Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Mega Civilization» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Place for War? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Xiao Tan
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
So I've read a bit and its been pretty clearly stated this isn't a war game. However I am wondering if that means there's no place for aggression or skirmishing at all. I very much enjoying attacking/combat and would be sad if the goal of the game was to never engage.

I've never played the board game play before but play the computer game all the time. (Again, I am aware they aren't the same.) Ideally, expansion and aggression would be rewarded instead of turtling, while mutually assured destruction type attacking wouldn't help. Is there a place for warmongering or does everyone set up some borders then tech peacefully until the end?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Lacer
United States
Cobalt
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In my one play (9 players) there was quite a lot of fighting. One player was very aggressive (as The Celts) and he was doing quite well in the early game but stalled out in the mid to late game. Sometimes warfare happened just because people had troops on the board that would die out at the end of the turn due to population limits, so they would attack with them just to have something to do. It's likely hard to do well with a purely military strategy, but there is certainly times where fighting is appropriate.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Casey Craig
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Aggression can be worthwhile, but overall you don't want to think of starting big wars with one nation. You both will get weakened and then others will come in to hurt you a lot. Skirmishes is what you want to do. Attempt to take an extra land space, while staying strong in your main area.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
War. What is it good for? Quite a bit really
occupied wrote:
So I've read a bit and its been pretty clearly stated this isn't a war game. However I am wondering if that means there's no place for aggression or skirmishing at all.
The thing about the CIVILIZATION family is that the game doesn't demand you attack your neighbours, but wars can and will break out over space and city sites.

The combat system means most wars are attritional, so you need to pick your fights carefully and not antagonise neighbours for a trivial gain, or alarm other potential rivals. All games feature low key skirmishing, but I've had those where I've had to defend forcefully against allied neighbours and another where I continually eroded an early leader for virtually the entire game, but in all cases I carefully budgeted so as not to derail my own economy.

There's plenty of war, but successful players fight only for sound reasons, which is a rather good emulation of early empires.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xiao Tan
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
Those are encouraging answers. I am okay with it if the game punishes blind warmongering without regard to the situation, as long as it allows calculated aggression to be profitable. Thanks for the replies!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Thomas
United States
Murfreesboro
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We played an 11-player game this past Saturday that ran 9.5 hours.

During the course of the game, there was fighting - but no all out warfare. Most of the fighting occurred when two empires would meet and then one (or both) needed to expand. And other than the one player who took everything personal and fought retaliatory attacks way past the point of detriment - everything consisted of a carefully timed, well-balanced attack against a single city site; hoping to wrest the location from a another player so as to weaken them and improve your position.

After lessons learned in this (our first game), I expect the next session (scheduled for 5/14) to have even less fighting in it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Pessano
United States
Tampa
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Scoutdad wrote:
We played an 11-player game this past Saturday that ran 9.5 hours.

During the course of the game, there was fighting - but no all out warfare. Most of the fighting occurred when two empires would meet and then one (or both) needed to expand. And other than the one player who took everything personal and fought retaliatory attacks way past the point of detriment - everything consisted of a carefully timed, well-balanced attack against a single city site; hoping to wrest the location from a another player so as to weaken them and improve your position.

After lessons learned in this (our first game), I expect the next session (scheduled for 5/14) to have even less fighting in it.


I am curious how the game worked out for the person who took things personal?

Thx
jonpfl
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Brudz
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mb
Aggression should be more opportunistic than conquest orientated. The Military advance will ally you to be more opportunistic.

Examples of opportunistic aggression:
-You move after someone and they have only 6 tokens building a city. For the cost of 2 tokens you can prevent the city and cost them additional tokens for overpopulation.
-A player before you has over built and has just enough population to support his cities. If you remove one of his tokens you will reduce one of his cities.
-You have tokes with no land to support them and are unable to go into city building. Put them in your neighbors territory (if them went earlier in turn order) so they can share the pain.

The ultimate form of aggression is forming a trade embargo against a player, denying them the ability to improve their sets. These are hard to form and even harder to keep in place over time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Einherje Valhalla
msg tools
I'm getting my game on Saturday and already I fantasies about having an 18 players game of Imperial Civilization. Have to check out on Saturday if I need 3x-tokens or 4x. Anyway, I will make my dream come true.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikael Halonen
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmb
Sometimes aggression is very useful. We played a five player game on the eastern map. I was playing as Persia and my northen neighbour where very aggressive, teching fundamentalism and later monoteism. My only option was to follow his lead and also get those techs. Meanwhile the southmost civilization where rushing in blue and red techs. I guess he was around 15 point ahead of us when suddenly he was caught into a civil war with me as benefitor. Because he hadnt got any yellows at all he was an easy target for the monotheism+fundamentalism combo. My Northen neighbour also got a foothold in the south tanks to universal doctrine and from there on the poor south player could not get the cities needed to finish the AST while the other of us managed to tech up and eventually pass him in score.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Durst
United States
Tampa
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just finished an 8 player West game yesterday. While war happened a little bit, it seemed like it is more beneficial to have fairly solid agreed borders with your neighbors. You say, this is mine and that is yours and we don't cross those lines. This stops destructive war fighting for both parties.

Where the war comes in is when these boundaries are not respected and you need to push them back into place (or if a calamity makes you lose a spot and you need to fight it back from pirates or an opportunistic player).

In no way is this your typical dudes-on-a-map game where you want every territory you can get. In my game, I could have expanded more east through modern day Ukraine since Hatti was busy with Assyria on their other side. However I (Greeks) didn't see any point to doing so as I had the amount of territory I needed in Greece/Macdeonia. Also, you really don't want to kick someone when they are down, especially a neighbor. This game is long and they will be back eventually and you don't want them coming after you full bore in retaliation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Markus A
Sweden
Gothenburg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
We're having our fist game of Mega Civ tomorrow but many of the players are seasoned Adv Civ veterans. My experience with games in different countries are very limited at best but I can imagine there being regional differences in how the game is played.
Since my experience is solely in Adv Civ I don't know if my past experience holds true in Mega Civ or not. However, in the games we play, war is rare and people usually try to avoid it. Use of calamities are usually considered more beneficial. Opportunistic skirmishes happens but even those are few and far between.
Attacking a city build or tokens to foil city support is almost unheard of since it will very likely incur the wrath of that player and it will turn bloody very quickly. It's very important not to forget about human psychology. If you anger someone they will likely hurt you back just out of spite even if there are better plays to be made. So, although skirmishes are fine, be careful with how badly you hurt someone since it can quickly come back to haunt you.
Now, having said this. Mega Civ appear to be much tighter than Adv Civ, maybe the map will force more aggressive behavior? Time will tell I suppose...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicholas
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sure, you can do beneficial attacks in this game. Be sure you don't attack too early, that will hurt you both considerably. Also, I don't really like to attack my immediate neighbours. More often than not, this will backfire.
What I like to do however, is attack cities from far away players by boat.
You have to choose your victim carefully, in the best case he will not be able to retaliate, because his tokens are not in a good position to do so. Stealing trade cards is great, as more often than not, players will have something valuable left (along with a few duds).
Babylon is a good target for this on the eastern map, as he will have lots of cities adjacent to sea areas, but almost no tokens there.
Clothmaking+Astronavigation is a must for such attacsk, Naval Warfare is nice to have and Military is advisable to protect yourself from retribution.
If you manage to attack in a turn where your target has ZERO tokens in stock (quite possible), all your attacking tokens will survive and you could even build a city on the same spot with the same tokens! However, make sure it can't be destroyed in the next turn by the player you targetted. Also, it's adisable to destroy the newly build city asap as a calamity loss.

On the western map, Assyria might be a good target for this. Most of the other western civs usually have too much tokens adjacent to the Med and could retaliate, if they have/acquire the same techs (Clothmaking, Astronavigation, Military).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Markus A
Sweden
Gothenburg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
A "morning after reflection"...
So, we had a 12 player game yesterday. A couple of players had experience with Civ-project, some had played ACiv a little, some were true ACiv veterans and some were complete no0bs.
Discernible patterns, the no0bs felt crowded and had the urge to do "something", that meant attacking. Myself being lodged in between them had to face the aggression. Especially one of my neighbors were unreliable and despite my best efforts to dissuade him from choosing the bloody path he felt the need to bring the war. I informed him that he would never enjoy the fruits of his efforts but he shrugged of my tidings.
He nicked a less important area and then went for a city which he conquered but that's pretty much it, after that he hit a dead end. A couple of turns later I started pushing back and by the end I was halfway into his heartland.
I kept 8-9 cities most turns while he was struggling with 6-7.
Now for the moral of the story... Other seasoned players on the other side of the map had a stable peace going and they won the game. My war wasn't crippling by any means but it slowed me down while they could focus on optimizing their efforts. I wasn't far behind but enough to not be a serious contender. The nations with a steady peace won and the nations at war lagged behind.
IMHO this is very typical for Civ games in general. Winning the war still slowed me down enough to loose. And warlike behavior decimated other players so that we had far too few good trade cards in circulation to make really good trades. It was a loose/loose situation. A Pyrrhic victory for myself...

The moral of the story, if you're going to war, make sure you do it for the right reasons and be sure to come out ahead. Otherwise you will more than likely be shooting yourself in the foot.

P.S. I don't want to take anything away from the winners, they played a very good game and deserved to win.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.