Do you play sub-optimally?

[Roland Traveler]

Of course. Whether it’s by running at 5 speed during wartime and leaving armies idling for months, not kneecapping the big boys because I want a challenge (I remember one French game where I reached the Rhine and destroyed Austria… God, that was boring), or helping weaker nations because no, Ottomans, just because you can invade the HRE doesn’t mean you need to sprawl across half of Eastern Europe, I make lots of subpar plays. I still do a fair bit of meta ideas, although that’s more due to me liking space marines than “I need the best troops”, but sometimes there’s nothing more fun than picking Naval and Maritime and watching the wooden wall sink everything in sight.

Also non-expansionist Korea. Most fun campaign I’ve ever played, and I always take naval because Korea needs its turtle ships baby.

 

[Aelisa]

Yeah... I basically don't care what the "meta" is when I'm playing, unless it's specifically supposed to be something competitive (hardcore MP or something of the like). I know I can do a one-tag WC; I've done it a few times with a few tags. That was enough for me to stop caring about being super optimal all the time. From there, I just wanted entertainment.

I'm in much the same boat. I've done world conquests, I've done one tags, one faiths, and a single one culture. Playing optimally, for me, would either end in a world conquest (making every run the same) or, much more likely, just getting bored in the 1500s and doing something else. Games are about fun after all.

 

[americafuhrer]

Never done a world conquest or any of the more out there achievements. I'm just not that good at the game.

I play sub-optimally because that's all I know.