ok, so how do you win on emperor?

[uberfish]

Originally posted by make

Quin has almost twice the number of soldiers I do. Im number one in GNP, production and crop yield, and have been fore a while, so it puzzles me how Quin managed to build so many more troops than me and how he can stay in the lead with techs.

AI always has huge troop numbers on emperor+ in the late game, this is due to the cheap upgrades it gets and because it defends in depth. While a human's interior cities are often still garrisoned by 1 warrior, the AI will probably have 4 infantry/SAMs and an artillery at least.

However most of these units will stay on defensive duty, so I find it's still quite possible to win even starting from a 1:2 ratio of troops on the demographics screen. Particularly if you take out their oil.

[rah]

Originally posted by make
I was also wondering if Notechtrading slows things down because I cant get techs from peacetreaties and therfore cant aford to drop science in favor of producing units. I also cant bribe the AI with techs to join me in war, and therfore almost never gets any war allies and have to take out / absorb all the AIs units myself.

Yes, I've been trying it both ways to see if one is easier and haven't decided yet. (still not able to beat either )
I'd appreciate some opinions for some of the vet players.

[couerdelion]

Well I did write something about a tech trading strategy some time ago.

It wasn’t really taken up because it was designed to hamper AI tech trading by avoiding those actions that allow them to trade. By limiting their trading opportunities among themselves, you increase the proportion of your tech trades among the whole and therefore gain an extra lead from those tech trades.

You might even sell older techs for relatively little sometimes to avoid allowing the AI to trade among themselves. At least only one AI gets the bonus that two of them might have gained. Basically, you follow a tech line that tries to avoid the techs known by other nations known to you. Once you get it then the nation that first discovered it can trade it to someone else. Let a third nation invest the time to get the tech and then you will probably get the tech trade.

This is just a guide and obviously I’m not proposing that you miss out on a crucial tech just because the AI beat you to it. But if you follow the general rule then you’ll limit their trades and therefore be relatively more advanced.

Of course, there is no replacement for pure commerce/beakers for generating techs. Even with tech trading, you should be getting 90% of them yourself.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by make

Thats mighty impressive

I would also like to finish my domination victories much sooner, because I enjoy the preindustrial ages much more than the post ones. I play Emperor / Marathon / Standard size continent maps / NoTechtrading / No culture flips. The soonest I have finished is 16XX.

In my current game, Its around 1820, and Im currently forces to dig in until I can build MechInf, because my closest rival whent beserk with unit production.
Quin has almost twice the number of soldiers I do. Im number one in GNP, production and crop yield, and have been fore a while, so it puzzles me how Quin managed to build so many more troops than me and how he can stay in the lead with techs.
So I have to get more and better units before I push fore domination. I have 55% of the land, so its not far away.

This is the typical problem to avoid when playing for domination, having to go all the way to mech infantry to achieve parity in strength, or even worse, modern armor. Like Uberfish says, you can still win with half strength, but only if you have the comparable technology units.

We've had this discussion in another thread, i.e, what causes the AI to have sudden exponential growth in science and military. I think it was decided that the biology advance and more specialists had a lot to do with it, probably environmentalism too. So, the obvious way to deal with that problem is to nip it in the bud, before biology, before the modern era. Choosing the right map size and game speed allows you to tweak the time it takes to achieve domination, if that's the victory condition your playing for. If its a space race, well, you have to go into the modern era. In that case, it's probably best to do what the AI does.

Originally posted by make

I wonder if pangea maps allows you to finish that much sooner than on continent maps? Its hard to rule the seas. You have to have a better type of ship than the others. It take a lot of time and production to build a navy, and before fighter / bombers, the casaulties in naval combat can be extremly high and costly.

Pangea is in some ways harder and in some ways easier than a continents map. It's harder in the beginning, since the AI is so fast you only get to build 3 or 4 cities. They come from all directions. It's also tough in the early to mid game, since any of the AI civs can get you, they don't have to cross an ocean. In a continents map you can tell a civ to buzz off if they don't like your religion, not so on pangea, not unless you're willing to pay the price.

In the present game (as Roosevelt) Caesar told me the honor of his people required that I give him metal casting, or pay the price. It was such a nice tech that I got from the Oracle too. So, I pressed F9 to look at the size of his army (Praetorians) and decided that he deserved metal casting after all.

But, a while later, I bribed him with Guilds to fight Catherine, after Paladin had already started a war with her. She's got me hemmed in on a pensinsula, so I have to take over her empire now to allow access to the main part of pangea. Caesar is a good leader to have on your side. He and Alex are good to bribe into wars.

Pangea gets easier in the mid game, during the expansion phase of the game. You don't have to build a navy to get to another continent. So you're right in this respect. I don't know which is easier for domination, since I never play continents, but I suspect that if you like mixing it up early, the quick grab of resources, which I find to be the most fun aspect of the game, then pangea is for you. If you like to take your time settling down, building, without the AI crowding you as much, continents would be better. It works both ways, sometimes the crowding means that I get to take a choice AI city early.

Originally posted by make

I was also wondering if Notechtrading slows things down because I cant get techs from peacetreaties and therfore cant aford to drop science in favor of producing units. I also cant bribe the AI with techs to join me in war, and therfore almost never gets any war allies and have to take out / absorb all the AIs units myself.

I think no tech trading would have to slow things down from a tech advance perspective, but not necessarily from a domination perspective, since it's really the relative strength of units that matter, not the absolute strength. Also, does the AI benefit more from tech trading than the human player? I don't know. I do try to stay in the lead tech wise, and make good trades, but the AI has to really like you to make fair trades. At least they'll pay cash even if they don't like you.

Try pangea next time, maybe try tech trading too. I leave all other defaults on, since the games never go to the modern era now. So I call it an ancient mod (marathon speed). Culture flipping is not a big deal, but I do lose one or two cities in a game, but considering that I capture 30 on average, one or two flips is tolerable. Sometimes I get a city flip in my favor too.

I agree that bribes may also be less effective on water maps, harder to move armies around for your allies as well as you. As far as achieving domination earlier, I find the chemistry/steel path to be very good, grabbing chemistry with liberalism typically, after researching gunpowder.

As far as continents, I agree that having to build a navy takes longer. But it is just as hard for the AI to come and get you. So, does immunity from the AI in the early to mid game balance the difficulty in getting to them in the end game? I almost have to try it now.

Roosevelt really is a fun leader though. I've built the Pyramids, Oracle to get metal casting, Great Library, Hanging Gardens, Colossus, and National Epic. My peninsula has a lot of water, so Colossus is looking very nice. Plus he's organized, the warmongers dream leader trait. Up until now, I've been the pure builder, but that's about to change very soon.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by fed1943
Yes,mighty impressive,very quick.
I play most as ShakaII,also huge maps,but with -2 civs than standart.I found it more interesting,as it needs both war and build since the begining.
Have you ever tried it?
Best regards,

Are you playing a huge pangea? Marathon? Emperor? Probably to win a huge map on domination, it almost has to be on marathon speed. I only tried one huge map, a Highlands map, on marathon, with 15 civs. Highlands has about twice the land area since there's no water. It was immensely fun and the barbs were ferocious. I didn't finish it though, since Caesar and Peter ganged up on me in the mid game, when I wasn't ready. That was a long time ago, when I was still getting used to CivIV. Maybe I'll try a huge pangea next game. Default is 11 civs.

The nice thing about standard/pangea/marathon is that games last 9 to 11 hours, while they're typically twice that long for space race games. Depends what you like. But I'm probably up for a huge game on marathon now. Huge pangea.

[fed1943]

Yes,Emperor,Huge Pangea,Marathon,9 civs.
Best regards,

[uberfish]

Originally posted by Shaka II

We've had this discussion in another thread, i.e, what causes the AI to have sudden exponential growth in science and military. I think it was decided that the biology advance and more specialists had a lot to do with it, probably environmentalism too.

I don't agree with this exponential growth - I find my own science and production go up in proportion with the AIs and if I have a tech lead I keep it. After all, biology is even more powerful in my hands than the AI's since I specialize cities better, and spread irrigation better. While some AIs go farm happy and have huge population cities, usually they get stuck with unhappy citizens for lack of happy resources, so their high population doesn't translate well into power. The soldier count on the demographics screen does go up geometrically, but that's just because the computer maintains larger and more up to date garrisons than a human would, and modern units are worth increasingly more in terms of 'soldier count' (upgrade a warrior to infantry to see this.)

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by uberfish

I don't agree with this exponential growth - I find my own science and production go up in proportion with the AIs and if I have a tech lead I keep it. After all, biology is even more powerful in my hands than the AI's since I specialize cities better, and spread irrigation better. While some AIs go farm happy and have huge population cities, usually they get stuck with unhappy citizens for lack of happy resources, so their high population doesn't translate well into power. The soldier count on the demographics screen does go up geometrically, but that's just because the computer maintains larger and more up to date garrisons than a human would, and modern units are worth increasingly more in terms of 'soldier count' (upgrade a warrior to infantry to see this.)

It sounds like you do it better than the AI. But you get the point about the geometric growth of the AI military right at about the beginning of the modern era. Probably a result of massive upgrades to the more powerful units. it's not just the modern era, but that seems to be the most dramatic change. Also, it's accelerated if there are two science civs tech trading between themselves, where you've fallen out of the tech trading circle.

AI's like Frederick, Catherine, Mansa, Washington, mainly financial civs, can reach a break away pace in science. I'm not sure of the exact mechanism, but it has been suggested that larger cities with specialists may be the cause. But part of this perception is a result of the domination player having to divert resources to military production, while the builder civs are quietly researching away and building their militaries to dangerous levels.

By always going after the biggest or the strongest or the most advanced civ, you can keep this situation from getting out of hand. I prefer to play a gambit whereby I try to achieve domination by the time I have steel, or at latest by infantry. When I have that military superiority, I no longer have to make building improvements at that point, since they don't have time to amortize, other than perhaps a university and a bank in the capital. The rest of the cities are making military units, with theaters and courthouses in recently acquired cities.

Now if you don't go for the early victory, you can pretty easily stay with the AI in growth, but the game ends in the modern era, making it longer and giving you a lower score. It depends what you like.

[uberfish]

Well if you commit to heavy military production and conquest at the expense of infrastructure and research, the builder AIs will pass you in science until your captured cities become profitable and you can catch up. This happens in any era, not just modern.

I play normal speed, not marathon, so I often have to go into modern age even if my aim is to win by domination.

[Shaka II]

I agree, you can fall behind in any era, so it's best to not go overboard in military production until the point where domination is assured. I'm just saying that it's an easy trap to fall into, when there are two-high tech civs playing, or worse, two friendly high-tech civs, which happens almost automatically the longer they share the same religion, trade, etc. The game trends toward friendliness. It's up to the human player to prevent this love fest, keep them fighting, joining the fray when appropriate.

But I do notice some unusual effects at the beginning of the modern era. Probably more towns maturing, biology/environmentalism to make more specialists, friendly civs tech trading. There are are surely a number of factors involved. It almost looks like a permanent golden age when you spot it happening. In an older game on normal speed, I was playing Caesar and had 64% of the land area in 1860, but Capac's population prevented me from getting the pop requirement. His army was three times larger than mine, but this was in part due to his not having to fight in a long time. It took me 100 years to catch up in military, having over 500 units (110 modern armor, 100 mech infantry, 90 artillery, ...) on a standard pangea before we went to war. After that, it was over in about 15 years. But this is the kind of effect that you can run into in the modern era, when you can support large armies.

I prefer to play with under 100 units total, so the games that end in the early industrial era allow that. Pangea/marathon.

Regarding Qin in Make's game, he is financial and his favorite civic is police state, so if he was running police state it wouldn't be surprising to see him pumping out units like crazy. Also, being industrious with a lot of wonders might be responsible for generating many GP's to boost science.

Here's a link to the previous discussion thread.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148925

[make]

Originally posted by Shaka II
Regarding Qin in Make's game, he is financial and his favorite civic is police state, so if he was running police state it wouldn't be surprising to see him pumping out units like crazy. Also, being industrious with a lot of wonders might be responsible for generating many GP's to boost science.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=148925

Yes indeed, Quin was running Police State and have build many wonders, so that would explain some of it.

He also whanted me to run Police State, which i didnt whant at that time because I was running Representation + alot of specialists to catch up in the mad research race.

Ironcally, the last war aganist Quin changed my mind because I was getting hampered by warweariness. I changed to Police state, Emanacipation (or whatever its called) and state property. 9 turns of anarchy ick!

Later on after the pop increase from biology, health became a serious problem, so I had to switch to Envirementalism....5 turns of anarchy...oh boy, I wished I had the Spiritual trait.

Quin have completet the Manhattan project. This made me very worried, so I build Bomb shelters in all cities ASAP, and beelined fore Satelites and SDI.
SDI is now complete, no nukes lauched though. What a relief.

Actually I have never ben nuked be anyone, ever.

Have any of you ever ben nuked be the AI?

I have now build watermills and workshops on all the farms I can without starving my pop.
Getting the farmers into the weapon factories to build weapons, and with Policestate, I am know catching up on the number of Solidiers Quin have.

Its now about 1880. This seem to draaaaaag out.

Quin have now MechInf. I am beelining fore it. Researching computers, then robotics. When I get them, I will upgrade as many Infantry as possible and declare war.

Well, back to the game.

[make]

cgrecu77,

To get back to you and try to help you.

If I am to give you any advice that havent already been given, I would say. Be patient.

Try to take a more Imperialistic approach to the game. Build a strong and balanced economy to support youre research, army, and the large empire you will get, eventually.
As a contrast to building a big army first, conquer alot of cities and then try to recover from bankruptcy and inferior technology.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by make

Actually I have never ben nuked be anyone, ever.

Have any of you ever ben nuked be the AI?

No, I've never been nuked. I don't think the AI will nuke you unless you nuke it. I only tried it once in CivIII. I nuked a city, and the AI turned around and nuked one of my cities. It was fun to try once, but I learned my lesson.

Originally posted by make

Its now about 1880. This seem to draaaaaag out.

Quin have now MechInf. I am beelining fore it. Researching computers, then robotics. When I get them, I will upgrade as many Infantry as possible and declare war.

Well, back to the game.

It sounds like you're getting caught up. Actually, I do like playing the modern era once in a while, the wars are more complex, but overall, I like to play up to and including the industrial era. It's more fun. Try pangea next time, you might like it.

[make]

Finally, domination victory. Perhaps I can get some sleep now . The date is 1950. The game took 36 hours to complete.

The next game I will try will be my first Pangea map. Emperor / Marathon / std. size pangea map. All standard settings. Hopefully I will finish it faster. I was getting rather bored in the end with all that unit organizing, build orders, micromanagement maniac. Large stacks of units is a real pain to manage. I wish there was a button which enabled a fullscreen view of the stack, so you can see them all at once. It would be much easier to find thoose you want to select and select them the right way the first time.

[Shaka II]

If you try the pangea marathon, you should be able to win domination in around 10 to 11 hours, after you've played a few times. The fastest game I played was as Cyrus, only 9 hours, not that that was an objective really.

Having said that, every once in while, a long game is nice, like a huge marathon as Fed1943 plays. Maybe the next game or the one after that. There is something to be said for shorter games. It lets you play more games and try more civs, more strats. When you're all tuned up, try a huge map perhaps. I'd be afraid that I'd never emerge from a huge map game, getting lost in the Civ dimension.