|
Going back up a bit, one reason to take Goddess of Protection is to keep the civ you plan on rushing from taking it. It's a poo poo pantheon but goddamn if it won't stonewall your Archer/Spearman-based army cold.  The only problem I have with naval warfare is the difficulty of healing naval units -- you have to park them in your own territory (or expend a Great Admiral on them for a one-shot heal, or consume a promotion to heal). I wish you could, I dunno, pay a gold fee when in friendly waters to heal them, like you're contracting out the reconstruction work to your ally or something.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:You only need to take one crap city to have a place to heal, but failing that buy a city‐state if there’s one in the area. Do city-states really work for that? I thought it had to be territory you control.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Just give up on the Great Library, man. It's not worth it, since you have to dedicate a ton of your capital's productive turns to it, turns that could be spent on a granary and archers and so on. And getting Philosophy early isn't really that helpful either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I doubt it's possible yet to make an AI this complex, but I realized I want Cold Wars in Civ6. Sufficiently powerful nations or blocs and the only way you can fight without the both of you being utterly destroyed is with spies and ideological pressure. It could even have a sort of "diplomatic space race" where you research policies and whatever and whichever faction wins completely destablizes their enemies. What I want is to be able to pseudo-puppet city-states and goad them into wars with other city-states (and then dedicate my entire industrial capacity to giving them units). And likewise, if a city-state gets into a war with one that I've pledged to protect, then I want to be able to do a ton of indirect support for "my" city-state without officially getting involved. Wars by proxy, in other words.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
I seem to recall reading that that only works if you switch between building units and buildings (e.g. you can't start building a granary, then switch to building a library and keep your granary progress, but you can if you switch from a worker to a granary). I admit to not having tested this though. Also, while building a Monument is probably not the wisest thing to do if you go Tradition, you do still get a free culture building; it's just the next culture building instead (the ampitheatre, IIRC). That does still mean paying rather more upkeep over the course of the game since you don't get the free building until you've unlocked the necessary tech for it, but it's not a disaster.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Luceo posted:In Civ4, I never switched away from slavery until I could rush with gold instead of people. One of the changest I'm happiest with in CiV is that you are no longer in an eternal struggle between beakers and gold and thus don't have to play the risk/reward game of underfunding your scientific research so you'll have the gold needed to rush something (or to pay off one of those loving random events). Anyway, as a result I never had any gold on-hand in CIV and thus couldn't rush things anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Incidentally, that's one of the changes I'm least happy with in 5. I hope for 6 they go back to a slider. 5's system is just too inflexible for my tastes. I think the problem I had with the slider was that it was just so stark. You were presented with a choice: make money or science or culture, you cannot have all three. A less "painful" way to set that up is to allow the player to decide which of those things their civ is going to focus on, e.g. by which buildings they choose to prioritize in their cities. If you think it's more important to build a Market before a Library, then you're putting gold ahead of beakers (EDIT: similarly, building a Library first means paying the opportunity cost of the gold value of the Market's hypothetical income during that time). I will grant that that approach (which is more or less the CiV approach) doesn't allow you to tank your science for a few turns in order to build up a huge stockpile of gold...but I find myself wondering how realistic that is anyway. A more simulationist model would be to allow your civ to go into debt (against its population) by issuing bonds, which would give you gold in the short-term but reduce your income over the next X turns, with happiness penalties (and unit revolts, etc.) if you can't pay up. TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Speedball posted:This actually makes sense to me. "Sir! Our researchers in the Arctic have just had a breakthrough! Check out these new weapon prototypes!" "Excellent. With these new...spears...our enemies shall fall before us as wheat before the scythe!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:The polar regions, though, you pretty much need modern technology to do anything more than (impressively) surviving in. Maybe units trained in polar zones could get special promotions, then? I don't know exactly how this would work though. You'd probably have to disallow rush-buying them and then say any unit "born" above or below certain latitudes get the promotions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I like Internet without Computers. Satellites without Combustion is another fun one. I like to imagine that the satellites reach orbit via bottle rockets. Or perhaps very large slingshots. Bloodly posted:I'm curious as the the ideas in bold. I'm familar with Civ 3, where you could put colonies on resources JUST out of reach. The first one sounds like the 'Cottage' system I've heard of as Civ 4. Yeah, cottages were tile improvements in CIV that produced 1 extra commerce (which could be turned into gold, science, or culture depending on your sliders) when worked. Working a cottage for a certain number of turns would upgrade it to a village and then a town (I may be forgetting an upgrade step), each of which would produce more commerce. From what I remember, cities in CIV generally had dedicated purposes. Like "This is my production city, which is going to make all of my units; this is my food city, which is going to support all of my specialists and make all my Great People", etc. Largely this is because the capacity of a city to do anything depended hugely on the tiles in its radius. No hills and you weren't going to get many hammers; no food tiles and you weren't going to be able to grow effectively.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:The article kind of gives the impression that 'fun' games don't necessarily involve truly smart AI, but AI that is ultimately predictable/intuitive to the player and provides consistent moderate challenge. It really depends on what kind of challenge the player wants to get out of a game. The average modern FPS is usually considered to be a reaction-based game of moving in and out of cover and making precise shots at high speed. They aren't usually tactical games where you need to consider the AI's movements. So if you take an existing FPS with a known "challenge type" and then change the AI so that the player needs to behave differently, then it's not surprising that the player will be unpleasantly surprised. They played the game expecting one thing but got something different. But you could absolutely build a game around tactical movement where both sides have multiple approaches that may need to be defended against (and indeed, at a very high level that's what a standard CTF map is all about). If done at a small scale, it might be better-suited as a third-person shooter to cut down on tunnel vision, though. The main thing is to be clear about what kind of game you're providing and how the player is supposed to engage with it. For Civ games, I'd guess you have broadly three different kinds of players: builder, "RP gamer", and "board gamer" (terms made up). The builder is inwardly-focused on their own civ, doesn't really care much what the other civs do, and mostly just wants to make a neat little civilization. They're generally happy to stick to the lower difficulty levels. The RP gamer wants to win the game, but also wants the game to be a quote-unquote "realistic historical simulation", i.e. the other civs, while playing by the same mechanical rules as the player, do not have the same goals. And the board gamer also wants to win, and would be happiest if all of the other civs were run by other human players; the AI is just meant to serve as as close of an approximation to a human player as a computer can get. Obviously CiV went with the "board gamer" approach while prior games went with "RP gamer", while also setting themselves up for failure by making the mechanics hard to implement a good AI of any kind for. To this double whammy add a third problem: while in previous Civ games a stupid AI could be explained away as "the AI isn't trying to win" (i.e. occasional horrifically illogical actions could be glossed over), that excuse no longer works in CiV. EDIT: ^ I forgot about workshops and water mills. It's been a long time since I played CIV. Thanks for the correction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:I guess I suck then, because I can't do that. Play defensive wars if you possibly can. The AI can't siege worth a drat (notable exceptions Atilla and Ashurbanipal, who get early unique siege units), so if you just turtle up in your cities with a bunch of archers, you can plink them to death with minimal losses. Don't get caught out in the open where they can swarm your units, and make certain to track how far their units can move on their turn.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
I noticed that Great Musicians have a tour strength statistic, though I haven't checked if that changes over time. I always figured that the strength of popping a Great Person depended on the era in which you got them or something similar. If it changes over time then that makes saving them for later more realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
I had a game yesterday as the Inca where I started on a continent with Sejong and Napoleon. Napoleon was isolated on this crappy little isthmus, but somehow was still ninjaing all the wonders despite having poo poo for hammers (in particular, he took Notre Dame, which I really needed because my happiness was in the toilet). So I decided to take him out. He only had two cities, but there was no way to get to Paris without going through Orleans, so I torched Orleans (and then later settled New Orleans on its ruins  ). Naturally right before I captured Paris, my explorers made contact with every other civ in the game. One turn after Napoleon gets ejected? Five denunciations. Everyone hated my guts all game, but they never declared war, even when my military was ranked 5th and #6 was China with zero (Shaka had her really pinned down; near the end I had literally twice as many techs unlocked as she did). Granted Sejong wasn't doing so hot either, and the only other civ on our continent was a crappy little city that Shaka had laid down. But all game the other civs' attitudes were like "Hostile, Hostile, Guarded, Hostile, Neutral". Ended up winning a diplo victory a bit before 1920 by bribing literally every single city-state, which got me exactly enough votes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:Great Wall(And other such wonders with cutoff) have ALWAYS worked so, and SAID so, from Civ 1 through 4. I cannot understand anyone who is familiar with the previous games being surprised by this. Plenty of people aren't familiar with the previous games, and regardless of tradition it's very unintuitive that your Great Wall no longer works to stop your opponent's knights just because you have artillery. But as noted it makes sense from a game balance perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yet another reason why every victory is a science victory. Most diplo victories are economic victories, really. I mean, sure, science helps your economy get up to the 100-200 GPT you need to be able to bribe all the city-states to your side, but you don't need to have unlocked the entire tech tree to win diplo the way you need to to win a "real" science victory. I mean, you could as easily say "every victory is a military victory" because you have to keep a sizable standing military to keep the other players from stomping you. Kinda hard to say "every victory is a cultural victory" though .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Bashez posted:Mountains are bad tiles, you end up with a lot of dead space as the Inca. I just finished a game as the Inca where I was totally dominant in population (and thus science, etc.) despite almost all of my cities being coastal cities with nearby mountains. Sure, my production output wasn't outstanding, but it wasn't terrible either and Terrace Farms are fantastic tile improvements. Having a few "dead" tiles in your city's environs is absolutely not a problem in CiV. You probably won't end up working anywhere near all the tiles you have available to you. By the time your city's population is big enough to actually work all the tiles in its area (which is a huge number of tiles!) you've probably switched many of them over to specialists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Bashez posted:It's a problem when you end up with like 12 workable tiles.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Yeah, science victory is really the "you haven't gotten any other victory yet? Whelp." The last tech you need for culture victories really is the one that gives you Broadcast Towers, though of course the Internet is a big help. If you need Giant Robots to finish your domination victory then something has gone badly wrong or you're just being lazy. Diplomacy victories are winnable as soon as you enter the Information Age (or everyone reaches the Atomic), which is going to be something like a hundred turns before you have all the spaceship techs unlocked. If you want to prevent other civs from winning diplo victories, then beat them up (so they don't have the resources to buy out city-states) and/or ally with most of the city-states. In my last Standard-size game with the default number of civs and city-states, I needed literally every city-state in my pocket and the Forbidden Palace to have enough votes to win a diplo victory on the first vote. It's not hard to disrupt that. Or you could just turn diplo victories off of course.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Gort posted:They aren't really. Keep in mind that you no longer get any money from rivers or sea tiles, and you always ended up rolling in money by the lategame anyway. And as soon as hostilities start the AI will destroy any of your caravans it can get its hands on -- and on sufficiently open maps, barbarians (and barbarian ships) will pillage your caravans/cargo ships. The caravan system also imposes a fiscal cost to being at war with everyone, since you can't trade with them. If you try to play Always War you'll probably find your GPT in the shitter because it's bloody hard to make money.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:I usually luck out by getting a city state close by enough that setting up a road and caravan, and having one unit sit in front of it so no Barbarians can take it, can happen really early in the game and helps a lot. Then again, I also play kinda dangerously and don't keep many units. City-state GPT from caravans tends to be poor compared to trading with other civs' big cities, too. quote:Also, does your city defense number have anything to do with whether other civs will consider going to war with you? I was next door neighbours with Atilla the loving Hun one game, with border dispute. His city was around strength 20 when mine was easily reaching 100 (specifically because I spent so much on defense due to being next to Atilla the Hun) and he never went to war with me, even after denouncing me like twice. AIs will definitely look at the demographics page as well as whatever of your army they can see, so stationing military on your border can help stave off war. If you look weak then they're more likely to attack. Dunno if they consider city strength though. And on Prince the AI won't generally be very aggressive unless you pay zero attention to military.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I also thought the reason you get less gold from City-State caravans was because you're giving gold and science to another Civ when you trade with them. I'm pretty sure it has more to do with city-states being even shittier than AI-controlled cities. You get a full breakdown of what contributes to the caravan's income -- it's stuff like luxury resources they have and you don't, their population, buildings they have (e.g. markets give extra money to civs that connect caravans to the cities those markets are in), etc. But really, worrying about the boost you're giving to a single other civ is generally overdoing things. It's more important to help yourself than it is to not help an opponent. Especially when it comes to the AI; you can generally assume they have money coming out their ears anyway because they cheat so much. They just don't know how to use it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Bashez posted:On Prince they won't have any money. I think Emperor is the first level where people will semi regularly be able to foot the bill for it. Usually I just give them enough money to pay for the agreement and then pay the agreement and all the extra on top of that for being so far ahead in tech. Research agreements got nerfed in the fall patch, if I recall correctly -- now each civ only gets the beakers of the weaker of the two civs, instead of each getting a proportion of their personal research output. In other words, you won't see much benefit in helping out your Industrial Age neighbor when you're in the Information Age. Given that, I have trouble getting excited about them any more. They take a significant up-front investment, and take a long time to take effect, and now it's much harder to quantify what the benefit will be. And yeah, if you have 8000GP then you should be upping the difficulty. At least to King. Emperor on up the other civs start getting huge starting bonuses (e.g. starting with two settlers) which rankles me a bit, but King isn't especially unreasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:As I said, the jump from Prince to King is really hefty for me and I can't manage to do anything. Guess I'll have to though if it's looking ridiculous to everyone else, haha. Start small. Try a Duel map or something. The Prince->King jump is mostly a matter of recognizing which buildings you actually need (e.g. a Market is pointless in a city that's generating 3GPT, you don't need a Caravansary in non-trade-oriented cities, you don't need a Barracks in non-production-based cities, etc.), and being a bit more proactive about maintaining a military so that the AI doesn't jump on you. How do you end up not able to do anything? As noted, the AI will seize all the early wonders (in particular, give up entirely on the Great Library), but those are absolutely not required to do well at the game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Suzuki Method posted:It's because I struggle with the Happiness mechanic. I remember when I first tried Prince I was bombarded with the fact happiness actually mattered now, and when I try going past Prince I just can't keep up with the unhappiness. Ahh. Things you can do to mitigate unhappiness: * Build fewer cities. Unless you're trying to do a domination game (in which case you need to at least puppet every other civ's capital) you shouldn't need more than 4 cities in your empire. * Get luxury resources. Each unique luxury resource is +4 happiness. You can often trade with other civs to get access to their luxuries, though they generally won't want to trade away their last copy since that means they lose 4 happiness (since they no longer have "access" to the resource). ** An end-tree Patronage social policy gives you 50% more happiness from luxury resources gotten from city-states, which can be a big jump. ** Likewise, there are lots of happiness-fixers in the ideologies. Freedom's "specialists only generate 50% unhappiness" is a big one, for example. * Make a religion that focuses on happiness. You can get happiness from shrines, temples, and gardens, from having lots of foreign followers, from faith-buying Pagodas, maybe a few other things that I forget. * Build Coliseums, Stadiums, Circuses, etc. Each city can reduce some of its local unhappiness by building these, but they cost upkeep (except the Circus, but you can only build that if you have horses or elephants near the city). * Build wonders that help with happiness. Notre Dame, Forbidden Palace, Eiffel Tower, etc. Not very reliable given the AI's tendency to snipe wonders. * Finding Natural Wonders is worth +1 happiness apiece, so scouting them out early can be worthwhile. Some of them give you happiness if they're in your borders, but I wouldn't go much out of my way to achieve that. The big whammy is having lots of cities under your control; you pay a big cost for each city and a lesser cost for each population point in your empire. If you're on the warpath, you should generally raze or puppet cities rather than assimilate them. In fact as far as I'm aware there's zero reason to assimilate a city while it's still in revolt. Cities you do assimilate should get Courthouses built in them ASAP to remove the happiness penalty from being an occupied city. TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
You need at least 3 cities if you want early access to an ideology, because you need to build 3 factories for that. Ideologies are incredibly powerful so this is almost always worthwhile. But I always seem to get screwed out of coal (needed to build those factories) and end up having to wait anyway, at least until my city-state allies hook up their coal. Otherwise, so far as I'm aware all of the penalties for having cities/population scale linearly, so it's mostly that the average game has a happiness "carrying capacity" (in terms of total availability of luxuries, etc.) that readily accommodates 4 cities but makes it harder to sustain larger civs. Oh, incidentally, you pay, what is it, 5% more beakers/culture to unlock techs/social policies for each city you have. A good city will easily make up that difference for you, but it's something to be aware of.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:I think people don't really consider the monuments and the "faster border expansion" in the opener enough. Population is king, but it's decidedly less so if you run out of useful tiles to work when your cities start growing like weeds. Spending money on tiles to compensate is not a very good use of your income in the early game I find unless you're buying a key luxury or a national wonder. The free monuments also save you on early hammers and maintenance costs for buildings that basically every city needs anyway, since you get zero border expansion without at least one source of culture. I generally find that my early cities have entirely acceptable border growth solely from the free monument.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:War weariness doesn't actually do anything unless you actually trade units with that opponent. Someone declaring from far away only cuts you off from trade. Put a different way, Swords Into Plowshares should only be cancelled if a) you declare war on someone, or b) your units engage in combat, or c) or hostile units enter your territory. Merely being in a nominal state of war because some other civ doesn't like you is no big deal. I mean hell, hadn't the USA been at war with Mexico for the last century or something because people kept forgetting to sign the treaty? I seem to recall something bizarre like that going on. Maybe not with those two specific combatants though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:So how many of you guys have put civs on your shitlist just for stealing a ruin at the beginning of the game? Man, I turned ruins off and haven't looked back. They're just way too stress-inducing for me. "Awesome, a ruin! Wait, poo poo, the AI's kabillion bonus scouts are all over the map, nevermind."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:They do. I’m wondering if I can abuse that. Other city‐states might not see it as aggression if I conquer I city‐state as part of a larger war. I wouldn't be surprised if city-states generally just care about how much you interfere with city-states. After all, you're supposed to be focusing on the actual civs, casus belli or no.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Bashez posted:Yeah that's my experience as well. To beat the 3 culture per turn from tradition you'd have to kill a barbarian warrior every other turn for the rest of the game. I don't get near that many kills and I'll only clear a few camps usually before the whole place is getting fog busted. You don't ignore Tradition in favor of Honor; you grab the Honor opener either immediately after or immediately before the Tradition opener. It only takes a few kills at +8 culture per to make up the cost of the extra social policy, and then you can proceed as normal except that you can murderize barbarians with ease and get notified when their camps pop up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
It's worth at least checking for easy-to-satisfy quests. Like, if a city-state wants a trade route, then it can be worth tossing one to them instead of to whatever normal city you were going to send that caravan to. If they want your religion and you're spreading it anyway, might as well toss a missionary their way. Sometimes you'll get setups where city-state A wants you to get a resource, city-state B will give you that resource if you ally with them, and city-state A also gives a resource that city-state C wants you to get! City-state benefits can be subtle, but they're a valid way to smooth out your economy. Like, if you have good gold income but bad happiness, then you can bribe mercantile city-states and effectively turn that gold into happiness. The extra food from...whatever that city-state category is...can boost your growth. And militaristic city-states can practically build your entire army for you, assuming you don't mind not having much choice in what kind of units you get (if nothing else, you can convert the unit into cash as soon as you get it).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Speaking of moronic AI, I'm sharing a continent with Washington right now, and he's saying he's Friendly while a) having no modifiers on the diplo screen other than "we share embassies" (he should have at least some warmonger penalty since he knows I wiped out Shaka), and b) having five times the pointy-sticks rating that I do. He's also out-teched me militarily and is rocking those Minutemen. Thing is, the only land approach to my territory is two one-tile-wide corridors on either side of a lake. I plopped down a couple of Great General fortresses on those two tiles. Does the AI consider that kind of thing when deciding whether or not to attack? Relatedly, should I goad him into attacking me? I'm playing as Monty so the free culture from his units would be nice to have. But I desperately need to fix my economy, so I wouldn't be able to take any war onto the offensive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
First time I've moved the settler in a long time: For a moment I thought that the Wine was also a forest/jungle, which would have meant sacrificing two turns of productivity to get the settler to the river; I'm not entirely certain that would have been worth it. But just one turn to get access to freshwater is clearly worthwhile for Monty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Doltos posted:What are the best money making factions besides Venice? Is it Morocco?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Poil posted:Um, assuming that is true, how is this an issue? It fits with how the AI plays and probably most players too, myself included. With an avatar like that, I should hope so 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Doltos posted:How do you do that btw? I never figured out how city-state interactions work with connecting resources to a trade network. Do you have to build a road to their city-state? Thus if city-state A has access to Ivory, and city-state B wants you to connect Ivory to your trade network, then allying with city-state A will accomplish this. But only if city-state A has gotten around to building the relevant tile improvement! And their workers are lazy assholes. quote:I thought they were avoiding the psycho rulers. Kind of why Stalin and Hitler aren't in even though they were arguably the most influential leaders in the history of their countries. Not this again  Stalin's been in in prior games. Hitler's not in because Firaxis wants to be able to sell the game in Germany.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Putin It In Mah rear end posted:Just one note on this. Whether you take Landed Elite or Monarchy first depends a lot on how early of a settler you are getting. If you get a settler before turn 30 or so, Monarchy is a better pick because you will not be growing in that time anyway, and you likely won't have a worker improving a luxury, so you'll need that -1/-2 unhappiness early on to squeak by before you have improved a luxury. This is how I do most of the time, actually. The +2 food in the capital does improve the speed at which the settler is "built", though. So it's not a completely one-sided equation. The big bonus is the %growth benefit, though, and I'll grant that's not much use if your city is unhappy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
I just pulled off my first victory on Emperor, as Montezuma. Standard-sized map, normal speed, no ruins, raging barbarians. I figured I'd farm the barbarians for early culture, transition into farming other civs for culture, take over my continent, and see how things went...then it turned out that my continent had 6 out of the 8 civs (with me smack in the middle) and pretty soon there wasn't any fog left, raging barbs or no raging barbs. So I just settled two extra cities, then teched for the next few thousand years. Everything was bizarrely peaceful, aside from the hilarious holy wars waged over my capital, where two Great Prophets of different religions would sit next to it and mass-convert it back and forth. Eventually we finally got some proper wars, but it took awhile. I was all set to win a diplomatic victory when I realized that I could only get up to 38 (out of 40 needed) votes by bribing city-states. So instead I went on the warpath, blitzed down Arabia's major cities, and one turn before the second diplomatic-victory vote would have come up, I won a culture victory instead. Maybe next time I'll go Shaka and do a proper domination victory 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
dayman posted:Usually, I'm able to bribe AI to stay at war with each other until I feel ready to take them but in the Europe map, for whatever reason, the AI happily will be at war with 2-3 civs and still DOW me. Which raises a question: what does the AI actually do when you bribe them to go to war? I mean, if an AI asks me to wardec someone, depending on who the AI is I may happily comply, but that doesn't mean I'll actually persecute the war beyond making certain my defenders are situated sensibly in case the wardecced civ comes calling. Will the AI actually send their units off to fight when you bribe them to go to war? Otherwise it seems kind of pointless.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 18:29
|
|