Civ 4

[Humodour]

With cavalry/tanks and roads it hardly matters where it's located.

[Calax]

With cavalry/tanks and roads it hardly matters where it's located.

It can. If you're in a big offense then you've got the problem of reinforcing your armies if they're halfway across the continent, also if you're under attack and need to reinforce, every turns movement counts.

[Kissamies]

Kissing ass diplomatically is what I usually do, but it usually involves picking sides and I tend to be averse of doing that. Or maybe just greedy for those trades. Luckily, the religions make natural "teams" and I've gotten somewhat over the obsession of switching to Free Religion ASAP. After all, there are wonders that get benefits from state religion buildings.

 

As they say, city specialization is important, or having those specialist cities even if the rest are unspecialized. It matters where you put those national wonders.

[Humodour]

So guys, with Civ 4 plus both X-packs, who are your favourite leaders and why?

 

Out of, for example, Expansive, Imperialistic, Philosophical, Financial, Creative, which do you prefer?

 

I guess it partly depends on what victory type you're going for.

[MrBrown]

I prefer Civ5.

 

 

As for Civ4, Huyana Capac beats everyone for Science and Culture victories. Pure math, really. Other strong Financial civs do well too, like Elizabeth or Mansa Musa.

 

As for Military victories, it's a bit more varied. Every Civ with a strong early-rush unit does well, like Persia or the Mongols. Rome is good as well, because of the Praetorian. I'm not sure who is the best overall, because I usually get too bored to play optimally in the latter parts of Military games; just too much stuff you have to do, even when the winner is clear.

[pmp10]

Am I really the only one that plays random?

Approaching a game like Civ with a set leader, world type and strategy just feels wrong.

[Malcador]

I've always played Roman on the World Map. Always feels more fun to me since Civ 2, although I'm excluding a lot that way. As for Civ V, ehhh

[Pidesco]

I prefer Civ5.

 

Get out.

 

 

 

I like Catherine because she's hawt and she slaps you.

 

When playing I usually go for financial civs. Cottage spam.

[MrBrown]

Am I really the only one that plays random?

Approaching a game like Civ with a set leader, world type and strategy just feels wrong.

 

Going for a specific Victory Type from the start is just much more effective than deciding later on. I have no problem with playing a random leader or map, but I will decide my strategy from turn 1.

[Enoch]

As for Civ4, Huyana Capac beats everyone for Science and Culture victories. Pure math, really. Other strong Financial civs do well too, like Elizabeth or Mansa Musa.

 

As for Military victories, it's a bit more varied. Every Civ with a strong early-rush unit does well, like Persia or the Mongols. Rome is good as well, because of the Praetorian. I'm not sure who is the best overall, because I usually get too bored to play optimally in the latter parts of Military games; just too much stuff you have to do, even when the winner is clear.

Yeah, the Quecha and the Praetorian are overpowered enough to be considered broken in my book. As Rome, you're best play is nearly always to rush to reveal Iron, then conquer 2 or 3 neighbors. With the Incas, your Quechas are essentially a free pass to gank your nearest neighbor, which puts you on a good start for every victory condition. (Although, ironically, they're stronger at Prince+ difficulties where the AI civs start with Archer garrisions, rather than Warriors.) And Huyana's strong trait combo (which the Roman leaders generally lack) only accelerates that lead.

 

Am I really the only one that plays random?

Approaching a game like Civ with a set leader, world type and strategy just feels wrong.

 

Going for a specific Victory Type from the start is just much more effective than deciding later on. I have no problem with playing a random leader or map, but I will decide my strategy from turn 1.

I don't necessarily agree. I think it's best to get the lay of the land first-- see how much expansion space you've got, who your neighbors are, whether an early rush is advisable, etc., before you commit to a targeted victory method. The multiplier effects for strong early-game play are just so huge that you never want to box yourself out of taking the strongest move in the early turns because you made a decision in turn 1 to "go for culture" or whatever.

 

Make an interim decision after you've explored your immediate surroundings and researched the first worker techs that you need to develop your capitol. (E.g., "I'm going to build 8 axemen and use them to wipe Asoka out, then settle down and develop. I'll decide whether to keep conquering or aim for Science/Diplomacy after I have my core cities up and running." or "I'll chop all these forests to rush-build the Oracle and research Code of Laws for Courthouses and the Confucian holy city; then I'll figure out whether to leverage those advantages for war or for rapid peaceful expansion.") If you're going for a Cultural victory, you probably want to make a decision earlier rather than later, because you'll want to aim for certain early Wonders of the World. But otherwise, the map dictates the opening moves moreso than the eventual strategy you want to pursue.

[Walsingham]

I still play Civ5 to cope with hangovers. But the military component is completely bungholed. It desperately needs more Panzer General elements like entrenchment. At the moment you just hit anything with three times its number and it's dead. The strategic map becomes simple geometry. There's no strategy to speak of, as I'd understand it.

 

Still, nice and simple. Good to play with some tea and a radio murder mystery on.