Vel's Strategy Thread

[Martinus]

I agree with Sir Ralph. Also, you have to rememeber that while the Locust Strategy limits your future resources (by not allowing you to chop the same forest twice), the extra hammers really come handy in early game, as the later the game progresses, the higher your cities' production and the higher building costs. So while in early game one chop may speed up your building by 3-4 turns, in late game it is 0.5-1 turn.

The only reason to conserve the forests would be if one is shooting for Environmentalism in end game, but I don't think it's worth it.

[Harovan]

Well I said I did by purpose not push it to the limit, but tried to chime it a minimum of security and improvement. I could have easily built yet more settlers at the cost of more forest, but then I wouldn't have barracks at this point and most cities would be at size 1 and undefended. That I mean by "reasonnable".

[duodecimal]

My experience with the settler-first strategy has been positive, but with one caveat: You will probably be far too tempting a target if your nearest neighbor is aggressive, expansionist, or both.

Particularly both. I'm in a very rough spot with Genghis to my north in my current Terra game, due to my relatively weak military.

This may be due mostly to my combining an early settler strategy with a goal of also nabbing all three early religions (which I succeeded in doing). Unless you cherry-pick your opponents (which I did in my last Terra game, avoiding aggressive civs and civs that start with Mysticism ), these strategies can easily backfire and set you up for a game more challenging than you were probably in the mood for.

[Footie Mad]

I haven't seen anyone mention early wonders in their strategies, I like to play relatively crowded games with many civs and if i'm a civ that starts with mysticism I race to religions and try to get the Stonehenge. If there is marble nearby its very good. My religions spread quickly and gets assimilated as state religions by neighbours and I get quick a quick shrine in my capital. Is this a valid strategy?

[Fried-Psitalon]

I realize I'm the resident MP rat, but I just wanted to kick in here.

My own variation on this- in MP, leaving yourself completely open for a beating by starting with a settler is simply unacceptable. Wandering Woodsman II warriors with foreign flags can ruin your whole day that way.

I typically start with a worker and then begin the forest hackage, going straight for bronze working. I mow down the forests around my capital pretty aggressively; clearcutting is not unheard of. I can do this for two reasons:

I tend to farm a lot around my capital and make it a worker/settler pump, and as a commerce center (Cottages.) The early infusion of shields is a nice way to expand rapidly and get that first circle of towns up. By using my capital as a commerce center (I usually mix in a warrior to let it grow/keep the new city happy and use my new farms/cottages) I can help fund my expansion, and since settlers/workers use food as well as shields, it works out well. Not super-rapid settlers because of the cottage tiles being worked, but a useful "Fire and forget" type of center all the same.

Other cities in more productive sites take care of military needs - and since they go up pretty early, I can "get away" with that move. I do have to watch opposing military figures to see if a rush is coming, though.

Technologically, I do tend to miss out on the first religion or two, but I find that by the time I'm ready to mess around with Organized Religion/etc anyhow (meaning, multiple cities all building improvements) I can catch up and snag Monotheism or Code of Laws. (Even if I get Buddhism or Hinduism, I don't tend to convert until I actually can use them.)

This way I'm getting a little of the "best of both worlds."

Just a quick chip-in.

[Velociryx]

In my mind, there's no longer any question that, in thinking in terms of 3-4 cities, Locust is faster than settler first. That's been established.

The more interesting question, IMO, is whether the forests expended in pursuit of those faster 3rd and 4th cities is automatically the best approach, or would a bit of conservation serve you better. This, IMO, is still very much up in the air, and in the meantime, settler first is every bit as fast as Locust with regards to founding the SECOND city (which was my initial goal).

With regards to wonders...I think our current forest discussion is an excellent lead in to that very topic. Chopping would be a powerful ally with regards to speeding early game wonders along...provided, of course, that you didn't strip your area bare of forests to found cities...

-=Vel=-

[Martinus]

I found you can pretty much do both (that is have forests to chop both for settlers and early wonders), with enough spread between your cities, provided that the land is not too barren, especially if your cultural borders expand fairly quickly. That is why my favourite choices are Creative rulers - lets you get more land for a city to chop down.

[Jcg316]

Hammers from chopping a tile has to do with DISTANCE not borders. It is 3 tiles for 30 and then starts droping the farther you are away from a city.

[Velociryx]

/me will be somewhat saddened, by the way, if it comes to light that the entire early game can be reduced to merely a mad dash for bronzeworking and clear-cutting.

That will be...disappointing.



-=Vel=-

[TheGuenther]

I haven't seen anyone put this option up for discussion (didn't read page three of the discussion) and although I haven't tried it yet myself. Why not start off by building a Warrior, thus allowing your city to grow for a bit, and then before the Warrior completes switch over to a Settler?

Again, haven't tried this yet myself, but it seems to me that as long as the game doesn't penalize you for switching builds (as Civ I and II did) then why not - you're city gets the head start on growing (even if it doesn't make it all the way to size 2 or 3) when you switch over to Settler you're that much better off...

[Jcg316]

Unless you need the contact with fresh water or the specific tile, a hill, improivng over forests isn't beneficial unless you have a lot of desert/tundra/ice, or if you're littered with forests.

Keeping three or five will benefit any large cities. Any city from 9/10 to 15/17 will need the health especially for specialists. As long as you're city is below 22,23 you shouldn't be using more than 17 tiles, probably not more than 15. Cutting it to those, or one under as it will almost certainly grow one if the forests are close, and going after three distance forests for full hammers and one distance farther for a drop off of only 5 hammers. 20 hammers isn't terrible either but by the time you

If the city won't be reaching that level of growth that isn't a problem but if you need the kind large of cities for great persons, specialists, culture victories, or accumulating wonders it is the equilvalent of extra farms on your tiles. Until biology in the late game anyways. Unless you get genetics and a couple future techs your city won't get out of it on their own, and that only helps at the very end. There are not nearly enough health buildings to do so, and none for the most of the last half of the game.

Almsot every game you will have more than enough forests to manage a quick start that you don't need to cut them all. After the quick settlers start your empire and your cities need to grow your workers would be better served improving the land and helping your cities flourish as it will accomplish more in the long run.

Four, five quick cities are a great advantage but as little low pop cities without the happiness or health resources to grow they can't begin to build your empire. Getting their economies and pops to boom so you can get the money you need to build the rest of the cities you need. Once your civs grow like this just a little, they can support the rest. If you want three cathedrals towards a culture victory you'll need nine cities, only six for a lot of national wonders might be something you could reach early.

If your capitol starts with weak resources land there is no problem cutting down forests as you're large specialized cities would be on terrain you choose, with good land, hammer tiles or food abundance, it is important to retain its ability to grow.

Unless you start doing everything including culture bombing borders for extra forests to chop down it won't be too much of a hinderance. Using great artists for that might be more like insane though, but either way.

In the end, I think chopping forests (as expendable ones as possible) is incomparable to any other method in the early game. Once the stagnant type units are done though, and maybe rushed a defender or two, its better to get the ball running as it will pay off more in the end. MOre forests to rush specific things later, wonder and the like, is always good too.

edit: we have looked at letting the city grow first and the turns it takes seem to far outweigh the benefit of one more net hammer or food. Plus if you're growing quickly you need food tiles, especially three food ones and they really limit the production of what you're building while growing at the start.

[Velociryx]

Yes, but the disappointing thing will be this:

If the early game can truly be reduced to Locust, then where does that leave any discussion of strategy?

If no other alternative can be found that can stand up to Locust, then it WILL BECOME the defacto style of play, and everything else is just fluff.

At that point, we're left with tactics.

So...it falls to us to search high and low for ways to beat Locust.

Right now, it's the strongest.

Let's kick it's arse, because I don't WANT Civ IV to be so linear that a beeline for bronzeworking will be the best choice every time, and the whole game revolves around who got lucky enough to get the most forest tiles.

That would suck.

So let's think up ways to beat the Locust...

-=Vel=-

[Jcg316]

Well, it isn't always great. Chopping as a whole is going to be tough to do without at selective times early, even if you can't get bronze working quick.

If you want to win the space or out tech other armies mid-late, you don't want to stay just ahead of other civs, you need to let it lax in favor of putting up more cities and infrastructure to then go roaring past them. This gets that going out of the box, is before any real maintanance so you aren't suffering from having more cities early and will get those cities to great production sooner with extra workers.

One of the cities with good food tiles can just build cottages and hide in the back, or center of your land, and still be able to match the military of other armies.

Tech in general is absolutely huge with chopping, more cities, more improvements quicker, and more money (with the right cities).

Culture is good and not as good. It allows you to get three cities on the same page quicker, you have the option of rushing the 120 hammer stonehenge. If you don't want great prophets though not so good. One worker than two settlers might work for culture to get three cities up to par early but probably better the usual way. It doesn't necessarily help with getting early wonders if someone else goes after it.

Wonders it isn't nearly as good for since you don't have a big city that can keep firing them out. Forests can't touch the pyramids, someone with stone could get stonehenge before you especially if they a add a chop or two. The colussus though is great coastal and could let you build out ten cities early and you are one tech off of it. Getting three or four gold, with the right trait, per ocean tile is amazing though cottages can pass by that a little later. The Oracle would be tricky too. Somewhat expensive and off a different tech tree.

Early religion is a pipedream for civs without mysticism and unless you are India, I think they have both to start. You'd still have to research mining if you have mysticism. You could always have a chance at it, but not after a second level tech still needing a first.

Civs without mining suffer (obviously), but if you are up against one when you go after a wonder they will have full forests and the newfound ability to chop. They could also see what you're doing and rush chariots or something with chops.

Woodsmen II units become even more dangerous unless you're already clearcutting and can run away across easy terrain. India still has a chance to run away in forests.

Getting a resource tech than mining, bronze working Incas could start pumping out little Quchua hordes with chops.

Seems like feudalism would be farther off and slow to stop any kind of mass chariots or elephants and tons of warriors.

As Aztecs though if you had a good coin tile you could get iron working and try rushing Jaguars, not needing Iron they could get out there fairly easy.

Chopping will probably be fairly integral against other players even if just selective times to chop. Aginst the AI its up to the player. Once you get to where you can just not quite manage on one of the top two difficulties you could try that to help against the AIs massive early unit advantage.

[duodecimal]

I have a feeling not having trees around will become very painful once you're out of the early game. It'll definitely be a drag later on when it comes to using specialists, which in turn will damper great leaders.

Someone posted much earlier that we may be underestimating the long term impact of health.

[Krill]

If you want to see what happens with vast forest chops, play the game through, and look at what happens with out lumber mills and the health bonus, and consieder that the tile that is chopped has lost that extra shield for a long time...