Announcement

**Velociryx** · April 27, 2006, 07:25

Same file, RTF.

-=Vel=-

Attached Files

vel_s_strategy_c4.rtf (247.3 KB, 1150 views)

**couerdelion** · April 27, 2006, 08:13

Good to see you around again Vel and good luck with finding a place. I hope you are starting to feel a little better now and that we will see you here a little more often.

This “summary” looks interesting but I think will take a little time to digest before deciding whether I am imperial or slave-driver.

I’m looking forward to seeing that Ice-Age game of yours too even if I thought that it wasn’t such a bad start as people believed it to be.

**Verrucosus** · April 27, 2006, 19:29

This is most delightful. I know what I'll be doing this weekend. Please let me to join in applauding Platypus Rex's work and add my best wishes for the honourable Member for Candle'Bre.

**laissez-faire** · April 28, 2006, 18:33

no rush, vel. all of the non-civ-related stuff comes first.

**Addled Platypus** · April 30, 2006, 19:56

just supporting where I can with what talents I have

**spammurabi** · April 30, 2006, 21:17

Good to see you again, Vel. You going to post that "What to do with Terrible Starts" thing anytime soon? I was interested in seeing that.

**couerdelion** · May 2, 2006, 08:57

I was just wondering if this is the place to make some comments on that strategy guide. It’s well written although some parts are better structured than others. The extensive discussion for each civ leader was particularly well designed and well written.

It might also help to know what the purpose of the guide is, its intended audience etc.

Great reading and not to be missed.

**Verrucosus** · May 2, 2006, 18:41

Having read Platypus Rex's compilation over the weekend, I noticed that much of the discussion so far has focused on the early part of the game. I see a slight danger of neglecting the later stages of the game, but early expansion is certainly fascinating and important enough to deserve the exhaustive treatment it has received.

I have a somewhat general question regarding the aim and pacing of early expansion: How many cities do I need and when do I need them?

I realise that putting a question like this one tends to draw reminders that it's possible to win the game with a single city and that there are as many styles as there are players and so on. All of that is valid, but I'm looking for some early game goal that does not commit me to a specific style. I believe Vel used the concept of "critical mass" in his writings on Alpha Centauri to explain what I mean: a number of bases (cities) that gives you a solid enough foundation to be flexible in whatever direction the game may take you (or better in whatever direction you may want to take the game).

There are some aspects of the game mechanics that may be relevant here:
- six cities are required to get a sufficient number of standard city improvements to enable some of the national wonders;
- nine cities are required to get enough temples to be able to build three cathedral-type buildings (important for cultural victory);
- there are some threshholds where city maintenance costs increase more than proportionally (I recall a thread about this, but I didn't find it).

In my own games, I've begun to feel comfortable once I had about eight cities, but that feeling is based more on intuition than reflection. Also, I haven't played the game nearly as intensively as other participants here (only 22 games in all, some of which were played on the more exotic map types). In order to have a meaningful discussion, let's assume a standard continents map, on Monarch difficulty, in a single-player environment. (I don't want to exclude anyone, just define what I'm talking about.) It goes without saying that any number that one might come up with is subject to adjustment for different game settings and even the specific map one is playing.

The second part of the question (how long should I take to reach "critical mass") is probably even more subject to the circumstances of the particular game, but it should be possible to come up with a general idea. In respect to the pacing of early expansion there seems to be a real change from previous versions (including SMAC) where there you couldn't really have "too many cities too early". In Civ4, the maintenance rules alone force you to balance expansion with the development of infrastructure. Still, in games where I still had only four or five cities after researching the bulk of the classical advances, I was feeling the pressure catch up during the medieval and renaissance periods - that, too, can be a lot of fun, but it's not the flexibility I was talking about earlier.

I thought about posting in the other thread, but it's still a bit noisy over there, so I decided to hide my question in this one. It was prompted by reading Platypus Rex's compilation of the first two threads and it is related to many of the points raised there, so I hope this is okay.

**Velociryx** · May 3, 2006, 07:22

Verrucosus,

Yep, you nailed it. Thus far, the discussions have been heavily ancient-age-centric, and I believe that the most compelling case for that is the notion that if you build a strong foundation in the ancient era, then the rest will fall into place more-or-less on its own (not to say that there isn't a TON to be said about the later ages, cos there very definitely is, but just that the ancient age is, in terms of absolute values, more important than all the rest combined....that is to say, if you flub the ancient age, you'll spend the rest of the game recovering, whereas if you flub later, it will sting, but can be recovered from).

About critical mass....I have been thinking about this since last evening, and a number of thoughts came to mind. So many, in fact, that I rushed to work to get here early so I could do some writing!

(it should be noted that, although I've been thinking about it since last night, I have not given any thought to exactly what I wanted to write about it, so the words below are a straight download from noggin to virtual page...LOL)

The first is as you say, "critical mass" can vary, depending on your aims and goals. Six for National Wonders, Nine for Cathedral-style improvements (one for OCC

), etc. And based on this, I would almost always gravitate toward the outer limit, in this case, nine.

So for the moment, let us assume that nine is a good number to standardize around (you can surely win games with significantly fewer than this, so to a point, whatever number we select is going to be arbitrary, but nine is an excellent place of beginning, in that it opens up the full range of in-game possibilities). That's a healthy chunk of cities, but of course, building eight settlers out the gate and tossing up nine cities is a great way to completely bankrupt yourself, because, as you mentioned, the mechanics of Civ just simply don't allow it (well, they do, but the price is high, and in paying that price, you open yourself up to insane levels of risk).

Still, I would say that the answer to the "when do I need them" question is: As quickly as you can (safely) get them! (with a more complete explanation below).

Now...most players (if not all), run their games by staying at 100% research for as long as possible, and in the ancient age, this makes loads of sense (you can't use cash for rushing anyways, and you don't have much of it, so even if you could, you wouldn't accomplish much--and certainly not as much as an occassional chop and/or some pop rushing), so why not?

And I would agree.

This then, begins to define the budgetary parameter we're bound by. The desire to remain at, or near 100% research for as long as possible.

Ahhh, but now we're talking (indirectly) about gold.

So we can safely make the claim that gold production (and more specifically, net gold per turn) drives your ability to expand to critical mass.

The more you got, the faster you can expand (if, at some point, we agree to nudge the slider away from 100% science, in order to free up some cash to pay for our future cities' maintenance costs).

So, the first question becomes....how much science are you willing to give up in the short run, in order to achieve critical mass?

If you are only willing to drop to 90% science, then reaching critical mass will be a good deal slower than if you are willing to run a brief period at 10-20% science, because the implication is that you'll have to get the new city up and running good, and on a paying basis before expanding again.

Just to keep up with my thoughts as I'm writing this, I'm gonna make a few notes to myself:

First Conclusion: Expansion itself is Commerce driven, determined by the (presence of ) net profits in/of your empire

Second Conclusion: The rate of expansion is inversely proportional to your research rate. The closer you keep to 100% science (in general), the slower your rate of expansion will be.

But this too, is an incomplete picture, because it totally discounts the military, and we can't afford that....so....as military grows, and ultimately crosses the "free" threshold, expenses will increase, and this, in tandem with city expansion, will force you away from 100% science. This then, makes me want to forget treating research as a special category, and just count it as an expense, which gives us: Military Upkeep, City Maintenance, and Research Expenses. These three things keep the net profits of the Empire down, and net profit is the thing which enables expansion.

Minimize any or all of these expenses to free up cash, and the result is the ability to expand rapidly.

So....two forces, acting in opposition here. One is the desire for protection (Military), and fast research (100% research rate), and the other is the desire to expand and reach critical mass quickly (which increases expense too, in the form of higher city maintenance).

Two basic options then, in terms of being able to expand fast:

* Neglect research
* Neglect the military

(or some combination thereof)

Modified Second Conclusion: The rate of expansion is directly related to your total net profit per turn (takes into account all relevant expenses, military, existing city maintenance, and research expense).

Third Conclusion: Since there is no such thing as deficit spending in Civ (you can't go below zero gold), you gotta pay as you go, which means that something has to "give" if you want to expand. The more "give" you can live with (the more you are willing to neglect research and/or military in the short run), the faster your expansion potential will be.

This though, requires that we set a few parameters up, and make a couple of assumptions:

1) For these purposes, we will assume that we have ample land to expand into peacefully (without warring, or paying overly much attention to the military, beyond standard garrisons for cities)

2) We'll assume that the land is contiguous, and does not require diplomacy to pass through borders, or a naval presence to cross to adjacent islands (which can increase military expenses)

If either of these assumptions prove untrue in a live game, then of course, the whole notion of reaching critical mass will have to be re-adjusted (probably achieving it via conquest, by taking a sufficient number of rival cities in order to reach the desired goal)--this though, is a whole 'nother discussion...for the moment, we'll stick with the notion of peaceful expansion to critical mass.

Conclusion Four: The "give" mentioned earlier (expressed by neglect of the military and/or research) IS the short term cost of expansion. In the long run, as the newly expanded cities gain profitability, you will be able to more than recover the short term expenses you paid in building the cities in the first place.

So....two sides to the equation:

* Expanding the supply of gold available to your Empire

* Controlling costs (Military and Research) (with a nod also given to generating enough gold to pay for increasing city maintenance as you continue adding new ones)

Controlling Costs is really a matter of personal choice and specific game circumstance. If you're hemmed in by dangerous rivals, then neglecting the military would be the last thing you'd want to do (and probably also, lowering research, as it would blunt your ability to properly defend yourself) - in which case, you'd want to reach critical mass via conquest, for sure, but if we stick to the assumptions above, then controlling costs really comes down to how much of a short term hit you are willing to take. This is the part of the equation which will see the most variability, because prevailing conditions will vary from game to game, which will, of course, vary the ultimate result.

Expanding the gold supply leaves you two basic options:

1) Cottages
2) Gold-intensive specials

The first of these is non-terrain dependent, and only marginally tech dependent. That is to say, anybody can, in very short order, start tossing up cottages and very quickly find themselves in a position robust enough to support some level of expansion.

The second is very terrain dependent, and is essentially "luck of the draw." Because of that, there's not much use in spending time buiding a strategy around it, except to note and underscore the point that if you have access to these resources, your ability to expand increases markedly.

In getting back to the cottages, we find that there is some shading here. Some terrain tiles are better suited to rapid expansion to critical mass (green, river tiles, for example, which provide a bonus commerce, and generate enough food to feed the worker assigned to them....flood plains are even better, since they will, in addition to generating a good amount of gold, also generate a surplus food).

But there are other elements at work here as well.

Level of play is important, because at Monarch and below, you can expand to two or more cities (exact number is dependent on the specific level of play) without incurring any additional cost. This then, defines the "first threshold" to expand to with all possible speed (and indeed, if this is your primary, overriding goal, then it creates a compelling case for using a settler first opening, because NO OTHER OPENING will see you put down a second city in a fewer number of turns...on Monarch level, for example, this (two cities) IS your first threshold).

If achieving critical mass in as few turns as possible is the goal, then reaching this milestone in as few turns as possible is paramount.

Also, it should be noted here that financial civs get a bonus in terms of reaching critical mass faster, on account of more productive cottages, and organized civs get a similar bonus, on account of the "blunting effect" of their bonus (and the cat's meow would, of course, be FIN/ORG Civs...go Washington!)

Chop plays a role here, in the tactical sense, because it serves as an enabler, of sorts (tho I understand that it has been weakened...I have not played the latest path yet--no access to my computer, which is packed for the upcoming move--so I cannot comment on how much or little chop's impact will have on tactical level decisions that could result in more turn advantage by allowing for the faster completion of settlers, but pre 1.61, it surely was a compelling way of getting the job done faster!) --I will modify this portion of the post once I get my computer unpacked and can play with 1.61!

And the final piece to this puzzle is pop rushing, and how it relates to your ability to quickly expand.

Cottages require citizens assigned to work them, in order to grow.

Pop rushing degrades (or can degrade) your ability to keep working those cottages to improve their outputs.

There's no hard and fast rule here though...if you need to pop rush, then by all means, do so, but it must be noted that each time you remove a population point from a cottage in this manner, you are sacrificing some measure of speed in your drive to expand to critical mass (in some cases, this can be desireable, and in some cases--if the pop point in question is not working a cottage or a food heavy tile--the degradation in speed can be avoided altogether).

Collectively then, these things provide the template and the road map for spelling out how, and how quickly, you'll be able to afford to expand to critical mass.

Once you reach it, and give those cities time to grow to profitability, it'll be easy to make up whatever research and/or military ground you lost while striving to that point.

Howzzat?

-=Vel=-

**Generaldoktor** · May 3, 2006, 10:29

Originally posted by Verrucosus

I thought about posting in the other thread, but it's still a bit noisy over there, so I decided to hide my question in this one. It was prompted by reading Platypus Rex's compilation of the first two threads and it is related to many of the points raised there, so I hope this is okay.

Tee hee hee!

Great "strategy" Vel. Move the discussion over here and let the flamers flame out, (on the other thread.) Let's hope they don't find out.

I understand your moving difficulties (and sympathize, I'm probably pulling up stakes next year,) but would urge you to play v.161 ASAP as things really have changed. Firaxis' motives in changing the game that significantly in a second patch (I don't consider 1.09 a serious effort,) continue to confuse me, unless the rumored criticism is true and they just rushed the game out in no way the way they ultimately wanted it. Until you start to get into v.161, you are going to continue to draw considerable criticism from flamers under the premise your instruction is not adapted to the current version, I believe.

My game is really struggling right now; I think my insistence on "Raging Barbarians" most games have something to do with it, as is my refusal to chop now before Mathematics. A statistically-based analysis of how much has been lost on early chop would probably be helpful for players in my dilemma.

To address something related to the current topic, I have spent a lot of time pondering the farms versus cottage dilemma when confronted with large numbers of floodplains/grasslands. I may have brought this up before. I'm a big fan of beaucoup food, for slave pop or where my trade for health-bringing goods is so successful, (I seem to be a natural as merchant,) that I can run giant cities full of specialists. I belatedly started converting river grasslands and even floodlands to large numbers of cottages, on your advice and others, but do miss the farms!

I would like to clarify again, if it has been brought up before; given fertile lands, when do the "Masters" farm and when do they cottage?

Also, with the emphasis on gold implied in your last post and the knowledge, even without playing, that Math will restore chop; has it now become critical to "rush" to Mathematics? (Math also leads to Currency and is one route to Calendar=More Gold

)

**Velociryx** · May 3, 2006, 10:52

It (getting back to playing) is *definitely* on the agenda, as soon as we unpack!

As to the "rush to Math" question (and again, keep in mind that this is just based on a mechanical understanding, as opposed to hands on), my sense of it at present is that Math is the "second tier" Bronze.

What I mean by that is this:

Pre 1.61, Bronze was THE powerhouse tech in the ancient age.

It unlocked chop.

It allowed pop rushing and Slavery

It allowed the mainline attack unit of the day.

In short, there was no other tech in the ancient era that could match the sheer force behind Bronze.

This, IMO, weighted the game in favor of those Civs that started with Mining.

Sure, you could research something that built on other starting techs, but pound for pound, whatever else you researched would not have the immediate force of impact that Bronze carried with it.

Next best thing was Pottery (cottages), but in terms of immediate benefit, cottages are definitely a "start small and build with time." Unfortunately, by the time cottages are on par with the power of Bronze, an early Bronze/rusher would have long ago dismantled a cottage spam empire.

Now (and this is from memory, with no materials before me), we have Math, which has associated with it money (stepping stone to currency/calendar, as you mentioned), cats, and "regular powered" chop.

I'd have to compare that against peer level techs, but I'm betting that it comes out on top.

-=Vel=-

**Arrian** · May 3, 2006, 10:56

I tend to farm FPs. If I have a ton of them, there will be a couple of farms and then a bunch of cottages. But if I only have one or two... they're getting farmed. Why? So I have the ability to grow quickly when I want to. I'll cottage a grassland or plains tile. Then once I've hit the cap (whatever that is for the time being) I can work the cottage and stop growth.

Though I am still very farm/mine heavy. This is a product, no doubt, of playing a lot of Prince games. I can still lead in tech with a fairly small number of cottages.

-Arrian

p.s. Bronze is still damned powerful. Chops are less powerful pre-math, but still useful in a pinch. And you still need bronze for copper/axes and slavery.

**Generaldoktor** · May 3, 2006, 11:18

I don't think I would have ever neglected Bronze, (those barb axemen tend to advise against it, if nothing else.) But I think in the current game, I'll try (post-Bronze) something of a "rush" to Math, maybe picking up some other useful stuff on the way, (like Writing.) I sure wonder what this is going to do to Oracle-based slingshots?? (Like the famous Metal-Casting ploy.)

Farms vs. Cottages: Okay, I think I remember now. the "cap" as an indicator. But considering all the fantastic benefits of early development of cottages, its hard to decide not to build them because you haven't hit "cap" yet. But I guess decisions like this are why we play the game.

**Verrucosus** · May 3, 2006, 12:12

Vel's essay on "critical mass" was exactly what (or maybe even a bit more than) I was looking for. No magic formula, but a quite compelling analysis of the factors that need to be balanced. Give me some time to absorb it, maybe I'll have some more questions later.

I had been very cautious about the "settler first" approach proposed by Vel last November arguing that (a) it was insecure and (b) the advantage of getting the second city earlier was offset by getting the third and fourth city later because of the parent city's lack of growth. Of course, I was playing on Noble at the time and given that increased maintenance costs on Monarch force you to delay building a third city anyway, argument (b) loses a lot of its strength. I haven't experimented with "settler first" for some time now, but having played my last two games on Monarch, it may be time to try it out again. Security is still a concern, though.

Regarding early research, I feel that the decision to make chopping less efficient for the period between the discoveries of Bronze Working and Mathematics is a good one. It was more or less consensus that Bronze Working was the key tech prior to the patch and the reduction in the efficiency of early chops makes other beelines a bit more attractive and early research choices in general more interesting.

Farming flood plains is something I've often planned to do, but rarely did. In the early game, I don't really need that much growth, so I put cottages there. Later - when I could use the surplus food to feed specialists - I usually can't bring myself to bulldoze the towns and hamlets that have developed in the meantime.

Announcement

Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume III

Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume III

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment