaries early game and usually am successful to converting most of my neighbors to Buddhism or Polytheism. Beyond that, Caravels with missionaries and a defensive posture up to a religious or scientific victory. Ill declare war when I start to feel I am behind on land, as I treat land as the main "score."
 
On Warlord, I was always isolationist, spreading my religion throughout the world, and only fighting defensive wars. I normally won science or time victories, though I could have won any of them. I just moved up to Noble, and I now have to declare war and take cities to have a chance at anything but a cultural victory.
 
When I acquire strategic resources, iron/copper or horses, I always conquer the nearest civ even if he's friendly or not.:D

I almost never play defensively especially in later era when a rival is near cultural or space victory.
 
Vengeful > opportunist and back-stabber > covetous of land and resources.

I do try to be decent to civs that have been my ally so long as the leader can be reasonable i.e. not plot at pleased. I do play world policeman when it comes to the likes of Shaka and Ragnar - for the good of the world, I will not stand the likes of you. I'm trying to think of which leader that makes me most similar to.
 
Vengeful > opportunist and back-stabber > covetous of land and resources.

I do try to be decent to civs that have been my ally so long as the leader can be reasonable i.e. not plot at pleased. I do play world policeman when it comes to the likes of Shaka and Ragnar - for the good of the world, I will not stand the likes of you. I'm trying to think of which leader that makes me most similar to.

I am friend with Catherine once. We had shared wars, religion, I even run her favorite civic. I thought we'll be BFF. We we're the biggest two. We got all others vassaled equally. When I'm near space victory... she D0Wed me. I can't believe it.

It's sad she had to eat all my nukes.:(
 
I usually play for a peaceful victory condition. That being the case, I tend to make allies and stick with them from early in the game. Of course, if I am playing for a military victory, although I will still try to do it this way, sometimes it is necessary to take out an old ally. Of course, if HC is in the game, I usually kill him off, if someone else does not get him first, having grown tired of him going for the early culture victory.

I always play random leaders and choose my victory condition based on who I get and how the first part of the game plays out. What approach I use depends on who I get. Variety is good! I also like to play on huge maps because there are lots of empires, which makes the diplomacy aspect of the game more important and I like that.
 
I am rather sure I'm not alone doing that (but I do that in some extreme extent) but I mostly enslave my neighbours and worker steal like no tomorrow to a point I built a single worker in my game. Abuse, yeah possibly, but this is my little sadistic pleasure: keep the AI alive the longest possible to milk the most possible out of them.
 
Started off as "kill 'em all, as quickly as possible". Then reformed to "only peaceful cultural and space". These days, to make things more interesting I play "peacefully", but take offense at the least provocation :ar15:
 
I have a policy (with a few exceptions) that is that if I get attacked, I will wipe them out. In my current game, I had to make open borders with Peter, and travel to a city with all ice and one tundra square to take out Mao.
 
Playing really hard deity games so no one notices how many mistakes I make...
 
its not all that unique but my play style formula consists of basically:

take out 2x AI --> have fun with the freedom when games in the bag --> get bored --> seek quickest victory condition.
 
I hate how I'm railroaded into certain tech choices early. It's worse than chess - at least there there is a choice of openings... As soon as the next tech choice isn't glaringly obvious, I like to introduce an element of randomness as to what I tech next.

I guess it means I won't be playing deity any time soon, but I'm confident I'll have more fun this way ;)
 
I like peacefully expanding while wonder-building and going for a late victory like space or a late dom/conquest with a State Property/workshop economy. But since I'm not satisfied with that unless I can get 10-12 cities peacefully, which almost never happens, I get pissed at the game and kill everyone with Cuirassiers.

If I get really boxed in, early rushes are fun, especially with War Chariots/Immortals or Horse Archers/Keshiks.
 
I hate how I'm railroaded into certain tech choices early. It's worse than chess - at least there there is a choice of openings... As soon as the next tech choice isn't glaringly obvious, I like to introduce an element of randomness as to what I tech next.

I guess it means I won't be playing deity any time soon, but I'm confident I'll have more fun this way ;)

Why just not roll the dice? I've heard this ''more fun'' many times before. I can tell you from experience this game is getting proportionally more fun with your skill and more and more possibilities appear. There is no determined tech path for any game, but some people manage to be closer to the optimal one. If you are that good that you always see which is the right way to go than hats off. But you are probably not and actually introduce random element even when you don't want to. So what's the point?

You must be able to go outside of your comfort zone. And that is a challenge. And challenge is fun.
 
If warmongering from Construction until the game ends is considered unique, then I have a very unique play style! Granted I think I am about the only person on here who regularly does it, so maybe it is.
 
Why just not roll the dice? I've heard this ''more fun'' many times before. I can tell you from experience this game is getting proportionally more fun with your skill and more and more possibilities appear. There is no determined tech path for any game, but some people manage to be closer to the optimal one. If you are that good that you always see which is the right way to go than hats off. But you are probably not and actually introduce random element even when you don't want to. So what's the point?

You must be able to go outside of your comfort zone. And that is a challenge. And challenge is fun.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just kidding around.
 
You should learn to play as many playstyles as possible, so you'll know what can work in different situations.

Edit: except AP wins
 
Silly debate. People play how they want to play. Some strategies and tactics are more efficient than others which allow people to win at higher difficulty levels but no strategies or tactics are compulsory.

For me its about asking for lots of advice from the forum, ignoring most of it and playing badly as a result.
 
Silly debate. People play how they want to play. Some strategies and tactics are more efficient than others which allow people to win at higher difficulty levels but no strategies or tactics are compulsory.

For me its about asking for lots of advice from the forum, ignoring most of it and playing badly as a result.

I didn't know you were Civnoobie!! :)
 
Top Bottom