Continents - are there enough turns to adequately look to conquer other continents?

[BigWilly1974]

I've a history of preferring, and thus most often playing, Pangaea maps. First, I haven't been the biggest fan of naval combat in the past. Second, I find it less likely to get what I consider a poor starting position on Pangaea rather than multi-continent maps.

In BTS so far, I've played a few Pangaea maps, and a few with Continents. I'm making a conscious effort to enjoy the full Civ experience, rather than the somewhat one-dimensional all land map. I have won the most of my Pangaea starts, lost all of my Continent starts despite some close games against the AI.

I find that continents has to be harder to win, or at least harder to win the game earlier. You have to divide your military between land and sea, and in BTS with the AI making it more difficult to actually steamroll AI cities, less land units is obviously going to slow down one's expansionistic efforts. Not to mention when it comes time to look to other continents for enemies, or if you run out of run to expand on home continent, the logistics of ferrying so many troops across is slow. Supply lines are longer to reinforce, and even if/when you do take the enemies cities on another continents, surely they have to be harder to hold on to. And then what about the drain on the economy of having a far flung city?

Just curious to see how others feel about land maps vs other maps with lots of water and multiple continents. Which do you prefer? Why? And do you find it impacts significantly on the time (in turns) it takes to win and final score?

[franklinbenini]

Play Big and Small. GG

[LDiCesare]

Having different continents (i.e. neither Pangaea nor land-only maps like Great Plains) creates a very different game.
Of all the map scripts generating several continents, Terra is special since it provides a continent that is not settled to begin with. It's the closest to Pangaea in the sense you can rush everyone with land units if you're fast enough, so it would deserve special consideration.
Other scripts make for harder games imo because you may control your continent and realize the efforts you spend on war were used by other civs to build up science and they can now destroy you easily thanks to their better tech.
Now, invading with ships, transports, is much much more complex than just spamming catapults and your best land unit.
I personnally prefer maps where I don't know if there'll be one or more continent. I only hate those where I am alone on my continent.

[mdrago]

I always play Custom_Continents with 6 continents / 18 civs / marathon.
The reason for 6 continents is that with more continents the AI is going to control less cities because of the land-mass. It's no problem for the AI to handle over 50 cities, but for me, more than 25 becomes a problem.

Another big issue, as you say, is city mant. due to distance from palace. It's okay to conquer in your continent, but you have to think it twice before going offshore. Main problems here are:
- You can only set "one foot" (take one city) in another continent until "State Property" or your economy gets it!
- If you take 1 city in another continent with, lets say, 6 units, be prepared to deploy "very very quickly" at least 18 units more to defend that city... Your rival has all his units in that continent where you just conquer a city and it's going to trhow everything he got at you
- A normal "conboy" of unit to conquer a city in another continent isn't something you can do in 20 turn like in a Pangea map. You need to carefully plan the attack. In my experience, it takes up to 80 turns
- Also, I find very usefull to declare war and not to attack until at least 15 turns passed. In turn 16 I land, in turn 17 i take the city and in turn 18 I try to look for peace. If you attack as soon as you declare war, you have to witstand a full wave of onemy attack in your new city for at least 10 turns

A very frustating factor is that if your rival gets "infantry" or better it's going to be very hard to conquer anything. In a continents game you need to set your foot as soon as you can in other continents; it's harder to do as time passes.

Eventually one of your caravels are going to find an "empty spot" in another contient and you'll be tempted to send a settler... don't bother without proper defense (15 units at least); in a decent dificulty level the "owners" of the contient where you just fund a city are going to attack you in a few turns.

But there are also good things... like when master and vassal are in different continents. You can attack the vassal freely, knowing that when masters reinforcements arrives it's going to be too late

[LDiCesare]

You can only set "one foot" (take one city) in another continent until "State Property" or your economy gets it!

No, that's what Forbidden Palace, and Versailles, are for.
Versailles, if built by someone else, makes a very good target city.
Where it becomes really problematic is if you want to conquer land on more than your own + 1 other continent. With Versailles you may get 3 continents (one with palace, one Versailles and one the Forbidden Palace) but then you're stuck.
However, at that time, if you've got the means of conquering land, you don't need to keep it, you can just raze everything on the fourth continent. Alternately with Warlords, make an ai capoitulate, or with BtS create a colony.

[mdrago]

Well, in theory you are rigth, in practice, not.

The FP should be built in YOUR continent once you take all of it.
The Palace should be built on a continent you are starting to take to minimize mant. effect.
Once your economy is balanced again, if you start to take another continent you rebuild your palace there.

It's really difficult to build the Versallies in another continent, normally the AI will beat you to it (if you build it in your continent you have a chance of course, but to do it in another continent will be really hard).

To be honest, I have enough problems trying to keep me people happy and with food in another continent (beacuse of cultural bordes) to even dare to build the Versallies.

[LDiCesare]

The FP should be built in YOUR continent once you take all of it.

When did I say the contrary?

Versailles I'll never build because the needed tech is always a gamble with zero benefit if you lose the gamble: no Islam and no wonders and you get a discount on nationalism. Yeah, great. But it makes a good target, and the civ which built it is your ideal target just because of that.

Now, if I control 2 continents, I usually win through time/space race/diplomacy rather than finish the other civs militarily, but I'm not much of a warmonger.

[LDiCesare]

food in another continent (beacuse of cultural bordes)

I don't get the problem here. Put your city. Its borders can't grow? Either take the nearest enemy city or raze ir. I'll usually raze cities beyond the point where I can no longer expand. This gives lots of space to breathe even if the enemy rebuilds cities.

[marvinkosh]

If the number of turns is a concern, just turn off the 'Time' victory condition. You'll then be able to invade the other continents at a pace which suits you.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Versailles I'll never build because the needed tech is always a gamble with zero benefit if you lose the gamble

I don't quite agree with this. It's not too difficult to see who else has the potential to get Versailles. If nobody else has the tech or will anytime soon, and you start on it right away, and you have good production and/or spend a Great Engineer (by the way the commerce benefits are often well worth it, and the GE will almost perfectly pay for Versailles even if you have hardly any production), then it is not what I would call a "gamble". It's pretty much a sure thing.

Given that the new BtS corporations don't work with State Property, Versailles becomes much more important.

Wodan

[mdrago]

Hello LDiCesare
I dont play time / space race... only Conquest / Domination and sometimes diplomatic victory also.

I don't get the problem here. Put your city. Its borders can't grow? Either take the nearest enemy city or raze ir. I'll usually raze cities beyond the point where I can no longer expand. This gives lots of space to breathe even if the enemy rebuilds cities.

You say it like it's an easy thing to do...

Given that the new BtS corporations don't work with State Property, Versailles becomes much more important.

That's really a shame... State Property is a must in huge maps

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by wodan11
Given that the new BtS corporations don't work with State Property, Versailles becomes much more important.

Actually, Versailles becomes much less important with BTS. The "another continent" city maintainance is not affected by Versailles or the Forbidden Palace. So if you get more than 4-5 cities on another continent, you will cripple your economy. At that point, the only realistic option is to form a colony - which is fine, but then if you built Versailles, the new colony would get it.

Bh

[snoopy369]

State Property is still important, now it's just a choice...

[One_more_turn]

I concur, State Property is great for multi-continent empires.

For example my current empire, which spans over 3 continents, has seen its surplus gold per turn increasing from 300 gp to 600 gp after switching from Free Market to State Property.

[LDiCesare]

Actually, Versailles becomes much less important with BTS. The "another continent" city maintainance is not affected by Versailles or the Forbidden Palace.

Yes, the colony costs from another continent make me reconsider my view on several continents in BtS. Versailles looks even less useful by the way. I had colonial costs equal to 3 times the distance to palace cost in one game, where I still had more cities on my mainland than on the conquered continent (one water tile away). BtS colonial costs probably kill continent maps for me. I think I'll mod this out.