Coming from behind without military conquest?

The Rook · March 23, 2002, 20:35

I'm playing on a huge map with 16 Civs. It's 1280AD and I am in 10th place with 925 points. Egypt is in 1st with 1674. I have all victory conditions enabled exept for the spaceship. (Hate the space race)

The reason I am so far behind is poor starting location, coupled with trying a different strategy. Instead of research, I have been buying all my advances.

I have been trying to go for a cultural victory, but it seems kinda hopeless. I have 21 cities, and I just can't build enough culture to overcome the lead that the other civs have. My culture hasn't gained on them.

My military sucks. I have no gunpowder, and haven't been concentrating on building units.

The AI has beaten me to every wonder.

The question is, is this hopless? Would you retire, or go on? I keep thinking, I will see my culture start going up, but it just isn't happening. It seems everything in this game is tied to the number of cities you have. What can I do?

BillChin · March 23, 2002, 23:56

What difficulty are you playing at? That makes a huge difference. A cultural victory without any conquest is very tough on Monarch or above. Without any wonders, you are never going to catch up culturally, much less get enough for a win.

In your situation, I suggest building an army and taking on one of the neighbors. Mass 20 to 30 units for the offensive before going to war. Try to get allies in this war, especially after you take the first city. Hopefully you get a great leader and can get a decent wonder or Forbidden Palace. Saltpeter is critical for Calvary, but Knights and Longbows are effective until riflemen show up. You do need a lot of them against musketmen, but the AI military rarely has many top line units.

War is the tool to overcome a poor starting position. Use it. See who has good land and take it from them.

simwiz2 · March 24, 2002, 00:13

its usually better to play out the game, you might learn some strategies even if you dont win. also its more fun to have the challenge of catching up.

Tarquelne · March 24, 2002, 00:38

1280? And, I take it, while you don't have gunpowder, you're not all that far behind in tech? Sure, you can still win.

Diplomatic victory can still give you a very good shot at a relatively easy victory IF you get the UN. (Without the UN it's still possible, of course, but more difficult.) Not being a world-bestriding conqueror can even be an advantage when going for the diplo. win.

Hopefully you'll can develop enough of a military to sieze some strategic Rs/luxuries for extra leverage when trading. In games where I'm behind capturing some especially strategic resources or luxuries is usually very important. I'd often have to be very oportunistic, though.

The Rook · March 24, 2002, 00:53

Well, I did a dumb thing and signed a MPP with the Egyptians. I figured if anybody attacked me, they would have to deal with the Egyptians, but 2 turns before the pact was to end, the Egyptians declared war on the Zulu, and now we're all fighting each other. Luckily the Zulu's have to deal with everyone else, or they'd wipe the floor with me. they took one of my cities, and razed another.

Not much I can do about it. I don't have gunpowder, and nobody has any extra to trade. I'll just have to sit back and hope the Egyptians clean out the Zulu's before I lose too many cities. Maybe I will get them back with my high culture.

Tarquelne · March 24, 2002, 14:02

MMPs: Oh yeah. When I'm small I do think it's a good idea to avoid MMPs. I do, though, try to make a point of saving up enough $$ so that I can buy some quick allies if someone declares war on me. When you're weak militarily I think this is less risky/more beneficial than a MMP. (Computer players might be too easy to bribe into attacking someone.) It depends on your exact situation though, of course.

Inverse Icarus · March 24, 2002, 18:04

i don't see how anyone can play a game of civ without military conquest. i'm a warmonger (duh) but i actually tried to play one peaceful game as greece. i simply COULDNT avoid war, no matter what i did. i even started APPEASING the AI, giving them tech / money when they demanded it. but they just got too comfy with it and i had to go to war.

DrFell · March 24, 2002, 20:13

Playing on the highest levels, conquest is almost necessary. Which isn't a bad thing, as I find the game gets too boring without war after awhile.

The Rook · March 25, 2002, 00:07

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
i don't see how anyone can play a game of civ without military conquest. i'm a warmonger (duh) but i actually tried to play one peaceful game as greece. i simply COULDNT avoid war, no matter what i did. i even started APPEASING the AI, giving them tech / money when they demanded it. but they just got too comfy with it and i had to go to war.

Simply? I'm not that good at it. Well, I'm just lazy. I don't micromanage everything like the computer can, and I end up trailing in all the war making areas. My military service is usually always last or close to it.

Besides, it would be cool, to win without it. It's harder I think. My current game is on regent level, so maybe I have a chance?

rogue785 · March 25, 2002, 01:17

pray for a world war involving every Civ except you. Do your best to encourage this, and while their all fighting, you can amass your units and begin your domination of the world