Neo-liberalism and Domination

[Aeson]

Legal and Religion:

I think on the way to Domination, XP is too important to pass up. The difference between 4 or 6XP out of the gate, and 8 or 10XP, is actually pretty big. With 8XP you generally get the next promotion after a single victory, and the promotion allows you to heal up and keep going more quickly. 6XP will have to win a couple battles and heal inbetween. 4XP and you're losing way too many first battles, then needing the extra battles later on. Double whammy.

Getting to 10XP is even more important. That opens up some of the more useful promotions right off (Ambush, Amphibious, Barrage III, City Raider III, Formation, Medic II, Mobility, Sentry), and your West Point city can be at 14XP, basically one battle shy of the 4th promotion.

The Amphibious promotion is very important on many maps, especially for Tanks. It bascially doubles your Transport "capacity" because of blitz. Plus, you need a few Commando Cavalry (or Tanks) ASAP if you really want to fight efficiently. Every bit of XP helps get you there. I think the most effective mid-late game military combos are:

Water Maps: Bombers + Transports + Amphibious Tanks
Land Maps: Bombers + Gunships + Commando Cavalry/Tanks

That's the composition of the strike force, you of course need some support or special case units, like Sentry, Medic II, your fleet to cover the Carriers/Bomers, ect. Basically though, it all comes down to range.

Because of the importance of XP, I think Vassalage and Theocracy are generally the best choices. You'll win more battles right off the line, and/or be able to move on quicker due to the healing of Promotions.

Labor:

I don't think Emancipation is a must have, and it's kinda out of the way, especially if you have the Pyramids. It's +5 unhappy at the most, which is somewhat insignificant in comparison to the +20-30 unhappy a "fast" Domination can end up accumulating through War Weariness. If it comes down to a choice, I'd rather get to Tanks/Bombers a couple techs faster, and end the war faster. That will accumulate less War Weariness, covering the +5 unhappy.

I generally prefer Caste System anyways, even if Deomocracy falls in my lap. Then I run a few Artists per city when resistance ends and get the border expansions ASAP (usually the first turn out of resistance). Then at worst the city can pay for itself with Merchants. Going this route, you can even pillage towns along the way, and won't be screwed if the AI's you're taking out didn't develope very well, or were massively pillaged by your "friend(s)" either.

If it's post-Rails though, Serfdom is a decent choice too. Getting units to the front tends to be the only limiting factor on how fast you can move once the military machine gets rolling. Laying down Rails in newly conquered territory really helps if they aren't already there.

Economic:

With Caste System (and being at war, or soon to be at war, with everyone), Mercantilism works well. The free specialist helps cities pay for themselves, which is all they really need to do. The GP benefit isn't that important though. It will slightly impact GP generation dates, but should generally only be about 1/10th or less the GPP accumulation in the cities which will be generating any GP. Mercantilism is also the earliest available Economic civic. I'd generally run it until the switch to Police State, then go with State Property.

Free Market arrives a bit late. It also takes a hit due to the fact you should rather shortly be assimilating all the lucrative foreign trade routes.

State Property is even later. I might switch to it with SPI, but not if I have to research it myself. The machine should be rolling already, and it's just a matter of getting to the next set of unit techs to finish it off.

Governments:

The Pyramids really screw up the Government column IMO. With it, Police State is too good to pass up once you start fighting probably. The savings on War Weariness is worth it on it's own. It can mean 50% on the slider. Think about that. That means it can be worth up to half your Commerce economy. (If you aren't generating lots of War Weariness, you aren't going fast enough! ) The faster military production on top of it is all butter. Without the Pyramids, Police State is a bit out of the way and late. Probably have to get Fascism eventually (by trade at least), likely after Tanks. But it's mainly for avoiding bankruptcy while mopping up IMO.

Representation is pretty good in conjunction with Mercantilism/Caste System. It's the least out of the way. It's the best bet if you've gone with a Specialist economy of course. It can make Emancipation less necessary even, as the Culture rate you have to run to keep the biggest cities at full capacity will easily cover the smaller ones in most cases, and the extra happy faces in your biggest cities from Representation can compliment that well by "evening" the Happiness playing field.

Suffrage is ok if you want to run cash rushing, but I think if you're really going as fast as you can (militarily, and up the tech tree), you won't have much cash at all. If you do have cash, upgrading is often the best use. (Especially all those non-Commando Cavalry to Gunships.) The bonus to Towns is great if you have them, but you get tied down to terrain improvements in the lands you are conquering too. If the AI has been stupid with their terrain developement or inept at defending their improvements (they have a tendancy towards both these things), you can get screwed. Plus it's a bit out of the way.

So, generally I'd start out (or continue with) global domination with:

Representation or Police State (Pyramids)
Vassalage
Caste System
Mercantilism
Theocracy

[fed1943]

I must think a lot (that's all I can say right now).
Best regards,

[zabrak]

Aeson, what game speed are you playing on? If I had to guess from your post, I'd say normal, based on your unit preferences (Commando Cavalry and fast railroad layers), which imply a need to get a lot more moves out of each turn. I ask because I think the conventional wisdom about marathon being a faster-paced game unit-wise may be wrong, that the AI would have a greater quantity and quality of defenders in the same game at a faster speed, and that it makes sense for the player to give up on her economy during the game-ending wars in favor of a fast military solution. That would mean a quicker game is actually quicker.

Emancipation is ... +5 unhappy at the most

Good Lord, how do I set that up? I'm usually looking at about +10 unhappy per AI civ running Emancipation, which is more than enough to completely shut down my economy. I agree that War Weariness is a big concern, but I can't make sense of your paragraph unless the WW you're dealing with is from a war either a) started by the AI which you're rushing to kill off (that WW is generated by wars declared on you is ridiculous, but let's put that aside), or b) a war that you started, but didn't have the tanks and bombers to finish, already researched and constructed at the outset. In the case of A, I say take the peace treaty so you have the economic strength to sprint to the hardware to take your revenge, and B strikes me as, well, rash. So have I misread this?

Without the Pyramids, Police State is a bit out of the way and late. Probably have to get Fascism eventually (by trade at least), likely after Tanks.

Agreed on the timing for Fascism. Skipping the optional post-Nationalism techs is a real situational call. Mt. Rushmore doesn't slow WW, but rather cuts it down, so you can wait to complete it until WW is getting irritating. Military Tradition is usually worthwhile, but certain maps and AI positions can make it unnecessary. Democracy is crucial to the economically minded, since it lets you duck the Emancipation penalty, allows you to cash-rush (jails and Mt. Rushmore are relatively cheap, getting you the same WW relief as Police State almost as fast), and the Statue of Liberty is just gravy.

Also agreed on the value of Amphibious Tanks for establishing your beachhead. If you can get to the AI while it's still on Rifleman, 10 XP Marines (Combat I & II, plus Pinch) are actually 1.2 strength ahead of 10 XP Amphibious Tanks, but Infantry's native bonus against Gunpowder units flips it back in Tanks' favor.

That said, I think you're selling bombers short. Fighters are fairly easily crippled based on their oil-dependence (and the AI's hesitation to build them), and SAMs just can't shoot them down fast enough. Collateral damage, at a distance, with virtually no penalty, is astonishingly effective. Heck, with enough bombers you can take over the world with Musketmen (there's a use for Napolean's Commandos).

Therefore, I think that the utility (and fun) of 10 XP troops is best gotten by Pentagon plus West Point in your major unit production city, and then settling for 6 XP troops from the rest. I realize that betting one's military strategy on a single wonder is risky, but that's what a breakneck economy in the mid-game is for. Which of course is much harder to pull off with Vassalage/Theocracy due to their expense and opportunity costs. So once again Civ4 surprises me with its specialization and depth: an economically powerful civ should play to its strengths by racing to the Pentagon and keeping unit production to a few cities. A production-heavy civ should play to its strengths by cranking powerful units out of lots of cities and write-off the economic losses (like forgoing cash-rushing).

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by make

Pacifism do not require a state religion? This is new to me. After all those game I did not notice that.....hmm, perhaps I should try Pacifism soon.

Looks like I was wrong about that. Good catch. That's the way I wished it was implemented.

I suppose there are pacifist religions like Quakerism, or Buddhism to certain extent, so it makes sense. I thought I checked that once in my Capital, but I must have been mistaken.

Anyway, the GP/science pump is pretty nice with Pyramids, GL, National Epic, and Pacifism. Assuming 1 specialist in addition to the two provided by the GL, that's (3*3GPP + 2GGP(Pyramids) +2GPP(Great Library)+1GPP(National Epic)+2GPP(Hanging Gardens))*300% = 48GPPT. If financial, then it's 64GPPT. No wonder I'm only getting 32GPPT in my Capital in this game. :rollseyes: I'll have to switch to a state religion in my present game now, but the critical early game is over with now, so I can afford a few negative points for my heathen religion.

Originally posted by make

In regard to Mercantalism. I agree that Merc. is better on Pangea, because you do not have many coastal cities.
On continents you have mainly coastal cities, and it is in them the really profitable traderoutes is, so on continents you would experience that Free Markets profit from the foeign trade and the +1 traderoute gives a massive boost in raw commerce, especially with harbours in place.

Often when I check my trade routes, they're only +1 coin, so adding +1 trade route really doesn't buy me much. Now when I have +1 specialist in each city, especially under reporesentation, that's +6 beakers for free, compared to +1 coin, before the multipliers in each case.

Later in the game, if it's a domination game, there aren't many foreign cities left to trade with. I think it's probably stronger for a space or culture win, but not domination.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by zabrak
Aeson, what game speed are you playing on? If I had to guess from your post, I'd say normal, based on your unit preferences (Commando Cavalry and fast railroad layers), which imply a need to get a lot more moves out of each turn.

Actually, I played Quick most of the time. I'll also qualify it further and say my reasoning wouldn't apply to Deity much.

Personally though, even on slower speeds I'd prefer to maximize the range of my units though. Even if the end result is less in doubt on slower speeds, given the extra turns to work with, the real challenge, "how fast can you win?", is always there.

I ask because I think the conventional wisdom about marathon being a faster-paced game unit-wise may be wrong, that the AI would have a greater quantity and quality of defenders in the same game at a faster speed, and that it makes sense for the player to give up on her economy during the game-ending wars in favor of a fast military solution. That would mean a quicker game is actually quicker.

I think Marathon is rather unbalanced. It was tacked on, so didn't get through much testing. Marathon makes Domination a difficulty level or two easier on the bigger maps. (And Culture into a complete joke.)

Relatively speaking, Marathon is definitely a faster paced game unit-wise. You have more turns to move units in, they build relatively faster, so they can go further and there are more of them. In an absolute sense though, you are right. The faster game speeds necessitate a "fast paced" military game. You have to cut out more of the unnecessary stuff just to make it across the map in time.

The approach you detailed is a good one for Marathon, especially if you prefer surity over speed. I think you can get to Domination faster even on Marathon though, by focusing on maximizing the mobility of your strike force (Bombers with Transports or Commando). As you say about the WW, it's more "rash"... but that's fun.

Good Lord, how do I set that up? I'm usually looking at about +10 unhappy per AI civ running Emancipation, which is more than enough to completely shut down my economy.

Has this changed? I haven't played since release, and at that time I think it was something like:

EmancipationUnhappy = 5 * EmancipatedPlayers/TotalPlayers

I agree that War Weariness is a big concern, but I can't make sense of your paragraph unless the WW you're dealing with is from a war either a) started by the AI which you're rushing to kill off (that WW is generated by wars declared on you is ridiculous, but let's put that aside), or b) a war that you started, but didn't have the tanks and bombers to finish, already researched and constructed at the outset. In the case of A, I say take the peace treaty so you have the economic strength to sprint to the hardware to take your revenge, and B strikes me as, well, rash. So have I misread this?

Sorta B, but it's different enough to be C.

Serialized Warfare. A War you've just started, just after a war you've finished (that of course you also started), just before the next war (that you will start too). Sometimes more than one war at the same time. As long as dealing with WW doesn't push back the date you can trigger Domination, it's worth it to keep the pressure on.

Also agreed on the value of Amphibious Tanks for establishing your beachhead. If you can get to the AI while it's still on Rifleman, 10 XP Marines (Combat I & II, plus Pinch) are actually 1.2 strength ahead of 10 XP Amphibious Tanks, but Infantry's native bonus against Gunpowder units flips it back in Tanks' favor.

Marines are fun too.

It's the Blitz of Tanks that makes them my favorites off of Transports. It can double the number of attacks you can hit targets with, given the same number of Transports. Since the Bombers do most of the work, Blitz becomes very powerful. (And it's a great way to get a few Commando Tanks relatively quickly.)

Establishing a beachhead is important of course, but I was mostly talking about water-based maps, where the offensive often stays in the Transports. Then you use the Transport's movement to get from target to target faster.

That said, I think you're selling bombers short. Fighters are fairly easily crippled based on their oil-dependence (and the AI's hesitation to build them), and SAMs just can't shoot them down fast enough. Collateral damage, at a distance, with virtually no penalty, is astonishingly effective. Heck, with enough bombers you can take over the world with Musketmen (there's a use for Napolean's Commandos).

How am I selling Bombers short? They are the key to both strike forces I listed. They make the Commando or Transport movement equate into city captures.

Therefore, I think that the utility (and fun) of 10 XP troops is best gotten by Pentagon plus West Point in your major unit production city, and then settling for 6 XP troops from the rest. I realize that betting one's military strategy on a single wonder is risky, but that's what a breakneck economy in the mid-game is for.

If you go for a mid-game wonder you probably will get it. I don't think it's too risky. I just would prefer all my cities building 10XP units, with West Point on 14XP.

Which of course is much harder to pull off with Vassalage/Theocracy due to their expense and opportunity costs. So once again Civ4 surprises me with its specialization and depth: an economically powerful civ should play to its strengths by racing to the Pentagon and keeping unit production to a few cities. A production-heavy civ should play to its strengths by cranking powerful units out of lots of cities and write-off the economic losses (like forgoing cash-rushing).

This is true. But keep in mind you also have the ability to switch gears. You can be economically powerful up untill a certain point, to gain an edge, then go all out military to apply it.

[zabrak]

the real challenge, "how fast can you win?", is always there.

For me, the real challenge is walking away from these imaginary worlds with which I've fallen in love, which is probably why I play on marathon. It's also why I've never been able to play an Earth map, as I can't bear the fact that I can't conquer the real world.

I think Marathon is rather unbalanced. It was tacked on, so didn't get through much testing. Marathon makes Domination a difficulty level or two easier on the bigger maps.

I've been giving this some thought, and I think this might be why I'm such a fan of the economic approach. On quick, if I wait 10 turns doing nothing, the AI is going to eat my lunch. On marathon, not only will nothing too adverse happen, but I'll make enough gold to buy a continent's worth of airports.

Has this changed? I haven't played since release, and at that time I think it was something like:

EmancipationUnhappy = 5 * EmancipatedPlayers/TotalPlayers

I'm not sure of the equation, but it can't be the one you gave, as you'd be right: +5 unhappy would be the max you could ever get. And I've gotten much more.

It's the Blitz of Tanks that makes them my favorites off of Transports. It can double the number of attacks you can hit targets with, given the same number of Transports. Since the Bombers do most of the work, Blitz becomes very powerful. (And it's a great way to get a few Commando Tanks relatively quickly.)

Now here's an argument that I can dig. Getting more attacks per turn means less units you've got to build means a cheaper army means more cash money.

Establishing a beachhead is important of course, but I was mostly talking about water-based maps, where the offensive often stays in the Transports. Then you use the Transport's movement to get from target to target faster.

So was I. You've got to have someplace to park the bombers, since carriers can't handle them. In a recent game, Hieranconpolis was in the center of Egypt's continent, but at the end of a long inlet. It was the first city I took, and I never had to rebase the bombers the entire war.

How am I selling Bombers short? They are the key to both strike forces I listed. They make the Commando or Transport movement equate into city captures.

My point is simply that bombers make 10 XP troops from all cities, instead of just at the West Point city, unnecessary. If that's the case, the economic and other savings from avoiding Vassalage and Theocracy translate into a stronger position. I'm not sure I'd want to compare the two approaches on speed of conquest, because as you said, I prefer surity, but cash-rushing is anything but slow.

[make]

Re: Neo-liberalism and Domination

Originally posted by zabrak
I'll focus instead on the period just before and during the bid for invasion (the moment you get the Kremlin and the Pentagon, while setting up the Eiffel Tower run, is probably a good marker), explaining why I choose the above civics over the other options. I hope that this sparks an interesting discussion.

It sounds like you count on getting the Kremlin. Indeed Universal Suffrage is the most potential powerfull civic, if you have the Kremlin.
But there are some considerations to take about basing youre strategy around Kremlin / Suffrage.

First of all, the Kremlin is far from a sure thing to get on emperor, because on this level, there always seems to be one or two civs more advanced than you.
Not so hard to get on Monarch, but not a sure thing here either.

So, what if you do not get the Kremlin? I would say that there are two better options then.

1.
Representation.
If you are behind in techs and want to wait until you get to the next and better military unit to start the world war, then Representation with good use of specialists can help you get there.

2.
Police State.
When you have the tech you need to build the unit you plan to dominate the world with, switch to Police State and crank them out 25% faster. I always have sloooow wars, waiting for my best units to heal inbetween city assualts, so I enjoy the reduced Warweariness much to.

You should also have saved up some cash by now to upgrade all youre elite older units.

In this approuch, you use youre cash to upgrade units instead of replacing them with new ones. Hench you do not loose much oppertunity from not going with Suffrage.

3.
Check youre powergraph, spy on youre target, ask around for alliances, smile, take them by surprise and dominate.

Take care

[fed1943]

Marvellous thread.I will read it again and again.
I feel and love the game as Zabrak said.
But Aeson is right,I must call him the player.
(That Police State thing,against my best wishes,I should adopt it,it's the only chance).
Best regards,

[zabrak]

the Kremlin is far from a sure thing to get on emperor, because on this level, there always seems to be one or two civs more advanced than you.

The Kremlin is crucial, that much is very true. On continents maps, the Communism beeline meshes well with the Optics and Astronomy runs that I'll be making anyway after I have my continent secured. After the normal home-continent warfare, in which I have everything in the first five columns of the tech tree, plus Currency, Code of Laws, and Civil Service, the way I usually run it is this:

1) Machinery > Optics, with Missionaries standing by to convert any poor atheists and/or setup some religious spying, and shooting for circumnavigation.

2) I'm researching Paper while the caravels are roaming about. That's when I assess the religious and tech situations, creating two possible paths:

2a) If there are isolated but potentially powerful allies whom I can keep on my side my keeping them with my religion, and it looks like I can beat the AI in the race for the late three religions, I'll trade for Feudalism (an AI favorite), then go for Theology then Philosophy then Divine Right. It's certainly a heart-pounder (checking the foreign advisor reveals that I've usually beaten them by about thee turns each), but assuming these conditions exist, I regularly pull it off on emperor. This has huge advantages: it creates loyal allies who research neglected parts of the tree, it deprives them of shrine income to keep them poor, and having four or five religions in each of my core cities really helps with unhappiness during the game-ending wars (four or five temples, and with Free Religion, twice as many happy points). Finish up Paper, then head to step 3.

2b) If not, then I simply trade for what I'm missing - the AI likes to hang around in the top half of the tree in this period, and they value my maps that Paper provides - and go to Step 3.

3) Education > Liberalism > Astronomy (usually it's free). Astronomy lets me crank up my city size by taking in more happy/healthy resources, and it also lets me take another global assessment:

3a) If it's a race, then I simply press on to Step 4.

3b) If I'm doing alright in tech, I spend some time doing catch-up via research or trade - I prefer Guilds > Banking > Economics for gold, and adding on Replaceable Parts for production if I've got plenty of time. When the AI starts getting close, it's back to the beeline with Step 4.

4) Printing Press > Scientific Method > Communism. The University construction wave should be completed by now, which makes up for the lost research from any monastaries, and helps make Communism affordable.

In other words, from continental security to Communism in nine techs, one of which is free if I'm quick about it.

In this approuch, you use youre cash to upgrade units instead of replacing them with new ones. Hench you do not loose much oppertunity from not going with Suffrage.

This is great advice - cash is meant to be spent, and this way you can get modern units without using up productive citizens in a draft. Plus upgraded units keep the old promotions that they can't get if built new - against Gunpowder defenders, Infantry with City Raider III has 37 strength!

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by zabrak
I'm not sure of the equation, but it can't be the one you gave, as you'd be right: +5 unhappy would be the max you could ever get. And I've gotten much more.

You are talking about the unhappiness due only to not having emancipation, not total unhappiness, right?

Regarding marathon, I think there are several reasons for playing it:

1) It allows domination to be earlier, allowing more weighting toward ancient and medieval game play. Units don't become obsolete so quickly, so you get to feel an era, without getting rushed though it (hence the term "flash civ"). I'm not sure it makes domination that much easier, but it makes it a lot sooner, which gives you a much higher score. Of course, if you don't complete domination by the time an opponent lifts off, you lose, so in that respect, it makes the game easier.

2) On a large or huge maps, domination is difficult or impossible, since units just can't move across the map at normal speed in time.

3) To end the game in the Industrial era is to avoid 10 hours of tedium with modern era warfare.

It's mainly of use for the domination player and/or the big map domination player. If you're playing for a space race game on a standard map, then I don't think there is much benefit. I think of it as an ancient/medieval era mod. In the same fashion, playing pangea maps are an ancient/medieval mod, since they allow the intense early competition for land and resources. It depends what you like.

I thought I set my first immortal game up on marathon, but it's epic, since it used my last game speed setting at deity. It's fun. It will be a later domination win, maybe going into the modern era, both because of epic and because of immortal. But a good modern era game is fun once in a while.

I tried a couple of deity games at epic speed (pangea), but I just can't keep up in science, I lose it by the industrial era. Try to keep up in science, your civ and army are too small, try to conquer some early cities to get a bigger, you fall behind in science. I don't think deity is winnable, not by me anyway, unless perhaps an extraordinary start. Immortal OTOH is definitely winnable.

[zabrak]

You are talking about the unhappiness due only to not having emancipation, not total unhappiness, right?

I'm currently staring at my other computer, in which I've got a lot more than 5 unhappy points associated with "We demand Emancipation!" Doesn't get much clearer than that.

[uberfish]

Even if you're not going to stay in Universal Suffrage long term, I consider democracy and communism worth the slight detour. Demo gives you statue of liberty which is very powerful with lots of cities, and emancipation will get all your villages up to speed quickly in addition to the happiness issues. Communism gives you spies which can take out the enemy oil thus giving your tanks, bombers and navy an easy time. Playing this style I find 6xp and two promotions to be all that's necessary, but I will keep researching in case I end up facing Mech Inf (and thus Free Speech is good since I run Towns a lot more often than Specialists.)

So I'm typically running something in between the two extremes in the late stages of a domination game:

Police State
Free Speech
Emancipation
State Property
Theocracy

And I'll switch to Universal Suffrage and Organized Religion if there's some quiet time between two wars to get factories up.

[QuixotesGhost]

Personally, I find Enviromentalism to be pretty useful if I have to go to war with a major trading partner who's been supplying me with several health resources.

I sometimes get caught in the situation in the late industrial/early modern era that a lot of my cities are fairly big becuase of biology and are carrying hefty health penalties due to Forges/Factories/Coal plants. If someone who's been supplying me with 3 or 4 health resources decides to cancel trades I often face the situation where I'll have cities all across my empire quickly starving out due to health issues. This can be compounded if my navy is weak and they've been pillaging fish/crabs/clams on me.

That +5 to health has saved me more than once, and I can switch back once I get more hospitals in place and have captured more health resources.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by zabrak

I'm currently staring at my other computer, in which I've got a lot more than 5 unhappy points associated with "We demand Emancipation!" Doesn't get much clearer than that.

That's what I wanted to know. So, there must be other dependencies such as city size or perhaps a time duration effect like War Weariness has. Also, the AI seems to know this, since it makes Democracy a priority and doesn't like to trade it, at least not to human players.

Democracy, Fascism, and Communism are all side tracks that I generally try to trade for and not to have to research. But sometimes there is no option. When that unhappiness hits, it can be a killer. Quite often, my empire is large enough by then that the number of luxuries keeps people happy even without emancipation, so I have a window to trade for Democracy. If the empire is even bigger, then State Property becomes very important. Every game is different and playing conditons, map type, map size, game speed, civ, all affect the choices.

I just don't see Universal Suffrage as being particularly useful most of the time, since I tend not to have any cash left to buy units with. I'm spending it all on tech. What little I have is spent on upgrading old veteran units like make says. However, if tech is done for, like in the Industrial era closing in on domination win (typical on marathon speed), or in the modern era, after discovering robotics for mech infantry, I may shut down research entirely and cash buy units, as a gamble for the domination win. Modern armor isn't really required, specially if you're closing in on victory. In that case, US is fantastic. Normally, theaters with culture slider takes care of happiness, while US cash buying accelerates the military rush. If WW looks like a problem, then a switch to Police State is required, along with the 25% military unit production.

[Yosho]

Hmmm...it's interesting. Part of the reason I never us universal sufferege on pangea domination based games is just that I never seem to get many towns; after conquering the weakest player or two, I always end up with a long, narrow, broken up empire with long borders, so it's very hard to defend myself from pilligaing attacks. I might have rifles against knights, and I'll win the war eventually, but when most of my land is within 4 or 5 spaces of my borders, it's hard to prevent the enemy's knighs from taking out my towns in suicide pillage missions. Generally less then 5% of my empire's land will be towns, and that's just not enough to make it worthwhile, except for quick cash-rushing spiritual turns.