Vel's Strategy Thread, Volume III

[Verrucosus]

While I would be happy for Vel to earn more money by writing a guide commissioned by Firaxis itself (which would inevitably have marketing advantages and sell better), I'm afraid that his talents would be wasted in the official strategy guide business.

Apart from the conversational style of his writing, the strength both of the SMAC guide and of the Civ4 drafts he has posted comes from the fact that he has spent many, many hours playing, thinking about and discussing the finished game. That is something one cannot expect from an official guide which, for obvious reasons, is published at the same time as the game itself.

If game studios were willing to commission strategy guides to be published a year or two after the game's release, I'm sure Velociryx would have to go into hiding to find some time for his family. However, given the fast-moving nature of the gaming industry, I can see why this doesn't happen: A year after a game's release, the bulk of potential buyers will have moved on the the next game. Civ4 may be different - it's still so popular that I'm pleasantly surprised that they aren't selling action figures and other embarrassing paraphernalia -, but it is probably an exception. The good news is that this leaves room for such marvellous pieces as the SMAC guide which (as Vel, in a rare display of pride, put it in one of the early versions) "beats the daylights" out of the official guide.

Anyway, I do hope that only good things (like progress with his Candle Bre project) keep him from posting more drafts at the moment. A side-benefit of the delay is that he will be able to take account the substantial changes to the game in "Beyond the Sword" which we have only just begun to explore.

Verrucosus

PS: While we are at it, Firaxis should do something about its manuals. While still good by today's standards, the information is sometimes awfully vague (e.g. the treatment of the UN in the Civ4 manual and of the Apostolic Palace in the manual of the recent expansion) and they do not compare well to the manuals of the original Civilization, of Colonization, Alpha Centauri and even Gettysburg. Maybe they should give that task to one of the gentlemen they hired from the community. (The more recent Paradox manuals written by Chris Stone with the player's perspective in mind, are quite excellent.)

[Kataphraktoi]

It is possible to make a plausible game guide based on only a few weeks. The real problem is the people ussualy writing strategy guides are complete imbeciles at serious gaming. I was using the chop\whip strategies in my first FEW games, among other things-its not like these things are secrets being slowly unlocked. Im sure a good player of TBS games that had writing ability could write up a decent guide.

[Verrucosus]

I believe that is true. In fact, not having read any sanctioned strategy guide in a long time, I am not even in a position to say that the Civ4 guide (there was one, wasn't there?) is not a decent guide.

However, regardless of the writer's talent, there is a difference between a plausible or decent guide and one that can draw from several months of playing experience and forum debates. The draft section on the controversial "settler first" opening is a good example. Although I might not be convinced by Vel's reasoning, it's easy to see how he tries to counter criticism he has received in forum discussions and how he can give examples of situations in which he considers "settler first" to be the best choice. It's not so much the recommendation itself, but the thoroughness of the reasoning that is helpful, because it teaches a way of thinking about the game that can be applied even in situations not covered. That kind of guide, I would still maintain, is impossible to present within a few weeks after the game's release.

Since this thread has retained its original brainstorming character, may I use it to ask about espionage allocation? Contrary to information in the manual, the espionage slider appears as soon as you encounter your first opponent. This can happen very early in the game (even during the "window"). Is there a convincing case for allocating some (which?) percentage of income to espionage in order to get the power graph and research goal intelligence (very helpful for medium-term strategy) as soon as possible or is it more important to maintain maximum research output for as long as possible?

Verrucosus

[jkp1187]

Speaking personally, I would pay for an "unofficial" Vel-authored BtS strategy guide in PDF format. His SMAC guide was better than....well, frankly, it ranked up there with Emerich and Wilson's Rome on 640k a Day.

[Kinjiru]

[SIZE=1]
Since this thread has retained its original brainstorming character, may I use it to ask about espionage allocation? Contrary to information in the manual, the espionage slider appears as soon as you encounter your first opponent. This can happen very early in the game (even during the "window"). Is there a convincing case for allocating some (which?) percentage of income to espionage in order to get the power graph and research goal intelligence (very helpful for medium-term strategy) as soon as possible or is it more important to maintain maximum research output for as long as possible?

Verrucosus

This is something that I have been playing around with in my last few games. My current thinking is that if you find that the first or second civ you meet tends to be warlike (Alexander, Isabella, etc) then pump Esp until you can get the demographics passive, then return to normal allocation. It does not take long at all to get that first ability, so you really are not hampering yourself too much.

Obviously, if you are able to get a tech goody hut, then you have not hampered your science at all, so get a scout or two out there ASAP.

In my current game (not very far in), I am even going all out espionage. I didn't intend to, but my first GP was a Great Spy. Rather than built Scotland Yard, I settled him for 12 esp points/turn. Now I am focusing on getting a second great spy to build Scotland yard to double my EP production. The long term plan is to pump out spys and steal everything in sight, then sell it all. Meta goal is to play King Maker and go for Diplo win.

[Jvstin]

Originally posted by jkp1187
Speaking personally, I would pay for an "unofficial" Vel-authored BtS strategy guide in PDF format. His SMAC guide was better than....well, frankly, it ranked up there with Emerich and Wilson's Rome on 640k a Day.

That is high praise indeed.

Rome on 640K a day got me hooked on Civ I and the rest is, well, History.

[Verrucosus]

Originally posted by Kinjiru

My current thinking is that if you find that the first or second civ you meet tends to be warlike (Alexander, Isabella, etc) then pump Esp until you can get the demographics passive, then return to normal allocation. It does not take long at all to get that first ability, so you really are not hampering yourself too much.

That seems reasonable. After tech trading is available, it might be worth investing into another push to get the "research goal" passive for selected opponents, but that is far more expensive. Since the cost for the passive missions keeps increasing a minimum investment will always be needed to keep the advantage, but the espionage points from the Palace might well be enough at the beginning. It will also be interesting to see whether the AI will slowly build up espionage points or make ad-hoc investments when necessary. If so, a sudden rise of the cost modifier might be an early (if unspecific) warning that that opponent is up to something.

[Kinjiru]

Originally posted by Verrucosus


That seems reasonable. After tech trading is available, it might be worth investing into another push to get the "research goal" passive for selected opponents, but that is far more expensive. Since the cost for the passive missions keeps increasing a minimum investment will always be needed to keep the advantage, but the espionage points from the Palace might well be enough at the beginning. It will also be interesting to see whether the AI will slowly build up espionage points or make ad-hoc investments when necessary. If so, a sudden rise of the cost modifier might be an early (if unspecific) warning that that opponent is up to something.

I was going for that second level (view their research) target as well, but found that if I wanted to get there quickly, I had to spend far too long with low research levels to make it worth it. I suppose that if your opponent was not applying his own EP against you, it could be done, but, since the opponent almost certainly WILL be directing their EP against you, the ever rising costs just become hard to swallow.

In my ongoing super EP game, I have found something interesting (to me, anyway). I have always had the sneaking suspicion that the AI civs would fairly well cover the available research options between them all and then just trade around. I am pumping so many EPs in this game though, that I have the view research passive against all 9 other civs (and they are all quite far away from my EP rate). What I am seeing is that most of the AI civs are busy research the very same thing. A few outliers, but by an large, they all have the same targets.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by Jvstin


That is high praise indeed.

Rome on 640K a day got me hooked on Civ I and the rest is, well, History.

Actually, I just found out that Vel's strategy guide is for sale on Amazon.com. I went ahead and bought a copy. Sure, I don't play it anymore, but I definitely got $15.00's worth of use out of it.

[Verrucosus]

Be careful, every time I look into that book it means "bye, Civ4" and I'm off to Alpha Centauri for a few nights.

Kinjiru, there was a strange AI research pattern in one of my games during the industrial era. Three empires of the same religious group went repeatedly (three, maybe four times) for the same technology, but as soon as one them got there, they all switched projects. Now, of course, it is possible to buy the advance currently researched, but the slower researchers should eventually have nothing left to trade away to the research leader. This observation is purely anecdotal and I wouldn't myself read too much into this.

[Stratovaria]

Ive noticed something, well, odd in the Bts games, normally, i like to build in relative peace, and usually despite leading technologically and in score, sooner or later, they decide to attack. (ghandi loves doing this, along with that one celtic leader. It usually happens with mounted war elephants, or a mounted unit/ catapult assault) But one time, i picked one of the defensive military types, and went again to building up, and no matter what i did, or who i supported, (ragnar, who no one liked) that everyone loved me, despite being two or three tiers ahead, (riflemen to axemen as an example) After isabella and the other indian leader were destroyed by ragnar, i researched all the way to future techs, and changed my religon civic to the bottom one, and noticed everyone immediately went from friendly to cautious. I guess to ask, do the warlike civs really focus on what your religon is more than the peacefull ones do? (Everyone had picked the buddist religon.)

[Verrucosus]

If Buddhism had been your state religion before adopting the "Free Religion" civic, you lost the relationship bonus for "brothers of faith" which is quite strong (+4 maybe?). When combined with a military ratio in your favour even an aggressive civilization will think twice before attacking you.

I don't have a lot of experience with "Beyond the Sword" yet, but I wonder whether the choosing of Buddhism by everyone (which is rare) has something to do with the Apostolic Palace. Unless you can prevent the Palace's religion from entering your territory (Theocracy), you will want to spread it as much as possible to increase your number of votes and prevent the Palace Resident from gaining a religious victory. Once you have done it, there are incentives for switching to the palace religion (being able to run for resident yourself, full membership bonuses, easier diplomacy with other members). While other factors can and often will counter these incentives, it may well be that we will see games with a single dominant religion and the diplomatic consequences that flow from that more often than we used to. Does anyone else have the impression that the Apostolic Palace rules could have such a profound effect on the general flow of the game?

[Stratovaria]

I played without the diplomacy option, so it never showed up (if it helps, i've been wondering about trying it, but at least now, you have a religous pyramid wonder) , i've been hesitant about ever trying to use that because of the computer winning via diplomacy in every game i tried with it on (It loved to do that, especially when i got ahead technologically) . I will say this i've noted in that same game, if you can spend points on espionage and maintain a tech advantage, do so, doubly so if you can enter their lands via roads (every turn i found a spy from some civ in my lands, and thats before in the peacefull turns. ill show how having a huge espionage pool can save you a ton of headaches, especially when they start sabotaging.) With enough spending, and a spy built within a turn or two movement wise, you can keep a city in constant revolt. (I used my great spies to boost what i got in espionage points, as noted below in the image, and i got quite a few close to 8 of them, the other majority is in washington.) Thank you again for the advice with slavery, its insane on a good food city, i never used to touch that civic. The image below is my founding city, and it supplies 1/6th of my total espionage points for all my cities. (20+ of them)

[MattDoyle]

Kinjiru, there was a strange AI research pattern in one of my games during the industrial era. Three empires of the same religious group went repeatedly (three, maybe four times) for the same technology, but as soon as one them got there, they all switched projects. Now, of course, it is possible to buy the advance currently researched, but the slower researchers should eventually have nothing left to trade away to the research leader

I have noticed something similar which would involve the AI come to me with an offer of a tech for money, and it was usually a tech they had been researching and had about 100-200 beakers left on it, and they would offer a token amount of money for it. I had never seen this prior to BTS. So perhaps the AI that would research whichever tech it was first would then trade the last beakers around to the other guys for token sums of gold?

[Verrucosus]

That is probably what happened and it would explain why it could go on for an extended period of time. I have seen offers both of and for partially researched techs even in the standard Civ4 game. When I was offered the tech I was researching at the time I sometimes accepted to buy it for a reduced price to start the next project a few turns sooner. However, without espionage it wasn't possible to see their research progress and asses the value of a technology to them, so I almost never gave one away for a low price that they offered perhaps because they had partially researched it. This may change now.