Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume II

[gentle]

ok, my answer concerning pop-sac (slavery) was ...well...crap.
this is far better:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=144926

[Dog of Justice]

Originally posted by V3nom
imho DoJ is right. When I use the CS slingshot my capital usually gets quite a few cottages early, which means assigning scientist specialsits can actually slow down my research.

To solve this I've begun to wait until after I switch to caste system and had a satellite city add the scientists. When my GL is done it takes at most 2 turns to leg it to the capital and do his thing. The academy doesnt go up quite as fast, but the extra cottages able to be worked more than make up for it imho.

Since I'm building a Library in my capital anyway, I don't see how switching to caste system to generate the great scientist elsewhere is worth the trouble.

The biggest reason to not use specialists in your capital under Bureaucracy is that the specialists do NOT benefit from the +50% capital commerce bonus. But generally you can get your capital Library up quite a few turns before you get Bureaucracy, and you can get the great scientist not long after the switch. A few turns of unworked cottages is acceptable, especially when you've reached your happiness or health limit (which capitals don't have much trouble doing).

Also I think its worth noting that the CS slingshot doesnt have to just be for a builder strategy. If after you pull it off you then research towards machinery (which doesnt take very long thanks to your science capital) you can quickly produce quite a force of macemen, which can trample over anything your opponents have.

Macemen aren't really better than Crossbowmen, though (let alone Chu-Ko-Nu), so they aren't a reason to follow the research path, they are just a solid side benefit. The best that can be said for the strategy's military side is that if your next beeline target is Banking for Representation-Mercantilism (which is my preference in SP games), you will naturally be able to get Knights before everyone else.

[Heroes]

Originally posted by Dog of Justice

Macemen aren't really better than Crossbowmen, though (let alone Chu-Ko-Nu), so they aren't a reason to follow the research path, they are just a solid side benefit.

Emm ... why? Crossbow is better than mace only when dealing with melee units, isn't it? When facing a longbow in city, I think mace is better because 1. it has a higher base strength; 2. it can learn city raider.

[Dog of Justice]

Originally posted by Heroes


Emm ... why? Crossbow is better than mace only when dealing with melee units, isn't it? When facing a longbow in city, I think mace is better because 1. it has a higher base strength; 2. it can learn city raider.

Macemen also cost significantly more (70 vs. 50).

Overall, unless you're Japan, they are a solid unit but not good enough to be worth beelining for in isolation.

EDIT: Crap, got them kinda confused with Longbowmen; Crossbowmen cost 60, not 50. Okay, the difference is larger than I thought.

Nevertheless, Macemen don't strike me as any sort of centerpiece of a military-focused strategy (again, unless you're Japan). They cost 75% more hammers and like 750% as many beakers to get to as Praetorians, without being much better than them...

[V3nom]

I'm not advocating it as a purely aggressive strategy, but from reading posts many have commented on how the CS strategy has left them very weak militarily. Grabbing machinary allows you to quickly churn out a force that can easily hold its own.

I would like to point out that comparing them to praetorians is unfair, given that only one race has access to that unit, comparing them to swordsmen would be much more fair.

But even still I would argue that macemen, even with their significantly higher costs are comparable to praetorians. Why? simple: they have NO counter if you make machinary a priority after you pull off the slingshot. You'll be going up against forces of horse archers, archers, axemen and swordsmen. A praetorian force can be semi-effectively countered with axemen however macemen have no such weakness. Meanwhile the +50% construction bonus in your capital goes a long way towards counteracting their costs.

Again let me repeat that I am in no way advocating this as a 100% military strategy, but playing on Emperor I have found it effective at quickly bringing me to a comparable power level to the AI so that they arent just going to walk over me like they would if I kept on the builder route.

[V3nom]

As for why wait to caste system? generating a great scientist with 2 scientist specialists takes 17 turns.

Lets assume a very general start of one wheat resource, some grassland with a river running through them (and next to the weat) and hills at your capital. To support 2 scientists I'd need to work the farmed weat and already I'm at my happiness limit (I play on Emperor or above). This gives me a total of 6 extra beakers.

Alternately I could be working 3 cottaged grassland squares next to the river. lets assume they're all providing 3-4 commerce a turn (a non-financial civ). Thats 9-12 commerce per turn. Serious turn advantage.

in the time you're lagging behind in research I'm pushing through and grabbing code of laws that much earlier. Which means the oracle can complete that much earlier. Which means buraucracy that much earlier.

Sure my academy may be 10, maybe even 15 turns later than it would otherwise be but:

1)this is somewhat counteracted by an earlier Buraucracy
2)I am able to push down other tech paths earlier
3)my cottages are all better developed, meaning that both Buraucracy and the academy when it is produced both have greater effects
4)while your capital has been rendered useless as the GL is produced, mine retains some production potential.

[Heroes]

Originally posted by Dog of Justice


Macemen also cost significantly more (70 vs. 50).

Isn't it 70 vs. 60?

[upsidedown]

Something was brought to my attention that seemed like an interesting strategy for specific city locations.

Since you can build a cottage on a hill, is there the possibility of this being a good tactic depending on the general layout of resources in your city's fat cross? Especially as a nod toward later on when you can get the +1 production to towns and additional currency?

[Heroes]

Originally posted by upsidedown
Something was brought to my attention that seemed like an interesting strategy for specific city locations.

Since you can build a cottage on a hill, is there the possibility of this being a good tactic depending on the general layout of resources in your city's fat cross? Especially as a nod toward later on when you can get the +1 production to towns and additional currency?

I don't think building cottages at low food tiles is good, because it slows your growth too much. Since a specialist's production is equivalent to 6 gold (with representation), I would suggest 1 hammer = 1.5 gold, 1 food = 3 gold.

[V3nom]

I dont think you can factor representation into a 'normal' environment. its only 1/5 civic choices in that category.

Also I dont think you can find a food/hammer/coin equivilency because while many of them can be alternated they are all very different things and independent of each other.

that being said I wouldnt build cottages on hills unless 1)you're out of flatland to put them on or 2)you've got alot of high food tiles around and want to get rid of some of that excess growth.

[Dactyl]

Earlier in this thread, I suggested the Incans as a civ for builders since the Quechuas can be used to snag another civ's capital and give oneself elbow room for early expansion. After trying several test games on Monarch level, Epic speed, I'm no longer so enthusiastic. The Incans can be used in such a fashion, but it's not a lead-pipe cinch. I got lucky in my first few games. Here are some weaknesses with this strategy.

* If the city you're planning to attack turns out to be on a hill and is defended by two archers, it will require eight Quechuas to take. That takes a long time to accumuluate. (I used Vel's formula to come up with eight. By that formula, you add one to the number of defenders, add one to the strengths of the defending units, and add one for the city being on a hill. That's 3 * (3+1+1) = 15. Now double that for 30. Since Quechuas have a +100% advantage against archers, you will need eight of them to get 32 attack strength.) Now, not only does it take a long time to get those eight Quechua units, but you don't necessarily know if the city is on a hill because you're often attacking before Open Borders are available, so you may not be able to see the tile the city is on.

* If you are going to use this approach and you decide to attack another civ, you'd better take the capital. This is particularly important against aggressive leaders. I've attacked a civ, taken what turned out to be their second or third city and found out that I couldn't take the capital. Then the worst possible thing happened. I ended up in a protracted war, which severely hampered my development. The trouble is that aggressive leaders are not inclined to give you a peace treaty, even if you've taken or destroyed their subsidiary cities.

* As I alluded to above, you can find yourself in a protracted and draining war. In one game, I found the Indians nearby. I grabbed their capital, then noticed that the English had built a city several tiles from my capital. I replenished my forces and set out to attack that city, which was York. I had only seen English archers and it was relatively early in the game, so I figured such an attack would be a safe move. However, as soon as I entered York's borders, I found that there was an axeman in the city. I didn't stand much chance of taking it, so I backed off, but ended up in a long war in which I had to struggle to hold my own because I didn't have any copper or horses.

Like so many strategies discussed here, an early Quechua rush can be effective, but it has its risks.

[Drachasor]

I'd also note that if you are unlucky enough to find yourself facing someone that founded the first religion, it can also be very difficult because they are getting 7 culture a turn minimum. It doesn't take long to get a significant defensive bonus from this (and I'd say to forget it completely if the city is also on a hill).

-Drachasor

[teaster]

Originally posted by Dactyl
Earlier in this thread, I suggested the Incans as a civ for builders since the Quechuas can be used to snag another civ's capital and give oneself elbow room for early expansion. After trying several test games on Monarch level, Epic speed, I'm no longer so enthusiastic. The Incans can be used in such a fashion, but it's not a lead-pipe cinch. I got lucky in my first few games. Here are some weaknesses with this strategy.

Always good to see someone with the guts to say they may have been hasty in their assessment. Good for you!!

It is still a good strategy though as long as you keep the shortcomings you mention in mind.

I prefer a builder strategy but I play Random Civ to force myself to try different civs and different traits. When I do find myself with a militaristic civ I usually try to find and overwhelm another civ right away to gain some extra space and city or two then consolidate (I always seem to fall back on my builder ways) until I've built my nation up enough that I can endure a protracted war before I gather my forces and sally forth into fame and glory.

Exactly when I start my first war depends on if I have an early UU like the Inca then I go right away. If not I grab either bronze working or animal husbandry whichever is closer techwise mine the bronze/herd the horses, chop rush the units if it's bronze then go go war machine.

If you haven't been fortunate enough to have found the resources nearby the timeframe would be seriously set back if not rendered useless altogether. Of course that's what makes the game fun those little set backs that force you to alter your well thought can't miss plans

[Arrian]

In CivIII, we developed a term (I think it was Catt who came up with it) called "Lazy War."

This was primarily used as a method of military great leader farming. You fought, but took your sweet time about killing an opponent. The result was that your units fought more and (hopefully) won, thus getting promoted to elite. More elites, more combat = more leaders.

Ok, so CIV doesn't have mgls. But it does have the promotion system. Perhaps fighting a war wherein you simply concentrate on killing the AI units that come your way and pillaging some of their land would be an effective method of:

1) Forcing said AI civ into military unit building instead of peaceful building (this may apply to you too, though, if you don't have a decent production advantage); and
2) Developing a core of highly experience units with all sorts of tasty promos.

Then you make peace, beeline for a tech that allows you to upgrade these units to something more powerful (earliest examples probably are macemen or knights, later would be grenadiers or riflemen), and hit them for real.

Forgive me if this is really obvious (after all, I did something like this all the time in CivIII!), but I haven't done it yet in CIV. Anyone deliberately tried to do this, or something similar?

-Arrian

[khearn]

Sounds like a reasonable plan, as long as war weariness doesn't bit you to hard.