Vel's Strategy Thread

[Jcg316]

There are scripts for starting locations and you will start with starting tech level resources barring a few unique map scripts. These could lead to resources on great plains that are animals, possibly on oasis that is different with resources then the usual, and possibly the balanced map where the sure resources will use up workable tiles (copper, iron, oil, uranium, and aluminum I think. maybe horses/elephants).

When looking for the best start in turn advantage starting the game with a plan for what you will do won't be ideal. If a civ has traits and a unique unit you think are worthless then you probably won't use that civ, you need to be aware of the starting techs as well. They will certainly affect your options and the total turn advantage you may be able to get with them.

If you start with mining a few chops are going to be vastly better in terms of total turn advantage, usually.

If you start with a resource for a starting tech you have a worker and will be faster for expansionist and non-expansionist strategies.

If you start with animal resources and mineables (no food bonuses and usually less total yield) you can research animal husbandry and be vastly better off than you would have been any other way in total turn advantage except to chops which you would be neck and neck with. Otherwise you can start with any tree'd tech and finish animal husbandry in less than 3,4 turns of having your worker out. This would be made up for in the 6! total yield those resources can provide. Plus, if you have roads you are still gaining those turns of worker use.

With roads or a starting resource tech you can have mining and bronze working after your workers has been out 3-5 turns and not lost anything in total worker turns and total turn advantage, regardless of your start location.

If you have one tech for a resource you have and sleep the worker after building it (and only going after religion techs) you are neck and neck with someone who built a settler first with still having 5 turns more growth but only equal total worker turns, in the earlier example.

If you have no techs for starting resources, do not have roads, and are going after 25ish turns of religion techs to start the game then, and only then, is settler first de facto faster. The benefits of a religious shrine at the cost of a great person being significantly better are a completely different animal. Six/seven religions compared to earlier and better defended cottages and still the capability to get four/five religions earlier than anyone else, because of your massive tech lead from the cottages could be far better. When 90% and 80% science rate leaves you with significantly more beakers and by far more money per turn than someone who went after all the religions it certainly isn't better. A shrine, managed well, can raise your science rate up higher while still having got the science/money infrastructure developed at only a marginal loss. Decreasing returns will hit you quickly with missionaries failing and it quickly becomes far less worthwhile costing that many great people. Decreasing returns of shrine income at the cost of seven great prohets will not compare to 8400 gold from merchants. More beakers at a lower science rate beat less beakers at a higher science rate. Efficiency does not help you win, more production does. That said you certainly can gain the religious benefits of a religion and then build the necessary tech for a resource after your worker is out 2/3 turns. Even two religions may still be worth it that way, but it may favor the other unit built initially for two or more.

Fishing and coastal starts are different as well.

Cottages are generally the best early game, anything, if you can defend them over the course of their lives and you start with roads. Without roads they may not be better than chops early, though you will have chops for other things later anyways. Early chops may be worth similar total turn advantage and can be better defended, with quick military or a waiting (down to 1 turn left) chop, but lack the early tech advantage of building early cottages and may not be significantly faster in the long run. That is a fair amount more effective with early mining.

Not defending settlers is not going to hurt you as long as you aren't sending him into the black unknown which you shouldn't do anyways. Not defending cities can be suicide in multiplayer. Stealing workers won't work except against really bad opponents like against the AI that has no idea what its doing sending a worker next to your warrior. Stealing workers from the AI is the same vein as reloading, early chopping is against the feel of the game, for me at least, and quick undefended cottages will beat the AI 90% of the time on what you find to be otherwise an average, or one step above, difficulty. Starting whatever way you enjoy is better for single player as even just ending 10 turns before building your first city won't make it so hard you have no chance to win, if you are competitive and want to win at your share of multiplayer games you will want to do the best thing you can across a certain spectrum to eliminate losing to dagger strategies for example while getting yourself into position to have a good shot to win later.

None of this matters for singleplayer unless you are trying to beat a difficulty you normally can't win at without knowing what you're doing well enough to play at that level normally and instead leaning on any of this as a crutch. Against other players you benefit from the ability to use any early strategy having to do with worker first and then anything later. Losing early from a lone scouting warrior running you over is embarrasing and against a cardinal rule for civ games. Surviving, to where you have a chance to win late, is better than having significant chances to lose early or to be crippled to the point you don't have a legitimate chance to win late. However, for singleplayer that isn't a significant issue.

[Little Honey]

Again, you are forgetting the value of the two tiles of production that the newly founded city is producing (on average, a net of five resources, after accounting for two food to feed the population). And the fact that IF you persue this route, then you must factor in the opportunity costs associated with NOT researching something else (ie - if you don't have hunting, then you'll have to research two techs with a total cost of 140! to GET Animal Husbandry, which TOTALLY knocks you out of the running for an early religion, and makes chopping in your immediate future a non-option too.

5:1 + a few roads to a future city site in the case of generic tiles (advantage: settler first) (you have ten extra resources on the turn I found the city, and after that, I make them up at a rate of 4/turn)

5:3 + same if you have MOST specials (as above, but my makeup rate is halved)

5:6 + same if you have ONE SPECIFIC special (advantage, worker)

The numbers are not supporting what you're saying, when you take into account the fact that the newly founded city is itself working two tiles.

In fact, the only two instances when they clearly work out in your favor are terrain and starting tech specific (if you start with mining and/or have a particular resource in your city radius). In those specific cases, then it absolutely makes sense to go settler first. If your aims are to beeline for an early religion (which is a "perishable" good in the same way that a wonder is perishable, in that once someone else gets it, you absolutely cannot, which means that standard x-for-y calculations don't show you the full picture in the same way they do for figuring times to build a unit (as per our current settler/worker example....a standard analysis works here, because we ALWAYS have the opportunity to build either. We get exactly one shot at Hinduism, making it a different beast).

-=Vel=-

(writing from the wife's computer this morning.... )

[Jcg316]

Strategies in general aren't really worth anything to me. Going for a late 19th century or early 20th century spaceship/culture vic gets old after the first couple times you manage it, trying to refine it to be that fast isn't a blast either. If I play to the land not only am I trying to use what may have the best chance, all victories being equal, but it lets games feel much more varied and unique.

Something I've noticed though is late space races between human players can be a blast since strong science infrastructures built up at any point before the mid-game can really let you cripple opposing spaceship builders, especially if they neglected scotland yard. Between not being able to rush projects and someone bringing in 1000 gold or more a turn with a high coin percentage rate, regardless of shrines, for spies lets them be able to knock out whole chunks of production turns for spaceship projects. Can make it fairly rough. Missing a mass culture bomb at the end of a game and being a few thousand culture off a win can show you just how fast a city, brimming with defenders, can be razed when a few opponents put their heads together, even without nukes.

[Little Honey]

That's what I love about Civ IV! The fact that we're both gravitating toward different playing styles, and these styles are informing us about different starts.

In that sense, we're both "right" because our starts work for us, which is the important thing...and I think that the exchange so far has been valuable in the extreme, both in terms of pushing our own thinking, and in terms of illustrating to new players the complexities of the issues that this game brings out, and THAT is good stuff indeed!

-=Vel=-

[Little Honey]

By the way, I'm teaching my wife to play Civ IV as of this morning...she's been watching me play and talk about it here, got curious about it and is now mired in her first game.

As I type this, she muttered something about having to leave the computer already, "ahhhh man, I just build my first caravel!"



-=Vel=-

[QuestGAV]

Just wanted to let you guys know this thread has been tremendously helpful. I had been enjoying Bismarck's traits anyway and with that all-important mining tech he's a natural to pull all this off. Great stuff, I love seeing strategy discussions with this kind of depth!

[Little Honey]

Hearing stuff like that makes starting this thread totally worthwhile.

We aim to please, and as you continue to play Bismark, come back here and add your voice to the chorus! Tell us how it went and what you learned!

--=Vel=-

[Jcg316]

I don't see multiple early religions being worth it against the extra worker turns, especially since you would be in a favorable situation to get other religion techs after the first three. If someone is going for them all, at an exclusion of all else, they are suffering in enough ways that on a land connected map you might be able to go take a holy city if you want one. Multiple religions with a shrine compared to one religion without a shrine are not that big of a difference, especially with decreasing returns, to be worth that. IF you want to do that it is best, I don't see it being as advantagous as other methods but that is up to you. One religion does not impede your abilities with worker first in any significant way. I've said several times settler first is better that way in total turn advantage and you aren't losing worker turns as they wouldn't be valuable.

I have factored it working two tiles into every example. It is also taking another pop cost meaning it is working one more tile and getting a hammer only. It is doing this for only eight turns before you are doing that with worker first. Meaning for eight turns that has an advantage of one, while the other has an advantage of two, three with luck, for far more turns. 8ty to 6ty for 8 turns, and then 8ty to 10ty for 7,8 turns. The other method works two tiles as well, 7,8 turns after. As it was shown more workers, with factoring in the two tiles minus two food, come as soon afterwards for both other than getting 3 worker turns for settler first.

You will always have the resource techs (if you tech for those), and you will always have a resource which may not be first tier or may be mining, the only first tier one which could change what you might want to do as it is hammer, not food and hammers. If you start with it though you have other options. If it is a cow/horse you may need less than a handful of turns of waiting, but you then get a 6ty tile that will make up for those turns.

The two tiles are factored in, otherwise there wouldn't be any comparison.

If you want multiple religions, which I don't think is all its cracked up to be, but if you do want it than settler first is better. Ignoring the situation that you may start with a resource you have a tech for (which is not as decent a chance when you start with mysticism as one of your two techs). I agree with that.

You can always get two first tier resource techs before the worker has had more than three turns out, meaning you wouldn't waste turns, and generally before he is even out. IF you want to use that method, which will not suffer as non-religious expansionist or any other non-religious method.

India, specifically, would seem to be in prime position for one early religion and then solid chop production. fast workers could get a solid benefit chopping distant 15 production forests that you aren't ever going to use while still saving nearby ones. The Gman always seems to be top 2 AI civs in single player games and fast workers, and non-military personality, are the main reason. Plus, I don't go after him because I think why attack him he won't come after me, then he gets a spaceship off 1940s to 60s.

[Jcg316]

There is one other logistical problem with a quick second city for all religions which is that you will only get two in your capitol (unless you have the settler wait until after monoteism which would take awhile), at least the majority of the time, as it is weighted against the capitol, against where religions already were founded, and in favor of newer cities. You may wind up 2 in the capitol, 2 in the second city, and 3 in the third or 3 scattered over the third and fourth city. Compared to the ability to have them scattered between two cities, though you have to slow your growth or three with three in the capitol and two in the next two cities.

If you only have those two cities it might weight later ones back to favoring the capitol.

You need to be aware of that when going after all religions but it certainly isn't a big problem just can make you more vulnerable if they are scattered around more.

With a plains hill though you would be close to getting the second religion in the second city, though a plains hill is dangerous for getting the early ones. A turn behind anyone else gunning for that religion and any financial civ getting three coin extra from a lake tile or ocean resource along with two food would snatch them up left and right. Have to be Spanish I think though for fishing and mysticism, meaning no financial trait, so only a couple extra beakers.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Aeson


I'm not sure how this applies to what I said. Are you just focusing on "Locust... will... miss more Wonders"? "Locust" isn't just building one city to claim a resource central to the desired strategy.

There are better approaches to building Wonders than settling extraneous cities early on.

First I did not say you were wrong, only that getting X cities in Y turns means nothing is not always true.

It can mean getting stone for example and that is a very big deal IMO. I don't care what the means are (locust or not), but I think no one would just slap a town down to get a resource.

I am presuming a logical placement of a town. The difference is getting it placed before someone else does.

Not even concerned about wonders perse, but of course StoneHedge and stone quarry are a big deal and if you can do something to manage it, I say it is a good thing.

Later wonders also get a boost form stone and marble and as such are very handy.

My only point is getting out 4 towns quickly can often be a good way to go. "Often", not always as in all things civ it is not locked in stone (sorr about that).

[Zaphod]

Originally posted by Jcg316
India, specifically, would seem to be in prime position for one early religion and then solid chop production. fast workers could get a solid benefit chopping distant 15 production forests that you aren't ever going to use while still saving nearby ones.

I'm currently playing the Indians and I have found this to be true. I founded Hinduism, then moved quickly to bronze working and chopped down a number of forests to facilitate settler building. I had a nice empire of six ciites very quickly and was leading by over two hundred points through the Classical Era.

Then, and this happens to me every game, I started to fall behind in tech to the Russians. I think the problem is that I very rarely build cottages (prefering to go for farms), so my commerce level is relatively low. I'll have to experiment with more cottages next game and see if that works better. In the meantime, I'd love to hear any strategies you have for boosting beaker production in the mid-game.

This is a great thread - I've really enjoyed reading it.

[Jcg316]

If you avoid going over the disease soft cap, and should always not go past the happiness soft cap, you won't need very many farms, one or two and three as the most for a typical city, while you can have many more cottages working. The more you work them early the better they will be mid as well. Those same cottages can provide for mid game, as they grow, though you will start needing more new cottages after that.

In multiplayer the extraordinarily high pillage gains from towns/village level ones will make other human players love coming after you. You need the defense to support them even more than food or health in that situation, in my opinion.

If you need a large city though, lots and lots of food, for whatever reason you'll need more farms to support it. A city often needs fresh water to support the growth though, at least until final end-game techs like genetics and a little earlier with refrigeration for supermarkets.

In floodplains, though, farms can make the food skyrocket to the health/disease soft cap is much more significant and 3 food 4 coin (later as much 8, 9 coin) tiles may be more valuable to you.

If you feel your way to whatever you think is a happy medium between farms and cottages it'll be best. As you might not like the side effects of having more cottages or more farms and less of the other that someone else does.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by vmxa1
First I did not say you were wrong, only that getting X cities in Y turns means nothing is not always true.

That is not what I said though, so why are you refuting it in response to me? What I said is:

Getting X cities in Y turns doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Are you missing the "necessarily" part?

My only point is getting out 4 towns quickly can often be a good way to go.

Go back and read my post. It starts out with this:

Don't ignore "big city" in favor of "quicker cities". Each has it's benefits and drawbacks.

[Jcg316]

Another little thing to mention is besides starting on a plains hill you can start on silk and get an extra coin, 2 with financial. You might be able to move to one if it shows up next to where your settler starts without even losing a turn. Depends on if you want it later or the extra boost towards early techs.

[Dog of Justice]

Originally posted by Jcg316
Another little thing to mention is besides starting on a plains hill you can start on silk and get an extra coin, 2 with financial. You might be able to move to one if it shows up next to where your settler starts without even losing a turn. Depends on if you want it later or the extra boost towards early techs.

Do you get a food bonus for founding on grassland/rice, etc.?

I know the reason you don't get a bonus on floodplains is because when you found a city there, the tile is downgraded to desert -- if the city is razed later, no floodplains!

Edit: Looks like yes, you do get 3/1/1 for founding on grassland/rice. Seeing as how farms only improve rice by +1 food, I'll try to found cities on rice whenever possible...