Japan Strategy

[MJW]

Sigh. Your almost all right Blake. I now understand what relems beyond stands for. The only minor 'error' is that all games are broken. Some of them are not. However, this does not matter because they are VERY different from TBS.

I was unaware of point 3. I now respect the playtesters of firaxis. Sulla looked kinda of silly when he did not know about the extrme overpoweredness of the rush. However, it would be immoral to talk about how good the playtesters where due to the gag order by Fireaxis. Besides we can see how good Sirian is in his writings. He also pushed to make the game more balanced.

There might be away to make a good unbroken TBS game but that would take way to much money. It won't happen. Period. Thinking about what would happen if this was not the case (how going around doing it) is pointless.

One last thing I think you would like to join the interstate Civ4 demogame for fun. You could just lurk and see what happens for fun.

However, it should be noted that the InterState demogames tend to be even more insane than the intrasite ones. This is not a major problem if you are just lurking for fun. There was some laugh out loud funny moments to.

Edit: Civ4 demo game started some time ago. I'm such a loser.

[Blake]

Every game gets min-maxed and "broken" to a lesser or greater degree, unless the game is conceptually extremely simple, Go for instance.

[Brutus66]

Blake,
After playing quite a few games, I have learned Civ the hard way and have reached on my own the same conclusions you mention in your "Strategy 101" post.
The only area where I differ is, as the early game progresses, I have to at some point hurry and produce some archers (for city defense) and chariots (for protecting developed resources) to deal with the barb axeman onslaught I know is going to materialize.
I notice you only mention producing offensive units, so I am assuming your preferred strategy is sending units out and lighting up the map rather than building any defense specialists like archers?

[Krill]

Actually I find it better to just slaughter tjhose barbs for experience. I'll build offensive troops and use them for barb duty until they get the 2nd promotion then add them to my army and replace them with newly built units.

[Arrian]

The primary purpose of barbs, in my games, is to provide me with a 10xp unit early so I can build the HE. And maybe to provide me with a city or two that I didn't have to settle myself

Otherwise...

Blake
Sirian

Believe me, Sirian and the other testers/designers REALLY tried to balance this game, and I think that it was done reasonably well. Perfection is unattainable, of course.

-Arrian

[Krill]

There is one other strategy that can be followed as well...go after all of the holy cities that you can and keep them and spread that religion as best you can; that will provide quite alot of extra gold to keep you warmongering for longer. As you ought to have a fair bit of production spreading the religion via missionaries shouldn't be too hard, \nd with each extra religion you can build one extra temple to speed along the Great Priest.

[ben04]

Originally posted by Blake

Nope.
Higher production + catapults solve.

Not having construction when they have maces may be a problem, but really, a warmonger techs quite quickly due to the sack bonuses. There is really little downside to going a'conquering as a warmonger leader. Even as a non-warmonger leader.

You're the warmonger who has to attack to keep the economy going. If you don't sack gold and haven't got your economy running you wont tech.

If the other person occupies strategic locations thus uses defensive bonuses correctly you will need more than 2 axes to take out a maze. Rather 3 to 4. Remember the other one will probably have barracks. Vassalage and a few instructor are also possible. Also a maze that survives 3 to 4 waves of axes will gain a lot of experience. So don't count on having non promoted opponents. With a much higher base strength the percent promotions also kick better in. From combat 1 an axe gets +0.5 strength but a maze 0.8

Catapults have to be used in the offensive but are ripped apart if used alone. So you have to protect them, with a stack as only a few axes will not live long. Very vulnerable to catapults itself your construct. With catapults having also 5 points but not getting collateral damage they will move quickly to the top of the stack. Top of the stack for catapults = meat.

How many shock horse archers do you have?

Elephants on the other hand can be a though nut so cut of the ivory.

Of course if as a builder you wait to long to take the key cities of your opponents you're meat. If the warmonger comes too early you're also meat. Warmongering is a more certain way to victory.

[Krill]

Actually in Warlords cats alone are the best attackers, so long as you have a few cover units...

[MJW]

Originally posted by Blake
Every game gets min-maxed and "broken" to a lesser or greater degree, unless the game is conceptually extremely simple, Go for instance.

Well, at least for computer games. Civ4 dominated by uberideas if you play to win. Some RTS (MP of course) games are not that way for example. However, the have to be patched a lot and they get bended. In other words broken to a small degree. As in some ideas are overpowered but the human can deal with it.

So you are right if we use your meaning of broken.

The ai bonus problem, the overload production vector in warmongering, the lack of difference in two tiers of power in units, crappy ai early game defense, the distance bettween the two tiers of tech, the slavery hammer bonus in the early game (with the two-pop whip trick), ai's not reacting to your attacks, the underpowerdness of techs, the lack of abilty to outplay the ai's better after the early game and much much more come together to make the econ-sucide axe rush crush (Blake's strat 101) all come together to make it the best idea of the game. It is kinda of pointless to say which one of those breaks the game because it will not change a lot. There is no way to fix it by moding. I think it is the Ai's problem at the end of the day. If it could defend itself correctly from rushes then it could at least stall the human player so much than the other ai's could get a two-tier tech lead. They would then use it against the human.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by ben04

If the other person occupies strategic locations thus uses defensive bonuses correctly you will need more than 2 axes to take out a maze. Rather 3 to 4. Remember the other one will probably have barracks. Vassalage and a few instructor are also possible. Also a maze that survives 3 to 4 waves of axes will gain a lot of experience. So don't count on having non promoted opponents. With a much higher base strength the percent promotions also kick better in. From combat 1 an axe gets +0.5 strength but a maze 0.8

I think Blake was simply saying that Axes can do the job if you don't have Construction yet. But something must be wrong if your neighbour has MACES (requiring Civil Service, Machinery, Metal Casting and either Feudalism or Code of Law) while you don’t have Construction. So in general, Catapults will do the job.

But returning to the Axe vs Mace debate, defensive bonuses will certainly help the defender but don’t forget also that we are discussing an AGG vs Non-AGG battle in which the Axes have Combat I and Shock against Maces with just Combat II

That’s 5 + 85% vs 8 + 60% = 5+25% vs 8 or 5 vs 6.4

If the mace is fortified it’s 5 v 8 (2 axes will be enough for most kills)
If the mace also is on a hill and the cities culture is 60% then it’s 5 vs 14.8 and perhaps we might need 4 axes for this one. But once against we may also have something slightly anachronistic if they have got a 750 culture city and you have just emerged from of the Ancient Era – possible but rare.

As for those maces acquiring experience, the only way they will do that is if you allow them to. As a simple rule you kill them before they promote

[MJW]

Maybe a skilled human player can withstead the assult of axes. But there is no way to program the AI to do it. This does not matter for Civ4 unless it is multiplayer. It does matter from a game making angle.

Axe vs. Mace might make a good varaint game to find out which is stronger in player vs player. However, the guy who rushed with the axes would attack before the mace player could get his maces and cursh him.

When I mean broken I meant there is one or two uberideas in the game. And doing these ideas are boring because it is the same thing every time.

[Blake]

In fairness it is possible to get maces pretty quick with tech trading in an MP environment. In the Teach Alexman game I was astounded by the tech pace, of course I was one of the ones milking tech trading, so no biggy :P. I think I was the 3rd player (out of something like a dozen) with Maces, this was being the largest player too by a significant margin (in terms of area, mfg and food). What I did was trade Philo (lightbulbed) for both Machinery and Civil Service. It's worth noting that being so large I could easily afford to set a city aside to run the scientists.

The basic thing is, Big != Slow. A big, well managed empire will research very nearly as quickly as a smaller one (often faster!) and with a few tricks (like lightbulb + shrewd trading) slow research can be mitigated anyway. Of course all the research in the world doesn't help a player who doesn't trade techs well.

It's worth noting that due to the phenomenal tech pace of the Teach Alexman game, units go obsolete VERY quickly. Under that kind of environment only sheer numeric superiority and riding the steamroller of obsolescence (rather than going under it) can prevail in an offensive war.

Offense IS hard in CIV (at least on normal and quick speed). I think that success really involves being A LOT more aggressive than your victim is expecting. One of the limitations of the AI is that it never really expects that much aggression, that's why being highly aggressive and gearing the entire economy for war is effective.

Above i mentioned game speed. Many players play on epic or even marathon in order to milk warmongering more. Normal is quite a lot more balanced, a badly executed war can easily result in you running into Longbows, while there's also less time to take advantage of a temporary military tech disparity. Players are free to to play on Epic and Marathon all the time, if they wish. Such players will certainly experience warmongering to be a lot overpowered.

The AI can be outplayed at any point of the game. It's just as easy to outtech the AI in the industrial era as it is to axe rush them in the Ancient. Really, the axe rush just concludes the game faster.

The point of conquering is often not so much to get an economic advantage, but to get a buffer of cities against being invaded. Given that defense is easy and offense is hard, having a buffer of cities lets you run a long, relatively painless defensive war against invaders.

It's equally possible to secure your position through Diplomacy. I've had Monty+Nappy neighbor games where I've converted both those charming chaps to my side through religion and diplomacy, teching into space with less than average land area.

I'd go so far as to say that WITH the right start, wonders and peace are even stronger than warmongering. Grab a couple of key wonders and the game is in the bag. The real strategy is knowing when to employ such a strategy.

That players can always win with axe rushes, just means that the AI will consistently die to anything, at that difficultly and under those settings. If they are skilled at the peacemongering game they could probably also always win with peacemongering.

Please excuse me for being annoyed that many players think that warmongering is the only way to win in CIV. It's an important aspect of the game to master because it can be needed for getting out of tight spots, but warmongering is not always the most effective strategy.

The main thing is that peacemongering strategies are more nuanced and harder to explain, they involve more adaption and more planning, there are far more "it depends" qualifications attached to advice.
There's a reason I called warmongering "CIV strategy 101" . Because it's simple to understand and a good start for learning. It's especially applicable to Japan who have the least rights to win by other strategies (Japan is basically the worst civ for getting wonders and religions).

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Krill
Actually in Warlords cats alone are the best attackers, so long as you have a few cover units...

QFT.

Though provided enough space, I prefer to build for the most part. I'm better at building than I am at conquest, and I like it better too. I tend to fight only to carve out a dominant position in my corner of the world (and maybe get a GG to add to my HE city for 5xp units off the line) and then sit back and build.

-Arrian

[ben04]

I think Blake was simply saying that Axes can do the job if you don't have Construction yet. But something must be wrong if your neighbour has MACES (requiring Civil Service, Machinery, Metal Casting and either Feudalism or Code of Law) while you don’t have Construction. So in general, Catapults will do the job.

By tech trading or a good start + oracle to get CS. Math isn't that expensive if you have a good start. With the +50% from Bureaucracy you're quick at Machinery. On a bad start you have to warmonger. On good starts I regularly have them at 500 BC.

But returning to the Axe vs Mace debate, defensive bonuses will certainly help the defender but don’t forget also that we are discussing an AGG vs Non-AGG battle in which the Axes have Combat I and Shock against Maces with just Combat II

That’s 5 + 85% vs 8 + 60% = 5+25% vs 8 or 5 vs 6.4

Strange if I do the calculation I get:

5 + 85% = 9.25
8 + 60% = 12.8

That's a difference of 3.55 points. If I check in the game it's

8.80 vs 6.75

which is still a difference of 2.05 It seems as if the game cancels out the unit modifiers that depend on the enemy unit type as percents meaning +50% cancels out +50% no matter what the base strength is. General modifiers however depend on the base strength. Meaning combat promotions are worth more for mazes than for axes.

Considering that mazes live longer than axes you can also throw in a second promotion. If you choose shock it becomes (checked):
8.80 vs 5.50, difference = 3.30
If you choose combat II then
9.60 vs 6.75, difference = 2.85

I haven't checked how fortifications now factors in however I often kill axes using mazes and I can assure you that 2 will not be enough! I however most of the time use them offensive. They can break axe/archer protected cities with nearly no loose without having to bring catapults into the game. Against longbows you will have a few loose but you wont come across that many if you rush.

mazes are basically the point where I eat my near neighbors. The first one is usually dead by around 0bc. The other follow quick until longbows come across in masses.

The main downside of mazes is their slowness. 1 movement point really isn't much. That's why I then wait till cavalry. After that the game normally is over. If it isn't flight will finish it. Not that I couldn't finish it earlier but I hate long draining wars. Either win quickly or make peace.

I'd go so far as to say that WITH the right start, wonders and peace are even stronger than warmongering. Grab a couple of key wonders and the game is in the bag. The real strategy is knowing when to employ such a strategy.

I can only agree with you there.

[Kuciwalker]

Guys, I'm pretty sure Combat is actually a -10% to the opposing unit, not +10% to your own. That reverses the equation.