What's your play style?

Everyone has one, and with a game as variable as this one, I'm sure there are quite a few out there. Since I couldn't find a thread like this on this board, let's hear about your play styles.

To keep them easy to read, let's put them into a basic template. You don't have to do it if you don't want to, I suppose, but it would make it easier on the eyes as opposed to seeing walls of text. So, here's mine:

Title:
Smiling Bandit

Description:
Just smile at them, make friends, ask for a favor, butter them up, take their stuff, the when they turn around, slit their throats.

Pros:
Hilarious win if played right
Not too many confrontations
Gives you a great economy to work with

Cons:
Hard to start, a quick and militaristic enemy could wipe you out
slow to develop
if your the war-mongering type, you'll get bored fast

What I do:
After the initial planet grab and meeting of the opponent civs, I focus my efforts on researching non-war techs and improving my relations with the other races. I keep my planets mostly focused on research and money making, while only having a few planets ready to make ships. I build up just enough of a military so that war-mongering civs don't just walk over and invade me. I use good diplomacy to convince everyone to give me their research and economic treaties, while giving them the techs for economic and planetary improvement. As the cash starts flowing in from trade, anomalies, banks, and gifts, I begin buying war techs and bribing civs that like me to go to war with civs that don't. I never make a single alliance.

Once I have enough war techs, money, and have researched everything I feel I *need*, I begin slowly converting my research planets to war machines. Once that is done, there are usually two or three major civs left, and they are too busy doing their own thing with each other to notice me. Here is where I make a decision. I can either choose to align with evil, and get the more powerful weaponry, or go neutral and make the win hilarious. I choose based on how strong the other civs seem, and whether or not I think I will need the extra firepower.

Once I choose, I switch everything over to military and begin producing very fast, powerful ships as quickly as possible from all of my starports. This would normally completely ruin someones economy, but the ideal situation here is to have a vast amount of extra cash to sink into the effort. Once I have a great many fleets at my disposal, I find the weakest civ(prefferably one that is about to be wiped out by war), park outside its planets, and take one turn to negotiate as many techs, planets, or wads of cash as I can from them. The goal is to get everything they have before destroying them, thereby netting me a tidy profit. Besides, who cares if I give them all the best weapons techs if they are only going to be destroyed next turn.

The next turn comes, and in one fell swoop, I dive onto all of their planets and wipe them out. This is where giving them the planetary improvement and economic techs comes in handy, as using the propaganda warfare technique to convert as many of them as I can leaves the planet completely intact, usually with a good number of stock markets and loads of empty space to build with. This ensures that if I have to take a couple turns more than I thought, I have a good head start on those planets and can at least keep everyone occupied right around there. Once it's down to two civs, I bribe the stronger one to go to war with the weaker one, and repeat the process of diving onto their unprotected planets and wiping them out as well. Finally, when there is only one other civ left, I quickly turn and destroy them for the win. When I show up on the doorstep of every planet they own with a fleet of battle cruisers and two or three transports full of shock troops, I can just imagine their faces sometimes. "But, but, but... I thought we were FREINDS!"*KABOOM!*

They never seem to see it coming.  :HOT: 

What strategies have you guys come up with to win?

6,005 views 9 replies
Reply #1 Top
What? 24 hours and no one wants to say a single thing? And here I figured we could share strategies and come up with interesting ways of getting odd outcomes and such.
Reply #2 Top
I think the problem is simply that a description of the play style of an experienced player would be meaningless unless it was detailed enough to roughly imitate. Such descriptions usually take the form of After Action Reports, or AARs. There is a forum for such. I would recommend starting by searching for any posts made by Purge and Wyndstar. Those are two terribly strong players who have been very generous with their time and ideas. You could also go to the core, www.galacticcore.com, and check under the galciv2 board where Mumblefratz, another masterful player, is currently doing a report of a game he is playing.

And to give you a post on the topic, my play style is generally all out colony rush, get the MCC to fix the economic crash, then blitz my weakest neighbor. Depending on the game situation, I will sometimes blitz first and then go for the MCC. If you can successfully accomplish both objectives without going deeply into debt or having to cut total production spending, it leaves you in a reasonable position against Suicidal AIs. But don't listen to me, listen to players like the three I mentioned. They are much better at this than either of us.
Reply #3 Top
My play style is the same as it is in (most) strategy games (including Civ IV)

I'm a relatively peaceful builder with a heavy emphasis on tech. The fact that you can win on a tech victory in Gal Civ is something I highly appreciate.

Mind you, I don't always manage it. Sometimes I think I play *too* peacefully, and militaristic neighbors on my borders( *E&&@#&* Drengin) can really ruin my day.

Reply #4 Top
I think the problem is simply that a description of the play style of an experienced player would be meaningless unless it was detailed enough to roughly imitate
End of quote


IMO, there's a big distinction between "play style" and what AARs show--detailed tactical discussion. Beg pardon while I abuse the OP's template.

Title: Tech Superiority Rut, with Roleplaying Tendencies

Desription: No matter how hard I try to change up my game, usually by choosing a win goal other than Tech Victory, I can't stand to get to mid-game and not clearly on the way to a massive tech lead.

I'm also unable to make myself play purely for points, e.g. I behave honorably in diplo contexts, I throw caution to the winds to avenge an ally, I never maximize tax revenue b/c I'm supposedly leading "democratic" governments as soon as I can, etc.

Pro: I like it like that. Con: I don't get the monster scores I probably could otherwise.
Reply #5 Top
Title:
Kraken (a.k.a. Earthmonger)

Description:
There is one indispensable and invaluable resource in GC2: Planets. I will ruthlessly colony rush as far as I can go, then greedily colonise whatever the other civs leave behind, provided the planets aren't threatened by foreign influence (though, even if they are, I'm likely to push my luck). This means I leave no habitable world alone. I tend to blitzkrieg minor civs I find hanging around for their PQ15's. War is always dirty and expensive, and the idea is to build up such an enormous colony base that technology and weapons superiority naturally follow. I measure the success of my game by the amount and quality of planets controlled. After surpassing my opponents fourfold in all fields I begin snuffing them out one by one. This ordinarily leads to a conquest or influence victory.

Pros:
Mid to late game, you are the superpower in the galaxy, and without even breaking a sweat.

Cons:
Untenable if your starting position is not optimal.
Challenging to economise properly.
Colonies are sometimes very far from the main sphere of control, which leads to a decentralised empire.

Again, nothing that will get you an astronomical score, or see you through a Suicidal game. But it's just so cool to be so powerful. ;)

J.
Reply #6 Top
I think the problem is simply that a description of the play style of an experienced player would be meaningless unless it was detailed enough to roughly imitate. Such descriptions usually take the form of After Action Reports, or AARs. There is a forum for such. I would recommend starting by searching for any posts made by Purge and Wyndstar. Those are two terribly strong players who have been very generous with their time and ideas. You could also go to the core, www.galacticcore.com, and check under the galciv2 board where Mumblefratz, another masterful player, is currently doing a report of a game he is playing.
End of quote


This may be true, but what I'm looking for is a general idea of how a person plays, not detailed transcripts of specific games. The posts other people have made are what I'm talking about. Sure, hearing how you did "X" in "Y" game is informative, but unless your style is purely adaptive, and hence different with every game, most people tend to try to set the same rough goals for their games. I'm just curious as to what those goals and styles are.

And to give you a post on the topic, my play style is generally all out colony rush, get the MCC to fix the economic crash, then blitz my weakest neighbor. Depending on the game situation, I will sometimes blitz first and then go for the MCC. If you can successfully accomplish both objectives without going deeply into debt or having to cut total production spending, it leaves you in a reasonable position against Suicidal AIs. But don't listen to me, listen to players like the three I mentioned. They are much better at this than either of us.
End of quote


Thats more like it. ;)

And to reply to Unspeakable.Elvis' last sentence there: Sure, it's fun to sit there and let your opponents marvel at your awesomeness, but I think it's even more fun to come from out of nowhere and just get a 1 turn win.

Not to derail my own thread, but my favorite example was when me and some friends were playing Risk. One of my friends, Alex, had been pushed into Australia and because we felt sorry for his one soldier piece, we let him sit there for the game, confident that we would just kill him at the end. Well, about 3 hours later, it was his turn, and he offered a deal to my other friend, Dave(who was the only player bordering him) which consisted of all the cards he had for his continued participation in the game. Dave obviously refused, and when he did, Alex cashed in everything he had been saving and somehow raised an army of ungodly proportions and wiped Dave off of the board.

For an encore he went on to conquer half of the world before he spread himself too thin and we were able to take him out. This is why we always make sure to kill him first now, and this is also why you should never trust a neutral party who you think is harmless. :CONGRAT:
Reply #7 Top
As soon as you said Australia I knew what was going to happen.

For the love of God, man, don't let anyone have Australia.

Incidentally, my name is Alex. ;)

[/offtopic]
Reply #8 Top
My typical strategy:

Title: The tortoise and the...tortoise (ok so I don't actually give my strats specific titles :p)

Description: Start off focusing on getting as many planets as possible via colony rush (and researching the necessary techs later on for any unclaimed planets). Bleed the treasury until it's empty to sustain a low tax rate (for approval to stay at 100%) to allow you to build a significant population lead over your neighbours. Pour all your resources into building and research (with slightly more emphasis on research). Focus on getting the planet development techs first and building up an impressive (and peaceful) empire with the best research buildings, the best economic buildings, the best government, the best happyness buildings, etc.

Whenever an enemy is looking on the verge of attacking you due to your non existent military, try and pay another civilization to wage a war with them. If that isn't enough, temporarily divert your spending to military to help build up a few decent ships to offer some very basic protection.

As soon as the lack of military becomes a really severe problem, focus the research on weapons development. Obtain what you can from other civilizations (without paying too much for it of course), and focus on large ships with cost-efficient weaponry. Whenever any planet is 'fully developed' with the latest buildings etc., it can start building these ships, allowing your military to slowly expand without hurting the development of any of your planets.

Towards the end, this typically means you're producing technologically superior ships to your opponents, and the rate at which you produce them starts to rise and rise as more of your planets become fully developed. With your high research rate, you can also focus on a specific defence and quickly gain the ability to nullify a specific enemies entire military with these ships. Once this is done, get a few transports, and launch an attack on them. Focus on enemies one at a time (the weakest opponent first), converting newly conquered planets into money machines to help fund your ever expanding military (with the right defences and a technological advantage your losses should be non-existent). One by one take out the smallest (well, smallest military, so weakest) enemy civs until it's just you and the biggest threat left. By this time, you have a massive planetary base providing a fortune in income, and all the techs you want. Your fleet is similarly massive, and can easily crush theirs. The game is effectively won without you having to fight the biggest threat.

Of course trying to stave off attacks from civs without a military sure is tough!


Generally though, I like to vary my strategy - the above is the one I favour the most, but I'll also start a game looking to try a significantly different one. In one game I may focus on an early rush, where I rush to obtain planetary invasion, build a massive host of 1 damage fighters backed up with basic transports, and swarm over my nearest opponent to help give me an edge in the mid-late game stages. In another, I'll focus on a starbase strategy, with hoardes of ultra-cheap fighters (armour plating and the cheapest weapon that will fit on a tiny hull with my current level of miniaturization) backed up by military starbases, and rely on overwhelming my opponent bit by bit. Other times I might go for a financial and cultural tactic of making loads of money and one by one converting neighbouring star systems, with my cash reserves available to help deal with any war mongering civilizations.

My latest game, I decided to try something completely different - in almost all my games (the starbase one probly the least so, but even then still to some extent) I will focus on research and try and get a technological advantage over my opponents. So, this time I've decided to go with an Ultra-hive tactic. That is, I set my research slider to 0%, and rely on my production and finance. Of course with my factories effectively set to 100%, it meant that I had twice as many (for spending purposes) as I normally would, meaning although I had more space for finance buildings, I've ended up with a massive shortfall in income and my production capacity is at a pitiful level. Meanwhile with such little money early on due to a poor popuation I'm unable to buy required technologies from the other civs, putting me massively behind. Fortunately the production advantage was enough to allow me to increase my number of initial planets two-fold with an early rush of the most powerful civ, but I fear it may still not be enough!
Reply #9 Top
I'm the subsersive cultural dominator. The peaceful conquerer of peoples that don't know they are being conquered. I ruthlessly spam Influence bases with names like "Unity Base" or "Cultural Exchange". convincing alien barbarians that Human culture is superior.

I keep a reasonable military as i'm usually gonna have to fight the Yor and Thalans, but I try to get freinds to do that for me.