Easy victory strategy

[Kriegsspieler]

Sorry to interject in this discussion, but I have a question. Isn't it the case that you end up with a higher victory score if you have a larger nation? So if you're trying to post good final scores then it makes sense to play for more cities, even if it isn't the most "efficient" way to get to victory.

And just to throw in my own opinion: I almost never play games to get to the victory conditions in the most rapid way possible, usually because such tactics are kind of "gamey" or based on exploits ( I am NOt accusing Agent TBC of this!), but more importantly because I don't find it very interesting to play games this way. I'm more interested in trying to find ways to keep the money flowing after the boycotts start, grow more rapidly than the other European powers, etc.

guess that's why I lose so often, eh?

[Aerion]

Originally posted by AgentTBC

If playing on a harder difficulty level doesn't require you to successfully manage more cities, more money, or more troops then it what sense is it a higher difficulty level?

I agree with you that at the medium or lower difficulty settings it should be just as viable to play with a small colony as a large one. But I strongly feel that the higher the difficulty, the "better" a colonial manager you should have to be to win. And that means you should need more colonies, more money, and more troops.

As it is, you do not.

A higher level shouldn't require you to manage either more or less. It SHOULD require you to manage either more efficiently. In a perfect world, a higher difficulty level would mean only that the AI opponent is a better/smarter opponent and game play for the player is otherwise the same experience. So a higher difficulty should NOT force you to change your game style so much as force you to play that style better.

[AgentTBC]

I suppose it depends on how you view the realism of being able to throw off your colonial overlords with 2 small population colonies and barely any troops. I consider it almost broken if you can defeat the home country with 8 soldiers.

[Victor Galis]

I see a problem here. I built a lot of cities and generated a lot of LB. I didn't realize this would make the game very, very difficult in the end because in Col1 it didn't. Now, I have about 10 cities and the king intends to send about 240 units after them... that's going to hurt big time.

Knowing that Victory can be achieved by staying small then defeating a handful of royal troops easily is really annoying.

The amount of treasure you can get from the map in no way scales with number of cities. Indeed if you go for the more cities model, it almost becomes insignificant beyond the initial push it allows you to make.

[Clio]

My two cents:

Pros of having more cities:
- Provided that 3-4 of them have fully staffed lumber mills and arsenals/ironworks: capacity to build a navy that can outsize and outfight the King's, winning the war before the REF has a chance to land.
- Those lumber mills can also generate enough political points to get mid- to late-game founding fathers without incurring the LB penalty.
- Bigger industrial potential and larger population also allows you take down any of your AI competitors with greater ease. Probably more important in multiplayer.

Cons of having more cities:
- Micromanagement.
- Increased potential for things going wrong.
- You have to have a large cadre of elder statesmen and newspapers built in your large cities to produce enough LBs to go from %0 rebel sentiment to %50 in an acceptably few number of turns.
- In any case, you'll want to declare independence late in the game (turn 250 or so) to maximize the benefits gained from your large industrial base.

...and vice versa for fewer cities. I agree with the above poster that either avenue is balanced vis-a-vis the other.

In this game, much depends on your starting position. You have to decide on a route to independence within the first 50 turns of your game - questions as to which and how many of the refined goods to produce, how many cities to setup, and how large a population you plan to have when you declare independence all have to be answered based on the exploration done in those first few turns.

[Asmodeous]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If there is no advantage OR disadvantage to lots of cities (up to a point), then it is balanced correctly.

But that's just the thing, Snoopy, you're only focussing on half the equation.

There's no advantage to lots of cities, but there's a distinct disadvantage to lots of cities.

Lots of cities means longer liberty bell production means larger REF, means more difficult end battle, even with more guns.

Look at how ridiculously easy Agent's strategy with 2-3 cities is. Try doubling the cities to 6 and see how easy it is by doubling the length of time you're going to be producing liberty bells (you have to spread those statesmen out farther) and turning the REF from 20-25 total troops to 50-60 total troops.

Tht's definately no advantage for a large disadvantage in my book.

That's not balanced.

Me.

[The Jeremy]

This strategy is just way too effective. I won on the hardest difficulty with only one colony, 8 colonist(turned dragoon), and 12 cannons. My starting (and only) settlement was also on a small island. This should not be possible! Fewer colonies = easy game.

[Clio]

Originally posted by Asmodeous
Lots of cities means longer liberty bell production means larger REF, means more difficult end battle, even with more guns.

Wrong.

Consider:

1 city with a population of 9: 3 statesmen producing 3x LBs to 50% rebel sentiment in y turns.

2 cities with a total population of 18: 6 statesmen producing 6x LBs to 50% rebel sentiment in y turns.

Same rebel sentiment, same number of turns, same REF size.

You do get twice the political points though, useful for grabbing a FF or two in the rush to the declaration.

This is assuming that the REF expands by a factor of rebel sentiment percentage, not by the total number of LBs produced. Needs to be verified.

[Clio]

Originally posted by The Jeremy
This strategy is just way too effective. I won on the hardest difficulty with only one colony, 8 colonist(turned dragoon), and 12 cannons. My starting (and only) settlement was also on a small island. This should not be possible! Fewer colonies = easy game.

But in a MP game, you'd be too vulnerable to an attack, no?

Someone with 3 cities as developed as your single city can come at you with thrice the military power you have. Heck, one or two privateers would have ruined your day. (Not the ones that the AI controls, of course. They tend to wander away.)

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Clio


Wrong.

Consider:

1 city with a population of 9: 3 statesmen producing 3x LBs to 50% rebel sentiment in y turns.

2 cities with a total population of 18: 6 statesmen producing 6x LBs to 50% rebel sentiment in y turns.

Same rebel sentiment, same number of turns, same REF size.

You do get twice the political points though, useful for grabbing a FF or two in the rush to the declaration.

This is assuming that the REF expands by a factor of rebel sentiment percentage, not by the total number of LBs produced. Needs to be verified.

I'm pretty sure it's a function of raw LB numbers. Which also seems silly. If a city is at 100% rebel sentiment and keeps producing Lib Bells, it's shooting you in the foot.

[snoopy369]

It's a factor of raw liberty bells and not of rebel sentiment, because that way you don't have as much incentive to build a gigantic colony.

[Asmodeous]

Originally posted by Clio


Wrong.

Consider:

1 city with a population of 9: 3 statesmen producing 3x LBs to 50% rebel sentiment in y turns.

2 cities with a total population of 18: 6 statesmen producing 6x LBs to 50% rebel sentiment in y turns.

Same rebel sentiment, same number of turns, same REF size.

You do get twice the political points though, useful for grabbing a FF or two in the rush to the declaration.

This is assuming that the REF expands by a factor of rebel sentiment percentage, not by the total number of LBs produced. Needs to be verified.

Problem: Generic Statemesmen are considered.

Imagine this:

1 City with a population of 9: 1 Elder Statesman, 2 Statesmen, 3 people in School = 50% sentiment in X turns, reduced because prior to X you get another Elder, and possibly prior to Y you get a third.

2 Cities with a population total of 18: 1 Elder Statesman, 5 Statesmen, 3 People in school = 50% sentiment in X turns, reduced because prior to X you get an Elder, and prior to Y you will have a possible second and third third.

By the time you get to 6 cities you've effectively doubled the amount of time it is going to take, if not more.

Me.

Edit: Also they explained the REF equation in another thread. It's based on number per turn (you can get one REF increase per turn) and when a particular threshhold is crossed if you do not generate enough in a turn to cause one.

[Becephalus73]

I would think the key to this problem is having the game be fun.

I doubt many people truly want the best strategy to be to spam out 30-40 colonies, because for I am guessing 90% of players that just is not fun. People might wan (I suggest in such an American themed game) 13? colonies, or perhaps a few more or less. I would think having that the ideal number would balance a lot of things, and then the effectiveness could slighty fall off in both directions.

Its enough for a diversified economy where you are using all of the games features hopefully, but not so much that you have 4 cities producing cigars or some such and are killing yourself with micro.

The emphasis with games should always be on FUN and MEANINGFUL CHOICES. This is what games are.

[AgentTBC]

I think I just have a fundamental disagreement with snoopy on this. To me, it's self-evident that it should be easier for a big colonial empire with lots of guns and money to throw off the shackles of a foreign king than it is for a tiny colony with not very many guns and little money. Which isn't the case now. It is actually easier.

Snoopy argues from a game design standpoint that both small colonies and big colonies should be equally viable strategies. I argue from a common sense + realism standpoint that it's ridiculous that I can defeat the British Empire at least as easily if not more so with 2 small colonies than with 12 big colonies.

If I could change two things with the game it would be

1) The foreign powers and natives should be much more aggressive. The only reason I can win with 2 pop 5 colonies is because the other European powers never attack me.

2) The initial REF size should be larger and it should scale more slowly with liberty bells. The only reason, again, it's so easy to win with a tiny colony is that the REF is so small at the start that going from 0% liberty bells to 50% liberty bells in 7-8 turns (which you can do with a tiny colony) means you can win the war with 8 dragoons and 8 cannon.

[snoopy369]

We definitely have a fundamental disagreement on this

In designing a game, remember that game design trumps realism most of the time. A 'realistic' game like Col still has very few actually realistic elements... you have just enough for 'immersion' and the rest goes to game design.

Now, that said, you can and should mod the game to YOUR preferences; many of the better mods out there are simply people saying "I like a more X game" and making it that way.

I'm just saying that the base game should be designed from a game design standpoint. That's all.

(Also - I think 2 colonies is a bit too few, as I've said before ... 4 or 5 is probably the right 'minimum'. But that's separate.)