Facebook Badge

Monday, September 28, 2009

This unknown that I am traveling in has become far too large too quick. I recently started playing a quick game of civilizations as an Indian leader. I have before never seen the game played, nor any other computer game for that matter. So, being the "curious cat" as I was, I went to war with everyone I met early on. I created a few settlers because I knew I needed to create a city in which my people would live. I had perhaps one or two workers and then the rest were warriors. I had axemen, spearmean, archers, and went to town with other towns. Then, my workers found gun powder. I upgraded then, most of my warriors and continued to pillage. In the end; however, I went running scared as my defenses became nonexistent, my warriors became few, and I had no allies to help. I believe that as a leader, with just an imperilistic view of running a civilization, other factors need to be present. The ultimate success of a leader needs to be based upon their willingness to make peace with neighboring cities. That feat is hard to accomplish because most of the time, the leader is worried too involved with self-help and doesn't believe that other cities wouldn't come after them. That means that warriors need to be in place to ease the leader and the people of any oncoming attack, yet strive to have peaceful relations with all the other states. I have found that despite having liberal ideas and beliefs, within the computer game world, I am more prone to think and believe in realist theory. In a way, that is confusing but by doing so and taking part in different approaches, (at least in the computer game realm) I am able to see the outcome.
I am still not sure what they mean by 'quick game' however. That last game lasted a couple of days, a few hours each day. It really depends on your approach from early on. The strategies you want to develope and follow. I have started another game; one that takes place during the ancient era. I have chosen the Roman Empire based on a few interests I have politically. Based upon all three Empires that I was able to choose from, the Romans are able to achieve great accomplishments politically. They also have the possibilities for govertments, different type of rule, laws. These interest me so this next game is goin to have a political agenda more so than the 'conquer everything in sight' as before. I'll let you know how that goes.
Happy Conquering!

4 comments:

  1. You say you are ruling your new civilization with a more political agenda in lieu of your initial militaristic stance. Does a political strategy for you mean focusing solely on researching political systems and civic duty (code of laws, monarchy, divine right, etc) or does it mean strategizing alliances, open borders, and trade relationships instead of being neutral? I think it would be very interesting for you to really dissect the latter strategy in the game. So far, in my game, I just accept all open border requests and I do not disengage open borders by another ruler's request unless I absolutely have to. It is a side of the game that I am not sure many people explore as much as the superficial goals of the game: settle, expand, produce, culture, and conquer. Manipulate your neighbor is not in there.
    -JKD

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also have taken part in open boarders however before I engage I review who they are at war with and if the open borders will be beneficial. Right now, I have open borders with everyone except for the Huns and Japan. Japan is at war with just about everyone so I didn't want to get involved with that. As for Persia, they are my best ally so we have a dispute agreement (or something like that) which is similar to alliances of today. If they go to war, I go to war and visa versa.

    ReplyDelete
  3. lol, Your approach was the exact opposite of mine, I made peace with everyone I came in contact with

    ReplyDelete
  4. I made peace with everyone on my last game. I actually won that game!

    ReplyDelete