Civilization: Persia
Difficulty: Settler
Game Speed: Normal
When I started this game, I was still pumped from my last victory--ambitious, confident, and determined to take over the world for real in round three. With the aim of expediting my rise to Warlord-In-Chief, I selected Persia as my future master race. Why? Persia is located at the convergence of Europe, Africa, and Asia. This, I reasoned, would provide a geographic advantage by granting me fairly easy access to just about every other empire on the landmass. Yes, China would be a little distant, and Japan might prove tricky, but Persia is ideally situated to strike Egypt, Greece, and India, and once those three fell could easily squash Rome, Germany, and Mongolia. Considering my plans for world domination, this access was key. So I chose Persia, clicked the final "OK," and settled back for an easy victory.
Whether or not Persia's central location provides much military advantage remains to be seen. What has quickly become evident is that every position has pros and cons. Persia is no exception. I think Persia must magnetically draw enemies, because I've had more barbarians attack my fragile, fledgling empire than in my previous two games combined. This has proved highly problematic. The minimal attacks I had as Rome and China lulled me into a false sense of security, so I was lax in fortifying my cities. I was unable to effectively defend my territory, and I had several improvements (herding areas, camps for deer) and worker units destroyed as a result. A barbarian group even managed to capture my capital (Persepolis), and I had to send warriors from other cities to take Persepolis back, leaving the other cities undefended. I should have kept more military forces within my empire instead of sending them roving wherever they pleased. Anyway, my neglect has cost me dearly. The threats to my empire have compelled me to focus on survival instead of expansion, which allowed rival empires to expand their borders without my competition. The best land has already been claimed, and Persia is squished between India in the east and Egypt and Greece in the West. The destruction of my improvements and units has also set me back at this crucial point of development: I must spend time to rebuild that would otherwise have gone to expansion and dominance. In short, Persia is off to a rocky start.
I don't know if Persia will be able to recover from my blunders. I hope so; I was really looking forward to waging war on everyone else, and to experimenting with the trade concepts we've been learning in Colander. For now, I'm just trying to keep Persia from being overrun. It's still early; I just recently entered the Medieval Era and saved the game at AD 560 shortly thereafter. There's still a ways to go. We'll see.
Just remember, when you're choosing your civilization: location matters. Location matters.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Asian Wisdom
Civilization: China
Difficulty: Settler
Game Speed: Normal
I won another game, and I've got both bad news and good news. The bad news is that I still lead like Dan Quayle and I'm not sure how to change this. And really, this is a dubious member of the "bad news" category since it only causes me a bruised ego. The rest of the news is definitely good. In my second game, I improved beyond anything I had anticipated. Just a few statistics for comparison:
--In my first game (Rome), the civilization's population reached 10 million in AD 1946 and ended with a population of 22,705,000. China's population reached 10 million in AD 1220 and ended with 63,701,000 souls.
--Rome had a GNP (gold) of 311 million gold and a crop yield of 450 million bushels. China's GNP was 1129 million gold, and the crop yield was 1129 million bushels.
--Rome built 21 cities. China built 38.
--The Roman Empire covered 419,000 sq km. The Chinese Empire spanned 1,131,000 sq km.
You get the idea: I dominated, utterly trouncing all my rivals and far surpassing even my previous victory.
Why the vast difference? I attribute mainly to a fundamental shift in strategy. This game, my m.o. was basically one of non-violent expansion, hence the dramatic increase in the number of cities. I made it my priority to start a new city wherever there was available land, determined to beat my rivals in claiming territory. By the end, China's territory included all of East Asia, a good part of Russia, Indonesia and its surrounding islands, Australia, and most of the North American continent. The Russian part of my empire was largely gained from a successful conquest of the Mongolian Empire (which I am very proud of), but I acquired most of my territory by simply beating my rivals to it.
The dramatic increase in territory correlates with the huge jump in GNP, crop yield, population, and manufactured goods. I hate to keep harping on the same theme, but the more land you have the more you have available for farming, and the more you farm the more food you generate, which leads to . . . food surplus! Hence, as we've had drummed into our heads, your civilization's population grows, political systems develop, and so on. One thing I noticed during the game was that I could acquire new technologies much more quickly. That was a definite plus, since it allowed me to win a space race victory in AD 2026.
There are a couple of other things that were interesting about my second game. For one, on the eastern edge of my empire, two different rival cities (one Mongolia's, one India's) revolted and joined my empire! I found this a little surprising, but I suppose those disaffected citizens were attracted by the various civil freedoms I offered. I also adopted environmentalism this time around. I would have done so last game, but I had chopped down most of my trees, so I figured it would make my citizens unhappy and chose not to. This time I made sure I left plenty of wooded areas interspersed throughout my empire.
One final note: In both my games, I've reached basically the same political positions: universal suffrage, free speech, emancipation, and free religion. This I did without really thinking, following my own convictions. However, it occurred to me that I should experiment with different modes of government and economy, even if I disagree with them personally. In order to determine what forms work best, I need real data, not guesses and assumptions.
So that's the plan. For now, I will bask in the glory of my success. I know we're not playing this game with the aim of winning, but it does feel good. . . .
Difficulty: Settler
Game Speed: Normal
I won another game, and I've got both bad news and good news. The bad news is that I still lead like Dan Quayle and I'm not sure how to change this. And really, this is a dubious member of the "bad news" category since it only causes me a bruised ego. The rest of the news is definitely good. In my second game, I improved beyond anything I had anticipated. Just a few statistics for comparison:
--In my first game (Rome), the civilization's population reached 10 million in AD 1946 and ended with a population of 22,705,000. China's population reached 10 million in AD 1220 and ended with 63,701,000 souls.
--Rome had a GNP (gold) of 311 million gold and a crop yield of 450 million bushels. China's GNP was 1129 million gold, and the crop yield was 1129 million bushels.
--Rome built 21 cities. China built 38.
--The Roman Empire covered 419,000 sq km. The Chinese Empire spanned 1,131,000 sq km.
You get the idea: I dominated, utterly trouncing all my rivals and far surpassing even my previous victory.
Why the vast difference? I attribute mainly to a fundamental shift in strategy. This game, my m.o. was basically one of non-violent expansion, hence the dramatic increase in the number of cities. I made it my priority to start a new city wherever there was available land, determined to beat my rivals in claiming territory. By the end, China's territory included all of East Asia, a good part of Russia, Indonesia and its surrounding islands, Australia, and most of the North American continent. The Russian part of my empire was largely gained from a successful conquest of the Mongolian Empire (which I am very proud of), but I acquired most of my territory by simply beating my rivals to it.
The dramatic increase in territory correlates with the huge jump in GNP, crop yield, population, and manufactured goods. I hate to keep harping on the same theme, but the more land you have the more you have available for farming, and the more you farm the more food you generate, which leads to . . . food surplus! Hence, as we've had drummed into our heads, your civilization's population grows, political systems develop, and so on. One thing I noticed during the game was that I could acquire new technologies much more quickly. That was a definite plus, since it allowed me to win a space race victory in AD 2026.
There are a couple of other things that were interesting about my second game. For one, on the eastern edge of my empire, two different rival cities (one Mongolia's, one India's) revolted and joined my empire! I found this a little surprising, but I suppose those disaffected citizens were attracted by the various civil freedoms I offered. I also adopted environmentalism this time around. I would have done so last game, but I had chopped down most of my trees, so I figured it would make my citizens unhappy and chose not to. This time I made sure I left plenty of wooded areas interspersed throughout my empire.
One final note: In both my games, I've reached basically the same political positions: universal suffrage, free speech, emancipation, and free religion. This I did without really thinking, following my own convictions. However, it occurred to me that I should experiment with different modes of government and economy, even if I disagree with them personally. In order to determine what forms work best, I need real data, not guesses and assumptions.
So that's the plan. For now, I will bask in the glory of my success. I know we're not playing this game with the aim of winning, but it does feel good. . . .
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
I lead like Dan Quayle . . .
"Caesar, during this game you have displayed the leadership abilities of Dan Quayle!"
I wasn't quite sure how to respond to this. It seemed like a joke, and I suppose to an extent it is. The important thing was that Dan Quayle was at the very bottom of a list including much more illustrious leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Caesar Augustus. It seemed the game was trying to tell me that I hadn't been much of a leader.
That's how my game ended--a bittersweet triumph. I was victorious, but only because I lasted until AD 2050. In my defense, though, I didn't just "last" until 2050; I thrived. Rome was the largest, most populous, healthiest, happiest, most technologically advanced civilization in the game. It manufactured more goods, it yielded more crops (food surplus, anyone?). Four of the Top 5 Cities were Roman. I built the United Nations and was elected Secretary General. (Resolutions enacting global free trade, universal free speech, universal suffrage, and universal free religion were passed on my initiative, though I tried twice for diplomatic victory and failed to get enough votes.) I improved my settlement strategy and captured six different cities on the North American continent (and took a fiendish pleasure in watching their musket men shoot ineffectually at my tanks). I even made good progress toward a space race victory. I was top in virtually every category, just not top enough.
So victory wasn't as sweet as I would have liked. But when I step back from my wounded pride and take a good look at my Rome, I realize that my civilization had all the hallmarks for dominance that Diamond discusses in Guns, Germs, and Steel: plenty of food surplus (and the land to grow it on); a large, sedentary population; and the resulting organizational, technological, and cultural advances which arise from the food surplus and the myriad people. (The game doesn't take into account diseases. That's probably too complicated for it.) Rome was squarely on the path for dominance and glory. But, in the sage words of Will Rogers, "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."
Something else I've learned: There is a difference between "defensive diplomacy" and isolationism. I realized that I had been resolutely isolationist when my scores reported that I imported 319 million tons of gold worth of goods . . . and exported a grand total of zero. Yep, definitely something to work on in the future, especially if I ever want to achieve a diplomatic victory.
In sum, I take a certain pleasure in having won my first-ever game of Civilization IV, and I marvel at how closely the events in the game correlate with what Diamond argues in Guns, Germs, and Steel. In future games, I will experiment with openness and aggressiveness to see what combination yields the best results. Finally, I intend to achieve victory by other means from now on, if only to prove that I'm a better leader than Dan Quayle.
I wasn't quite sure how to respond to this. It seemed like a joke, and I suppose to an extent it is. The important thing was that Dan Quayle was at the very bottom of a list including much more illustrious leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Caesar Augustus. It seemed the game was trying to tell me that I hadn't been much of a leader.
That's how my game ended--a bittersweet triumph. I was victorious, but only because I lasted until AD 2050. In my defense, though, I didn't just "last" until 2050; I thrived. Rome was the largest, most populous, healthiest, happiest, most technologically advanced civilization in the game. It manufactured more goods, it yielded more crops (food surplus, anyone?). Four of the Top 5 Cities were Roman. I built the United Nations and was elected Secretary General. (Resolutions enacting global free trade, universal free speech, universal suffrage, and universal free religion were passed on my initiative, though I tried twice for diplomatic victory and failed to get enough votes.) I improved my settlement strategy and captured six different cities on the North American continent (and took a fiendish pleasure in watching their musket men shoot ineffectually at my tanks). I even made good progress toward a space race victory. I was top in virtually every category, just not top enough.
So victory wasn't as sweet as I would have liked. But when I step back from my wounded pride and take a good look at my Rome, I realize that my civilization had all the hallmarks for dominance that Diamond discusses in Guns, Germs, and Steel: plenty of food surplus (and the land to grow it on); a large, sedentary population; and the resulting organizational, technological, and cultural advances which arise from the food surplus and the myriad people. (The game doesn't take into account diseases. That's probably too complicated for it.) Rome was squarely on the path for dominance and glory. But, in the sage words of Will Rogers, "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."
Something else I've learned: There is a difference between "defensive diplomacy" and isolationism. I realized that I had been resolutely isolationist when my scores reported that I imported 319 million tons of gold worth of goods . . . and exported a grand total of zero. Yep, definitely something to work on in the future, especially if I ever want to achieve a diplomatic victory.
In sum, I take a certain pleasure in having won my first-ever game of Civilization IV, and I marvel at how closely the events in the game correlate with what Diamond argues in Guns, Germs, and Steel. In future games, I will experiment with openness and aggressiveness to see what combination yields the best results. Finally, I intend to achieve victory by other means from now on, if only to prove that I'm a better leader than Dan Quayle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)