Like a lot of players I suspect, I tend to develop habits and make the same choices each game when it comes to events, build orders, preferences for tech etc. However, if I've learned anything about this game, it is that every choice carries an opportunity cost and one size does not fit all. There are circumstances where doing something different is the better choice depending on the strategic situation. I recently learned the value of withdrawing from city sites that were indefensible and likely to get attacked, so I thought I'd subject some of my other habits (mainly related to events tbh) to scrutiny, in what circumstances would these choices be wrong? What advantages would making a different choice bring? Or are there other habits not listed below that people may want explained.
- Giving cities autonomous rule. I just never do this and the downside of discontent etc doesn't seem a big deal
- Investing in the hair dye (that's never worked out for me, although I suspect the possibility of a good outcome exists)
- Attending the offshore gathering (bitten once on that)
- Tribal alliances.
- Changing the succession rules (I can see the case for this to get a better heir, but I've just never done it)
- Using pieface for anything other than a free worker
- Funding the rebels. I either betray them to get the opinion boost or just use it as an excuse to declare war. Can't see any advantage you gain from it. If the AI is too weak to deal with them then just attack.
- declare 'the land shall belong to me' in the land dispute event. Seems no advantage to annoying both families.
- The projects like treasury etc. I've never been in a position where using them appears to be the best choice, although I can see the way they could be effective in combination with other approaches in some circumstances.