Finally: victory at Diety!

kcbob · November 15, 2000, 14:13

Congratulations, Campo.

It is a grand feeling, n'est-ce pas?

------------------
Frodo lives!

Builder · November 15, 2000, 14:24

Am I the only one who cant win even emperor???

Cool, now my Apolyton "level" is equal to my civ level...

Campo · November 15, 2000, 16:01

quote:

Originally posted by kcbob on 11-15-2000 01:13 PM
Congratulations, Campo.

It is a grand feeling, n'est-ce pas?

It is indeed.

Just a couple months ago I doubted I'd even try Diety level again, let alone win at it. It does feel good.

Campo · November 15, 2000, 16:11

quote:

Originally posted by Builder on 11-15-2000 01:24 PM
Am I the only one who cant win even emperor???

Cool, now my Apolyton "level" is equal to my civ level...

Builder,

That's where I was just a few months ago. I reached King level victory after the first few months of Civ'ing, and I was stuck there for several months. I finally broke through Emperor by reading various observations from this BB for a few more months. The Diety level win was almost exactly my typical Emperor win, modified only by putting down my cities as fast as possible. Try that at Emperor. You might need more than 8 or 10 cities, depending on how much you micromanage.

BTW, I'm only an intermediate micromanager. I'm careful about not building improvements before they're needed, I watch happiness factors fairly well, and I keep a good balance between my treasury and rush-buying. But I don't count shields and arrows anywhere near as carefully as some people do. I get too caught up in the game (especially when there's fighting to be done) to take the time to be that careful.

I probably won't ever get a pre-1800 victory, but I'm proof that you can win at Diety without having to be overwhelmingly careful.

Mercantile · November 15, 2000, 16:38

Campo try a larger map. The med maps are fun as they allow for a few more cities and for your opponents to be a bit more powerfull especially if you let them grow. Granted it's still the same stupid ai who can't wage war worth a damm but its fun nonetheless. I only find small maps difficult if there is a ton of mountains, which makes taking cities a bit more difficult. congrats on your victory. i am plunging into a giga map world, which is 3 times the size of a large map. This should take about a month

Campo · November 16, 2000, 01:40

I won my first game at Diety level. It was on a small map, 7 civs, raging hordes. I won by conquest, finishing in the late 1800's.

I've been playing Civ for over a year, but I only play a game a month due to lack of time. I got to King level pretty easily but was stuck there until I found Apolyton. With the things I learned here I started winning at Emperor. I tried Diety a few times but got behind very quickly and gave up when I was clearly losing.

I had good terrain in my Diety victory -- lots of river squares, and room to grow for the first couple dozen moves. However I think the key to victory was that I founded my first 8 cities very fast. (I built 12 altogether, plus conquered a bunch later on.)

In previous games I would diverge a little to build a couple units to explore, and a couple for a better defense, and I'd delay building a settler now and then to give a city time to grow. Also I'd use early settlers to build roads and sometimes irrigate for a few turns.

I think now that those diversions were a mistake. My victory worked because I built the first 8 cities as quickly as possible, and two more not long afterward. (I added the last two quite a bit later, each on an island just to boost trade bonuses. Otherwise I would have stopped at 10.)

I took an early lead in techs, got all but one of the wonders I wanted, and won easily. I was surprised at how far ahead I got, after having been blown away in previous attempts. I was winning so easily that I doublechecked to be sure it was really diety level.

My advice to newbies at the higher levels is to put down those cities fast. Better to delay exploring, hut-tipping, and city growth until you've got your city base down.

Now I have try again, just to be sure it wasn't a fluke.

Campo · November 16, 2000, 11:27

I'd like to try a larger map; it's strictly a time issue. Maybe in January I'll take a shot.

BTW, I neglected to mention that in my victory game I built a lot of caravans for wonders. I made only the minimally necessary improvements and defense for a long time. That way I got Colossus, Hanging Gardens, Copernicus, Isaac's, Mike's, Great Wall, Sun's, Leo's, Bach's, and Adam Smith's. The only two early ones I lost were Pyramids and Statue of Liberty.

It was pretty hectic getting them all, but churning out caravans was the key. I concentrated on caravans for wonders rather than for trade. Other than my science city, I only sent trade caravans when I had a little breather between wonders. Since I was ahead in techs without them, the trade bonus wasn't as much of a priority.

N35t0r · November 16, 2000, 16:10

i am currently playing at emperor (after one year an a half of not-playing gets one's skill srusted) with five civs and raging hordes. (i like civil wars)

one civ got anihilated by barbs. (six cities!)

and i'm currently cruise-missiling them to death.(not really, read my missiles thread) while i develop stealth. (wohoo! sth. bombers!)

East Street Trader · November 17, 2000, 07:03

Nice one, Campo! The first of many, I have no doubt.

A large map game does last a good bit longer. (And you'll need to give exploring quite a bit more priority I suspect.)

On micromanagement, I always want to know what happens next and can't bear to spend 20 minutes visiting dozens of cities before I get to find out. So I'm another who misses plenty of micromanagement opportunities along the way.

Scouse Gits · November 17, 2000, 07:19

One of the unsung benefits of ICS is the lack of need to micromanage - if you have 100 cities who cares if three or four revolt? The growth issues are normally handled by the fact that they cannot gain access to enough squares to allow them to grow etc...
The upshot is that you can play (against the AI) with virtually no micromanagement and crush the little beggar with little difficulty - now at MP or Succession - in the former you have plenty of time between moves to micromanage and in the latter you ow it to your civilisation (plus the fact that the previous n reigns have been unmitigated disasters and you have only 10 turns to save the world) so this is a sloooow game - but on balance I'm for ICS (or, bizarrely, OCC)

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

kcbob · November 17, 2000, 08:44

quote:

Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 11-17-2000 06:19 AMbut on balance I'm for ICS (or, bizarrely, OCC)

On balance? ICS and OCC?

------------------
Frodo lives!

Mercantile · November 17, 2000, 14:30

Scouse gits until yesterday or so maybe the day before when you stated you were a sleazer, i assumed due to your wealth of knowledge, that you were a perfectionist. Not that it matters of course. I like an ics start, but i am definitely more of a perfectionist. I like 8 cities down quick (all of you playing me in MP are like Yah right, your lucky to get 8 down period

) but then i like to build those Large cities

Scouse Gits · November 17, 2000, 19:49

I think I said "I am an ICS player at heart" - on another thread.
When I first played the game, I used to sit on my own continent and build well spaced cities. I won't say perfectionist, because I didn't know the meaning of the term then! The AI would give me a hard time, and it was a struggle to win at Prince level.
Like many others here I discovered Apolyton and learnt how to play the game. ICS was a strategy I tried, and found I was at ease with! I can never say I have been a "perfectionist". I prefer a broad overview of a grand plan to win; I find counting trade icons and shields tedious. In truth, I am an awful micro-manager in the conventional sense. However, I do manage the logistics of transport, supply lines, and strategic cities very carefully. It is no use having an army to rule the world if it can't meet up with the enemy! This is an interesting challenge on the Gigamap.

--------------
SG (2)

Mercantile · November 17, 2000, 20:03

Scouse Gits, are you playing the giga map. I played the earth one, and won way too easily on it. I had a log, but the end was never in doubt. As the Americans i took England, and Japan for a strategic foothold on the afroeurasian continents. Then i just poured some troops in and whamo it was over. I was most disappointed with the ai's expansion rate which was lacking other than the celts, whom i started off in greenland with different terrain than the icy mass that is the default. Anyways, what i thought would take a few days only took a few hours. Small maps have given me a harder time than this map. Maybe i just got lucky.