Is it all about tech?

ShuShu · February 7, 2002, 17:19

All the civ games always seem to be based on getting a tech lead and exploiting it to your victory of choice.

Space Race: Get to Space techs first. Winner always constructs party lounge on turn discovered.

Military: Build the better units first, then attack.

Cultutre: Get to the wonders first and build in capital.

Don't get me wrong, I think CIV, CIV II, SMAC play the same way. What I am curious about is:

Does anyone use a consistent way to win without being the technological leader by the Modern Era (or earlier)?

The early rushes don't count unless you are consistently attacking higher tech units with lower tech ones throughout.

Bilo · February 7, 2002, 17:36

Hmm, it is quite possible to win the game with slight tech lag...

Space race: If you capture their capital the space ship will be destroyed and they'll have to start again, in normal sized maps this sould give you 10-12 turns at least.

Military: AI never upgrades its units, even if you are several techs behind, on average your troops might have better weapons than your enemmy. Besides you can pillage roads to cut the supply of strategic resources for the AI, so they can't built their advanced units(works espetially well in late industrial/modern era, if they can't get rubber or oil they can't produce much)

Culture: 2 cathedrals give the same culture as most wonders, if you have more cities, you can win the game by culture.

ShuShu · February 7, 2002, 19:38

does anyone actually do it?

for example. If you have twice as many cathedrals, you are just as likely to have twice as many libraries and Universities and cities generating research.

to fight to the enemy capital you are likely to have better units.

Most of the war posts indicate at least parity with those around.

I posted the thread because I just played an emperor level game to completion without ever shedding blood. I was woefully behind in tech as I had an island to myself and was completely isolated until races discovered navigation.

I was 10 techs behind the leaders and figured I was toast. But I was only 3 required techs behind. By focusing strictly on required techs, and being Scientific, I was first to rocketry, at which point all races payed me 20% of their research allocation for Rocketry and the game was never close again.

So, even in a game where I was technologically inept, my cities backwards and under developed (no iron, no tech to trade, no railroads OR factories), my military outclassed (except for that beautiful blue expanse and nuclear subs - err, no Salt-peter, no Oil, but LOTS of uranium) I was still able to win, but only because I traded well enough to eventually win the technology race (and, err, keep all the big fish fighting each other).

I chose to attempt a race to spaceship because although the chances seemed slim, all other options seemed to be suicide. That got me wondering if all options are suicidal unltil you get a tech advantage.

Skanky Burns · February 7, 2002, 20:34

Tech lead, or even parity is not required for a military victory.

Someone once tried researching up to mpa-making, then stopped research completely, only building warriors and enough triremes to carry them to the mainland.

About 1500 AD he started ferrying the warriors across, declared war against their advanced technological empire, and totally decimated his opposition.

So a tech advantage isnt required.

bongsaways · February 8, 2002, 03:06

Tech don't mean nothing. I'm constantly behind in tech (for awhile).

Research to zero, buy, sell, get a large army. Kill civs, make them give you techs for peace.. repeat process.

When I start a game, I get in a mind frame of being some psycho insane lunatic that wants to kill everybody. Then, I pretend I got help, and cured my psycho disorder. Then, for some reason, I go insane again.

This concept has been working for me.. on that hardest level anyway.