Diplomatic victory sucks

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 22:46:11 +0200, Öjevind Lång
<bredband.net RemoveThis @ojevind.lang> wrote:

><lakeqi RemoveThis @yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
>news:6a436cb1-63bd-42ab-983d-79ece54e9fb7@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>I forgot to disable diplomatic victory on a game and had victory
>> stolen from me by a traitorous cleopatra who voted against me. I had
>> been trying to catch up to india, I was about 100 pts behind with 50
>> years to go i decided that India had to be destroyed since I couldn't
>> catch up.I finally passed Russia and england and then they all vote
>> against me. I kept playing for fun with about 25 years to go. I was
>> ahead at 2050, I wonder if I hadnt have lost diplomatic if the other
>> countries woud have attacked. I want to find a way of saying that I
>> won this game.
>>
>> In general I thin the diplomatic option is stupid. I lost to russia
>> who was basically on her on continent and didnt have to act with
>> treachery. All of the great powers were on my continent. Betraying
>> India and joining the war against her was the only way I could keep up
>> since her death became inevitable.Of course Cleopatra voted against
>> me, she feared me because I had them all working for me.
>
>I don't want to sound supercilious, but I think all the things you have to
>watch out for is one of the great things about Civ. One reason for
>constantly coming back to it is the desire to JUST GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME -
>and that just playing as one single civ with one special goal in sight. I'll
>never forget the time I was happily cruising towards space victory and Masa
>Musa won a culture victory against me. Oh, man, was I annoyed!
> If a victory condition annoyes you, just disable it in "Custom game". I
>have thought of checking the box for "No technoloy trading". Dores anyone
>here have an opinion about that?
>
>Öjevind

I tried two games with the "No technology trading" box checked, the
first game worked out OK because I was ahead in the technology race
and I didn't have the A!s asking for tech's.
The second game was different the A1 was Elizabeth and she was ahead
on tech's and I couldn't trade to get what I wanted
So all in all I don't think its a good idea and I wont do it again.
I had the same experience as Ojevind but it was Elizabeth that beat me
with a cultural victory just as I was about to launch my space ship


Bevan

<Bevan> skrev i meddelandet
news:1j1sb4hsicrfct0c3vlemtnkcco0fu3oro@4ax.com...

[snip]

>>and that just playing as one single civ with one special goal in sight.
>>I'll
>>never forget the time I was happily cruising towards space victory and
>>Masa
>>Musa won a culture victory against me. Oh, man, was I annoyed!
>> If a victory condition annoyes you, just disable it in "Custom game". I
>>have thought of checking the box for "No technoloy trading". Dores anyone
>>here have an opinion about that?
>>
>>Öjevind
>
> I tried two games with the "No technology trading" box checked, the
> first game worked out OK because I was ahead in the technology race
> and I didn't have the A!s asking for tech's.
> The second game was different the A1 was Elizabeth and she was ahead
> on tech's and I couldn't trade to get what I wanted
> So all in all I don't think its a good idea and I wont do it again.
> I had the same experience as Ojevind but it was Elizabeth that beat me
> with a cultural victory just as I was about to launch my space ship

The trick is to frequently check whether some civ which was previously
reseaching at a healhty pace now permanently needs eternities to research
something. Unless they have lost a lot of territory, that means that they
have maxed the culture production and are aiming for a cultural win. Pacal
seems specially fond of winning that way.
By the way, I suppose a vassalized civ could still win a space or culture
victory. At least I haven't seen anything to indicate the opposite. However,
in my current game Mansa Musa has become Shaka's vassal and shows no signs
of trying to do that.
Another intersting feature in this game is that for a long time, I heard
the little squeaks that indicate that an alien spy has been caught, but that
hasn't happened for a long time now. It seems the AI has simply given up
trying. That's never happened before, but it is bliss. I started to build up
a healthy espionage advantage early on and also popped two Great Spies, and
I have built or am building all the anti-espionage buildings. I suppose that
may be the reason.

Öjevind

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:04:42 +0800, Bevan <> wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 22:46:11 +0200, Öjevind Lång
><bredband.net.RemoveThis@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>

.....

>>I
>>have thought of checking the box for "No technoloy trading". Dores anyone
>>here have an opinion about that?
>>
>>Öjevind
>
>I tried two games with the "No technology trading" box checked, the
>first game worked out OK because I was ahead in the technology race
>and I didn't have the A!s asking for tech's.
>The second game was different the A1 was Elizabeth and she was ahead
>on tech's and I couldn't trade to get what I wanted
>So all in all I don't think its a good idea and I wont do it again.
>I had the same experience as Ojevind but it was Elizabeth that beat me
>with a cultural victory just as I was about to launch my space ship
>
>
>Bevan


I always use the "no tech brokering" option rather than "no tech
trading" which means that civs can only trade techs that they have
actually researched. Three things I like about it -- it stops the AI
civs from all passing a key tech around amongst themselves but
withholding it from the human player; you can trade a valuable tech to
an ally and know that it won't be passed on to your worst enemy next
turn; you can try a strategy of researching rare techs specifically for
trading.

I started using this option when I first tried playing at Prince level
and couldn't keep up with tech (partly because of the AI civs sharing
techs but leaving me out!). I liked it so much that I changed the xml
file to make it permanent.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:11:01 +0100, albert hall wrote:

>I always use the "no tech brokering" option rather than "no tech
>trading" which means that civs can only trade techs that they have
>actually researched. Three things I like about it -- it stops the AI
>civs from all passing a key tech around amongst themselves but
>withholding it from the human player; you can trade a valuable tech to
>an ally and know that it won't be passed on to your worst enemy next
>turn; you can try a strategy of researching rare techs specifically for
>trading.

Yeah, that is what I use, too - for all of the reasons that you state
above.

BP

lakeqi DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:
> I forgot to disable diplomatic victory on a game and had victory
> stolen from me by a traitorous cleopatra who voted against me. I had
> been trying to catch up to india, I was about 100 pts behind with 50
> years to go i decided that India had to be destroyed since I couldn't
> catch up.I finally passed Russia and england and then they all vote
> against me. I kept playing for fun with about 25 years to go. I was
> ahead at 2050, I wonder if I hadnt have lost diplomatic if the other
> countries woud have attacked. I want to find a way of saying that I
> won this game.
>
> In general I thin the diplomatic option is stupid. I lost to russia
> who was basically on her on continent and didnt have to act with
> treachery. All of the great powers were on my continent. Betraying
> India and joining the war against her was the only way I could keep up
> since her death became inevitable.Of course Cleopatra voted against
> me, she feared me because I had them all working for me.

I always disable time victory - I'd rather play longer for a real victory