 |
|  |
 |
|
Jim W
|
|
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Sep 1999 time: 05:12
|
|
I notice a lot of strategies seem to involve military destruction of the other civs, then heading off to AC as a sort of afterthought.
It seems to me that anybody with a bit on the ball can handle that, but how about a more peaceable strategy? No wars of aggression, just a constant advancment of technology, aimed at eventual space flight.
Now, notice that I didn't say "no wars." That would be kind of unrealistic, not to mention fatal. If someone attacks you, you're free to go after them until they've had enough.
It might even be a good thought to insist that you have to fight as a Democracy as soon as you can get there, so that you'll have a government back home impeding any wars you might want to wage.
The challenge is still to build yourself up well, defend yourself, and get to AC first.
Is that a challenge, or is it too simple? And if it's too simple, what have I missed? I'm still learning this thing.
JimW
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jim W
|
|
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Sep 1999 time: 05:12
|
|
Seems like too much of a challenge for some people.
JimW
|
|
|  |
 |
|
geofelt
|
|
Neptune Beach,Florida,USA
Jan 1970 time: 00:12
|
|
First, I agree that the AI in MGE seems to be more aggressive.
If it is possible to get to AC with one city, then you would think that it would be easier to do it with ten or more cities. Possibly not, though, because the AI would see a larger civ as a threat and constantly pester it with wars. The only way you can get peace is after they capture one of your cities, or if you can capture one of theirs.
As for a challenge, you could require that you could never capture an AI city, and that you needed to build more cities than any other civ.
I once tried a game such as this, attempting world conquest requiring howitzers before capturing the first city. It was frustrating getting beat up while waiting. I got them all at the end though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
Hear,hear! Points for peace are given. ALL seem to think war is it. I'd like to meet some more rational perfectionists.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
...as applies to multiplayer. I don't really get into AI playing with myself. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jim W
|
|
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Sep 1999 time: 05:12
|
|
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I did _not_ mean that you never fight a war. In fact, I meant that you should have a sufficiently numerous and advanced military force that when somebody attacks or breaks a treaty, you can jump all over them.
I also meant, however, that you do not get yourself a big army and go out hunting for whoever seems to be handy for destruction.
Non-aggressive means just that; you don't go looking for trouble. But when trouble finds you, you have to be ready for it, and deal with it.
And that is the challenge
JimW
|
|
|  |
 |
|
johnmcd
|
|
Edinburgh
Oct 1999 time: 05:12
|
|
So let me see, to paraphrase, Win at bloodlust without ever being the agressor?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jim W
|
|
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Sep 1999 time: 05:12
|
|
No, Johnmcd, you're not paraphrasing, you're twisting my words.
JimW
|
|
|  |
 |
|
johnmcd
|
|
Edinburgh
Oct 1999 time: 05:12
|
|
I did't mean to, I genuinely don't understand what the challenge is. Could you paraphrase please.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999 time: 22:12
|
|
Having re-read Jim's originating post, it sounds like a typical AC game (I think, haven't done one myself). He said, "The challenge is still to build yourself up well, defend yourself, and get to AC first." I think that's a simply strategy for BOTH games: AC and bloodlust, especially for larger worlds and relative isolation. Becoming isolated, even against an agressive AI, is too easy to defend and as Sten said, the AI still haven't figured out how to fight. But the key to isolating yourself on a large continent is to get rid of your pesky neighbors, so a little warfare (usually with Musks) is necessary. So I guess the trend, assuming a non-small world, is to:
1. grow early,
2. build defenses (Great/City Walls and pikes will last for a long, long time)
3. get the lead on science,
4. clear the continent,
5. stay non-agressive while building some more
6. with a big lead in science and production, now you can go conquer or go AC.
To paraphrase, one way to play is to be agressive only when necessary to maintain your lead and to win the game as the #1 civ.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jim W
|
|
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Sep 1999 time: 05:12
|
|
Steve, you're pretty close to the mark, save that I don't go looking for a war. However, I do not let others get away with annoying behaviour, and I consider annoying behaviour to be anything so semi-innocuous as having settlers/engineers wandering over my own mines and irrigated fields.
However, I do not consider such annoyances as an excuse for all-out war of decimation. There are other cases, such as discovering that someone else has built a city practically within the boundaries of one of my own. If possible, I will conquer that city, rather than allowing it to be built up and be a continuing source of action, from irritating raids to attempts at conquest.
JimW
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
in SP, against the AI, i play that way. i never played MP, though.
------------------
Alien Infiltrate
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|