Friday, February 23, 2007

It's All About Location

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.

2 comments:

monica said...

Shannon, your wisdom astounds me. I think we should be able to start our civilizations in Australia where we won't be bothered by outsiders for centuries. It would make the game so much better. We wouldn't have to fight for land or resources, and we could live a life of isolation. You know what would be exciting? If we could start a civilization on Easter Island...

rnaranjo said...

Persia does appear to have good access to the other civs' but it's wide open to assualt as you've seen from many different fronts. China probably has a better strategic position, giving you time to develop your empire and expand it without being bothered by much. You sacrifice that easy access though, so....yeah....have fun with that! ;-)