Changing Civics

[DrSpike]

6 (or just over) turns of anarchy sounds spot on to me, as I would usually throw in a couple of extra switches in the kind of games Blake obviously likes most.

Time to start reducing that 30 Rah.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by rah
I've had representation do that.
Free religion can later in the game
Merchantism if you have the money. free scientists in all your cities can be quite helpful. (under the right circumstances)
Caste system if you have the food surplus.

Maybe you should be using the civics a bit more.
I've seen drastic differences.

Please post an example, and explain to all us idiot non-switchers how you can make a repeatable gain that would make 30 switches worthwhile. Face it, you switch too much, and I'm actually just trying to help.

Originally posted by rah
Of course this probably explains your MP games.

Well I shouldn't reply to this as it's beneath me really, but I will. I was one of the top (5 I think, higher than that for duels) players on the main Civ4 ladder before retiring. You should check your facts.

[rah]

I was just yanking the chain on the mp comment.
Actually kind of hoping it would goad you into joining one of our games

I did count the last game I played and it was only 18 so 30 may have been a slightly high estimate. I'll have to watch it more closely but if I see a benefit I'll still do it.
In MP games I seem to switch about 50% less frequently. Probably due to less testing of strats and more focus on destruction.

Thanks for posting Blake, I always learn something when you post. (I didn't realize point #5, probably because most of my games are MP when it doesn't matter) And you point out that it's a situational game. And some situations beg for changes. I'm still investigating different paths in games since repeating a strat in MP games makes you more predictable and more prone to disruptions and defeat.

My biggest problem with the game is focus. I always make a plan but get easily sidetracked.

[DrSpike]

Who is in the all-new civving group?

[rah]

We've been playing with Toni, (who since seems to have migrated to the aussie game)
Master Dave,
Freakmon
Baron O
Deity Dude
Berserker
Ming
And a handful of others that have joined for a game or two.
We're still trying to generate a larger consistent players list, but people are always welcome.

[DrSpike]

Nice to see Deity Dude, Berz and Baron O still play. Civ4 seems to have captured way more of the ol' stick in the muds than Civ3 did.

[rah]

Yep, I can remember playing only one civIII game with warforever just to see if it worked. After about 100 turns we were both bored and gave up and went back to civ II. IV has considerably more promise. I just wish the simul play worked better, (in terms of double movement, end and beginning of next turn) A player should not be penalized for not stalling his turn till everyone else moved. It's my only real gripe about IV. I know we could play it by turn but that would take way way to long.

[DrSpike]

Oddly enough that is one of the reasons I quit ladder.

[rah]

I've tried to institute a rules set of honor to get around this flaw but have met with too much resistence. Which I can't seem to undestand. Stalling moves should not be strategy. I don't mind when its one unit on one unit on a random encounter but when abused by SODs, I have a real problem.

The other night I moved a SOD a couple of squres away from a city and I guess I should have made everyone wait 5 minutes to be sure they had all moved before I did it. My opponent attacked with all his elephants and mostly desimated the stack, (which was expected because I wanted to trash the attackers) but he advanced the turn and moved all the damaged elephants back into the city before my fingers could touch the keyboard, so they were never exposed.

THAT"S JUST NOT RIGHT. and there are a lot of people that see no problem with it. It shouldn't be a game of chicken on how long you delay your turn and EVERYONE ELSE, just to take advantage of a game flaw. Timers aren't the answer. HONOR IS.

Sorry, [/rant off]

[couerdelion]

Civics might be viewed as progressive or even. The more progressive a series is, the more likely you are to make few switches as you “move up the ladder”. But there are others where different civics work well in different circumstances and the obvious example might be circumstances when you might move between periods of warring and building. Eg Org Rel vs Theocracy. These are ones where I can see the temptation for players to oscillate between the two using the simple idea that +25% production is good for buildings and +2 experience is good for units.

I think the problem with this way of thinking comes from how we determine the value from the civics and look too much at the positives and not enough at the negatives. It’s all very well to say that Org Rel gives +25% production but this does not mean that we will be running with a net surplus 5 turns later. In this particular case

Turn value of civic = Total extra production less total extra cost
Lost through anarchy = 100% of food, production, science, gold, culture and GPP

If we suppose that production makes up 20% of the total turn value of your civs and that the org religion civic increases total production by 12-15% (probably generous) but that the cost of the civic is worth about 5% of production. This gives the net increase from the civic at 7-10% of production so that the lost production from anarchy will be repaid in 10-14 turns. Since production makes up only 20% of the total output from this civilisation, it would need 50-70 turns to recover the lost anarchy and, if we also allow for “opportunity costs” of getting certainly buildings, techs, units earlier, might even need up to 100 turns to break-even.

I know it’s just an example and heaped full of assumptions and “back-of-the-envelope” calculations, but it indicates that anarchy is ‘spensive and that, if you only switch civic you’d better know what youse doing.

Of course, if you can’t compare food, production, science, gold etc then you’re playing blind anyway so wouldn’t recognised structured logical play from just a basic gut-feel play that is good enough to beat another player who has even less idea

[rah]

Yeah and all that may be true, but
If I'm racing to pyramids and a civic change will cost me a turn of anarchy but let me build it a few turns quicker so I beat someone else to it or just end up with a wad of cash it can modify the calculation. It's hard to calculate in every potiential cost. Especially if you're in the heat of an MP game where time is pressing and you never know how long you opponent may last.

My gut is the result of a lot of money invested in beer, so sometimes you just have to follow the money.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Blake
Goverment:
Typically 2-4 switches a game. With pyramids it may occasionally make sense to run Rep all game. More usually a progression of hereditary rule -> Rep -> Suffrage will be used, or H.Rule -> Police State (for "Steel" Domination - the final switch done upon capturing Pyramids).

I don't really see why you would use both rep and sufferege in one game, as non-spiritual. When do you switch from rep to sufferege, and why? If sufferage works better with your stratagy, why not go right to it and skip rep?

[Blake]

Normally I'm running Merchantalism when a domination is in full swing, this is because i have no friends, and if i do, they'd gain vastly more trade income than I would. So Rep gives me a significant beaker bonus from the free specialists. If my science situation is dire enough I might even justifty switching it by itself (probably if I get it by capturing Pyramids soon after switching to merchantalism). It'd be more likely to get piggybacked in with something else.

Also a factor is that it frees up a few garrisons in my largest cities...


edit: Furthermore, I'm likely to use Suffrage if I abort the domination and decide to launch instead, or quickly tech to stealth bombers & co, I usually have mad gold income from markets, grocers and banks everywhere - note the Rep research bonus vanishes once I switch from Merc to State Property.
Police State is obviously for when I've decided I don't need to research anymore and am just going to pump out cannons until everything is buried.

[Blake]

couerdelion, as Rah suggested... sometimes you REALLY want one thing - like a certain wonder, so in terms of making your plan suceed, +25% is really +25%.

Also if you decide that no further research will help a domination win, a +25% bonus to training units is quite easily evaluated - normally the existing bonus will be +25%, so it's really +20%, but still only 5 turns to pay off....

And in some cases it's literally more profitable to be in anarchy, if your economy just really stinks.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by QuixotesGhost


Oh, I totally disagree. Being able to start with City Raider II right out of the barracks makes a huge impact. Or instant Cover, Pinch, or Shock. I always make Theology a priority if I'm planning on going on the warpath.

The main problem is one of timing. You'll want Org. Religeon to get forges up. Plus Theocracy is better the earlier you get it, when you'll be relying on swords, axes and maces instead of knights and calvary for your heavy hitting. I think melee units get a more out of experience then almost any other unit. So it's good to get when you'll be relying on melee units more.

2 XP is less than you get for most combats so a City Raider Sword or Mace will be CR II by the time they have had their first raid.

Apart from very early on, I will usually have one or two CR III to get the stronger defenders so there is always someone there for my rookie units to get the extra experience they need to make up the difference that they would have got from Theocracy.

I also rarely use Knights for attacking cities. Attack strength for hammers make Mace Raiders much better and the real strength of the Knight is that they have the movement bonus - so better for hitting stray enemy units.

I think I use the same argument for Cavalry. By then I'll have CR III Grenadiers so once again the Cavalry get relegated to a scouting, raiding, supporting role.

But I agree with your point that, from an offensive perspective, Melee units seems to get the bigger bonuses. It's the raider promotion that isn't open to Archers and Gunpowder