OK I am going to give up.....

[Velociryx]

One of the other things I wanted to mention (and in fact, is included in my longer, detailed write-up that I was putting together) is this:

Leaving aside the personality "quirks" that each AI has, they all play essentially the same way. Their methodologies are, as far as I can tell, identical. Thus, all other things being more-or-less equal, you can guess who has the best terrain overall by who's out front. Now granted, there IS slightly more to it than that, but in general, that rule of thumb will serve you well. The AI with the consistently highest overall point total has the best land.

Thus, you are NOT doing yourself any favors by bottom feeding. If you're gonna go to war, you want to make it pay the biggest dividend possible. Attacking the guy at the bottom of the power chart doesn't do that for you, because a major part of WHY he's at the bottom of the rankings is cos he's got crap land. Take him out, you'll inherit that same crap land, while your stronger rivals grow even stronger still, and more entrenched.

No...if you're gonna do it, you want to pick on the biggest, meanest guy on the block and take him as intact as you can. If he got there by and large due to his excellent land, then you'll have access to that same excellent land after you convince his subjects that your enlightened rule is far and away superior to his.

Summary: Don't waste your time bottom feeding. Hit the big dog and absorb him.

-=Vel=-

[okblacke]

That may be the most important C4 tip ever.

[poiuyt00]

Originally posted by okblacke
That may be the most important C4 tip ever.

Yes I would agree also. This falls into my "bump and run" theory, which netted me my largest victory under Monarchy. Taking even one city from the leader helps ALOT. Not only because it weakens him, but it eliminates "The dreaded stack of doom", as they try to take back that one city. You must drain units from a Civ every once in a awhile or they will get itchy and use them. If you take one city, fortify it with highly defendable units. Wait for the onslaught to die down, then declare peace. If they fight you again its usually that city...not yours. Push culture in that city to keep it viable, then find the next civ to take one or two also. Slowly expand your empire. If you drain the stack, he will spend time making it again, not building important upgrades. Chip away over and over. Focus you forces. Know who will attack you next and attack them first.

Now the island, I try to cover every inch as fast as I can and build a large navy. I will live or die with that island as I race for space. I am playing a Rome game now where I was on an island (Praetorians..wasted), but covered all of it, and ended up winning rather easily (80% of the wonders). If you have a large navy the seem to want to fight a land battle if they can, so it works out. You stagger the navy in two parts, the lookouts which are spaces far from your island, and the quick attack near your island. If a troop ship approaches, you declare war on them and sink it. Then move your navy toward their land, and start building more ships. After ten turns of them not even getting to you they will give up.

Well thats at least what I have learned so far. Cottages are key...finacial civ or not and making sure you keep the enemies stacks down (either by you fighting them or having them fight someone. Beware though you can create a monster this way so I prefer that land over someone else.)

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Summary: Don't waste your time bottom feeding. Hit the big dog and absorb him.

I'm not going to agree or disagree, but (respectfully!) say something on the value of the statement (in opposition to the "most important CIV tip ever" claim):

If you are in a position to take down the world's top power at any time, is the game not a foregone conclusion?

In those games where diplomacy actually matters, always setting yourself against the top guy will not always work (or is not always the best course of action).

I have often "used" the score leader as an ally and resource/tech supplier until I surpassed him in score by bottom-feeding (eventually winning by Domination). Integral to this strategy was accepting his Religion as my own to help relations. Had I tried to simply conquer him I would have faced heavy opposition, giving the chance from #2 or #3 to pull ahead of both of us.

The AI's "quirks" are not always relevant, but can definitely have a significant impace on gameplay. A good example is Isabella, who will be the score leader early on in most games (regardless of available land) simply because of a high focus on early Religion. She can often parlay this into a few allies (via Religion spread), and bully techs from the weaker AIs. Yet she can fall like a house of cards if you strike at the right moment, before she has a chance to defend her assets. She starts to slow down in the mid-game as her early momentum fades away. She is prone to self-destruction by being belligerent to civs that disagree with her in theological matters. No other civ is quite like Isabella; knowing how she operates is a definite advantage.

An limiting factor to conquest is geography: an intercontiental invasion is always more difficult that just marching into a neighbor's lands. For me, proximity is a much more important factor than score when choosing military targets.

[okblacke]

Dominae,

Well, perhaps I should've said "most important tip ever for me" (and those like me). And everything in the new game needs to be caveatted and qualified, etc., because, you know, it's a good game.

In (my experiences with) previous versions of Civ (particularly 1 & 2, but also 3), it was easier to come from behind through superior management, even if you had land disadvantages.

If you are in a position to take down the world's top power at any time, is the game not a foregone conclusion?

You can't take down the top power at any time. I mean, given the situation, Vel had that one opportunity to attack America. He was extremely successful, but even a moderate success would've improved his situation while harming that of his #1 opponent.

Personally, the worst games I've had--in terms of being a slog where I just couldn't seem to get ahead--have been where the leader simply outproduced me. Remembering that the fat targets are more likely to belong to the Big Dog, and that you can kill two birds with on stone (strengthen yourself, weaken your worst enemy) is a good thing--especially for non-warmongering types like myself who tend to avoid war unless it's quick, painless, instant gratification.

[mutax2003]

Velociryx, thanks for your detailed and informative walkthrough the Russian Island game. I wonder if you can a look and go through a similar format for this emperor game as posted on Civfanatic forum (
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150990). The maintenance is the killer, I can only manage to expand to about 4 cities before AD era, and often a neighbor would declare on me when I can't afford to build much military.

[Jerh9e1k5]

There seems to be quite a demand for this sort of thing :P

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
The reason you can't win on Monarch is because you are not intelligent regarding, dilligent about, obcessive towards and as in love with the game as Velocyrix is.
Simple matter of will to succeed + ability to learn = win.
Vel lacks neither. I lack the will. You ...

You also need to be a glutton for punishment

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I met america first, and marked the tile where I met him via the line tool...

Where in the game is this line tool?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by poiuyt00
Yes I would agree also. This falls into my "bump and run" theory, which netted me my largest victory under Monarchy.

That's better known as the Ink Blob approach.

Put a drop of ink on a piece of tissue paper. See how it seeps out slowly from the centre?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Summary: Don't waste your time bottom feeding. Hit the big dog and absorb him.

This seems like a topic worthy of its own thread.

Even here, probably there is no one size fits all directive. In this game the window of opportunity opens up when you are ready to strike. Firearms was invented and, as Russia, you got access to the Cossacks. In another game when you play another civilization, you may not have the unit to give you that temporary edge you need in a war - at least not against the top dog.

[Yosh]

I hate to weigh in on heated conversations, but the topic is interesting enough for me to do it...


In the strategy section of this site, we've been discussing this very topic (albeit in a much more subdued manner). It appears (and I am by no means authoritative in any way shape or form, mind you all) that there *could* be an issue with how the engine calculates odds when there are some types of modifiers applied (First Strikes is the most likely). I say *could*, because we haven't been able to figure out how to do quantitative tests against our hypothesis yet (we wanted to extract the combat logs to a text file so that we could crunch some numbers in excel or something).

That being said, I will say that yes, we do tend to remember those "OMG WTF?!?!" moments more than we remember the more "mundane" expected results. At no point does our hypothesis or preliminary testing include any indication that there is "cheating" on the AI's part; any issue with combat results, if indeed there is one, would be due to a bug.

I guess what I'm really trying to say, that doesn't have much to do with the above except in the most general sense is, does anyone have an idea on how to extract the combat log to a text file? Screenshots are tedious to do experiments with!

[poiuyt00]

I see that the saves have been downloaded 34 times. Has anyone else played this to completion and won?

[Urban Ranger]

Yosh - wrong thread?

[Aginor]

Originally posted by Dominae

If you are in a position to take down the world's top power at any time, is the game not a foregone conclusion?

Depends on how early in the game is. Had a recent game with the following scenario around 1 AD:

We've got 7 AIs, of which the score distribution is fairly tight. We're running somewhere in the 2-4 slot and there's someone with a slight lead. Our war choices on our border consist of:

Game's #1 civ - Cyrus. has a slight lead on the 2-4 pack that you're in. Seems to be leading on the basis of area controlled. Has the Pyramids.

Game's #2 civ - Frederick. Dead last. Smaller civ area/citywise, 70% of the score of the other players. Certain to put up weak resistance due to constricted and poor terrain. Has the Parthenon.

Is it not obvious who to target in this scenario? If I take out the big dog, the game *becomes* a foregone conclusion after successful completion. If I maim him, I have done myself just as much good as eliminating my other border rival given that:

a) I've taken out the game's tech leader, and pushed the tech lead back to where I'm at
b) I probably get as much, and as high quality, territory taking 3-4 of his 7-8 cities as I would taking my other neighbor's 5 poorer cities.

Now, as it turns out my main rival had not properly prepared his defenses and I was able to smash his capital and second largest city on the same turn by dividing my forces. Had I given him the time to rectify that, he would have been much harder to dig out. My offensive, as a matter of fact, did then stall against the game's weakest civ, but he was down to half his cities by that point anyway. Once I was able to get better attack techs, he went right down.

Definitely true that by the point that Cyrus had lost, the game was over but the AIs didn't realize it yet. However, you can't always flat out steamroll the strongest AI. Still, maiming it is just as good as a kill, or close enough for government work in any case.