FIN : Most overrated trait

[Kataphraktoi]

That being the case, rabid effie is not NEARLY the mandatory requirement that it is on deity level, which opens the door up for the multitude of other approaches that have been discussed and proven successful.

Id just like to note that i have used my cottage heavy strategies also on deity with success I dont see how i could win on that level without cottages. Hammers? i need $ for support and unit costs. Like vel mentioned, i need a certain amount of baseline hammers. After a point though more hammers results in no real gains.

Just not yet in BTS. The deity\aggressive thing is just to painful(and deity is no fun anyway)

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi


Id just like to note that i have used my cottage heavy strategies also on deity with success I dont see how i could win on that level without cottages. Hammers? i need $ for support and unit costs. Like vel mentioned, i need a certain amount of baseline hammers. After a point though more hammers results in no real gains.

Just not yet in BTS. The deity\aggressive thing is just to painful(and deity is no fun anyway)

I'm no specialist on the matter of playing at Deity level having only once ventured there when I knew far less about the game than I do now. I'm sure there are some serious problems there which require adapting methods successful at the "easier" level to the conditions faced by the deity player.

There are, for example, certain critical thresholds to overcome in an overly aggressive style. Below these your costs run your economy to a standstill with no way out. Cottages and libraries (and trade) are crucial early game requirements if you are out a-plundering (although AI cottages are nice too ) and are stretching your meagre resources.

With Deity level, I would expect the threshold to be lower so you need to do a little more on the commerce side to complement an aggressive strategy. I'm only presuming that it cannot be too much more because this would ultimately mean that you have to pursue a commerce-seeking strategy to the almost total exclusion of hammers. Even my limited experience of Deity tells me that your neighbouring AI is going to DOW you as soon as look at you if you are even remotely vulnerable.

Speculating further, I imagine that a lot of Deity strategies rely heavily on selective bee-line research and some tech trading. This, in turn, is a strategy that is vulnerable if you are playing a militarist game - AI's still tend to dislike you declaring war and razing their cities. At the very least, such a strategy needs to be accompanied by some astute diplomacy which I imagine is also that much harder at the highest level.

Of course, the danger with such speculation is that it is based on very limited information so could be hopelessly wide of the mark. But that’s all I’m ever likely to do with Deity level because I tend to find those games to be no fun and am therefore unlikely to spend much time finding out what they are really like. At a stretch I can get some enjoyment at Immortal level but even here the games can have a tendency to become very linear.

One problem with us speaking from these different contexts is that our relative views are distorted by the context in which we see them. When we talk about a hammer-oriented approach vs a commerce-oriented approach, none of us even imagines ourselves to be 100% hammer-oriented or 100% commerce-oriented. We are merely indicating a general level of preference relative to where we think others are. It could be possible that my view of a production focus may be considered by some to be overly commerce focussed. It is certainly true that the value I place on hammers is more than I place on commerce but I would still generally take and 3 commerce instead of 2 hammers (given the choice) unless I had a more pressing need for the hammers.

Likewise, there will occasionally be times when I have already built what I want to build and only have the choice of marginal builds like more axemen, archers, walls, courthouses etc when I am quite happy with my military for the foreseeable future. In those circumstances, I may want to be more flexible and switch a city focus to science. For one thing, this will get me to the next level of military technology and enable me to embark on a further round of conquests sooner.

But commerce really only comes into play for me after the initial expansion burst. I still consider that hammers and food are the No1 priority at that stage of the game and commerce will only come into play if it is either a no-brainer (working a gems tile), or if I need to generate a little commerce to maintain a basic rate of tech progression. It is only after the initial expansion phase is over when I will more think about leveraging the city base to generate science.

[Velociryx]

Exceedingly well said, Master Lionheart!

I would prolly put myself nearer the other end of that spectrum. I typically view food and commerce as the number one priorities, and drop into a hammer heavy focus in spurts, typically right after I discover a tech that gives me new toys to play with (axemen, or libs, especially, if we're talking about the early game).

Until I *get* something coolio to build, those hammers are going to net me warriors (cos if I'm building workers and settlers, then my food specials are going to do most of that heavy lifting, and--again, really early game--if I need hammers, I'll get them most probably from a forested hill. So my focus is usually askance from yours, but it sounds like we both wind up in the same place.

-=Vel=-

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I would prolly put myself nearer the other end of that spectrum. I typically view food and commerce as the number one priorities...

-=Vel=-

Is this because you want to reach tech parity sooner? It's certainly true that this can be a disadvantage in the early game when the AI has a headstart on everything that you want. So getting to parity and beyond is useful in that it opens up more choices.

But I've started more and more to be content to live with this initial disadvantage knowing that certain, relatively simple strategies will get me there almost as quickly but will leave me stronger (in terms of production and commerce) than the cottage economy approach.

Ironically, I would say that the more aggressive-style is a more varied game than the peaceful one. Not only does a larger empire outtech a smaller one, but a more powerful empire simply has more options than a smaller one. It's more likely to adopt less popular civics like Mercantilism, can generally feel free to pick and choose it's friends, can bully it's weaker neighbours. Another irony of the aggressive strategy is that it will try to acquire coherent, easy to defend borders which amay even reduce military upkeep costs - a larger population certainly does. Over the long term, those axemen really do earn their keep.

By contrast, the overly peaceful builder still has to defend their territory, is likely to have fewer diplomatic to be require careful diplomatic choices. Life, on the whole, is harder for the small peaceful civ.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....it's a good question....I would say in answer that there are certain "lock points" for me in the game.

Certain strategic crossroads that I like to arrive at quickly (as quickly as possible, in fact...even at the expense of hammers), to properly assess the overall situation.

The first of these lock points is to understand the copper situation.

I'll work whatever commerce rich tiles I can in order to get to Bronze Working more quickly, and discern not only where the copper is, but to secure some for myself if at all possible.

And of course, if I find myself in a location that is lacking in copper, now I have "lost time" if you will, so the pressure is on to find a substitute (typically in the form of horses next)...this will see me *keep* that commerce centric focus to race ahead to see what the horse situation looks like (all the while, expanding at as rapid a clip as I am able, and all this while pursuing other agendas....henge/oracle --> Confucianism, or oracle --> metalcasting (and sometimes monarchy), or other things that strike me as useful for the particular game I'm in.

My idea of a "peaceful builder" game typically looks like this:

grab copper, crush one neighbor very early (pop rushing axes usually, so hammer counts really don't matter much), and use the real estate vaccuum to achieve "critical mass" with my civ (which is essentially, at the end of the expansion phase, to have a larger land area than any of my rivals)....armed with more tiles, the game's a foregone conclusion.

having said that, however, I'm ever-watchful for the opportunity to grow in peace, and my most recent game provided me just such an opportunity (I played a random civ game, drew Mansa Musa, with neighbors Shaka, Izzy, and Salad....was able to expand to fifteen cities before all the land was gobbled up...have yet to go to war at all...largest land area, population, production, and food...second largest GNP and growing by leaps and heaps....half the world is confucian, and Izzy is about six techs behind me (the only of my neighbors not "friendly")....the game's over.

It'll be fascinating to see how it plays out, of course, but I never even had a skirmish, and that was a nice change.

-=Vel=-

[couerdelion]

Couldn’t agree more on most of that. All things being equal – which they often may not be – Bronze-Working is not a tech that can be left too long. But I’ll want it as much for the whip as for the military uses. In my old age, I believe I may be turning into the production-whore that I used to think have very linear thinking.

Sid’s law states: Copper will never be accessible in situations where it is most important.

Terrain may demand variations around this theme but BW will be there or thereabouts.

Now the story of 15 cities without so much as a skirmish is surprising. Searching my memory, I can think of one game in which I managed to get 11 cities on a Huge Islands map playing as Ragnar. These were all bunched up on my half of the continent shared with Mao (having locked the bottle-neck with city No2). Cities 10 and 11 were barb cities (one of them a former AI city) on an island close to Mehmed.

More typically, I’ve managed to squeeze in around 7 cities before I reach the borders of my neighbours. Sometimes as many as 10 if I pack in lots of cities up to the limits of my cultural boundaries. But never as many as 15. What’s sounds odd is that the space needed for this would almost certainly be expected to be grabbed by the AI. Even if you are able to lock a land-bridge the sailing tech will usually allow the AI to bypass it. And any land left empty is bound to spawn barb cities – certainly with the sort of space needed for 15 cities.

Of course, if you can build 15 cities peacefully then I guess you can easily do this any not worry about a war. It sounds more than enough for a comfortable victory and if you are not going for a domination or conquest victory, then building can be centred around the chosen victory condition. Nothing wrong with that in my book – I have simply never found myself with sufficient space unless I take someone elses

[Kataphraktoi]

One problem with us speaking from these different contexts is that our relative views are distorted by the context in which we see them.

I was beginning to realize this after my last post. I have been playing huge\no barb for so long i tend to forget there are other settings. Also i play mostly maps like rainforest\plains\inland sea that heavily favor a cottage strategy with a ton of river basin turf. And the no barbs allows crazy expansion-yes, i usually get 15-17 core cities

Playing with barbs on seems something out of exploit land to me, since i will just switch to a industrial civ strategy and get GW every time for an even bigger advantage in growth. Its like dropping a difficulty level.

Good stuff here

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Okay, here's the math:

The first GP costs 100 GPP. The second costs 200 GPP. So, all together, the first two GP cost 300 GPP. And so on. Therefore the first N GP cost 100 * N * (N + 1) / 2. A good close approximation to this is that Cost(N GP) = 50 * N^2. A little algebra and you get a formula for how many GP you can get for a given total GPP: NumGP = sqrt(GPP / 50) (where sqrt is square root). Phi leaders will have +100% GPP, or twice as many, so substitute that in and you get NumGPforPhi = sqrt(2 * GPP / 50) = sqrt(2) * sqrt(GPP / 50) ~= 1.4 * sqrt(GPP / 50). Therefore a Phi leader will get about 1.4 times as many GP as a non-Phi leader for the same number of GPP.

(The Phi leader will also get them earlier, which is good too.)

edit: that logic was for Phi leaders and Great People, but it applies exactly the same to Imp leaders and Great Generals (or to the GG point bonus from the Great Wall).

So PHI doesnt get the 50%+ boost* i thought they did, but instead 40%+. But since they get them earlier they have time to get more, so maybe it still is 50%+.

*(i assumed since there were two factors and PHI doubled only 1 factor, the end result would be 50%+.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi


So PHI doesnt get the 50%+ boost* i thought they did, but instead 40%+. But since they get them earlier they have time to get more, so maybe it still is 50%+.

*(i assumed since there were two factors and PHI doubled only 1 factor, the end result would be 50%+.

It depends

Because the GPP thresholds are at fixed numbers, then you either get one or not. Better then to give an example comparing a PHI civ with a non-PHI civ that has generated 11 GPs. If the PHI civ had been playing EXACTLY the same game then it would be just short of 15 GPs

That doesn't sound a huge bonus and the reason is that it is the wrong measure for the value of the PHI civ - which is in the "speed" of the GP generation and not the absolute number.

Add to that, the PHI civ will tend to focus on GPP more so will get more GP anyway.

[Kuciwalker]

What 50%? Phi is just +100% GPP and cheap Universities.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by couerdelion


It depends

Because the GPP thresholds are at fixed numbers, then you either get one or not. Better then to give an example comparing a PHI civ with a non-PHI civ that has generated 11 GPs. If the PHI civ had been playing EXACTLY the same game then it would be just short of 15 GPs

I'd say even that is a poor example. Let's look at just one GP. Yes, just one (the first one).

Even without throwing any numbers out there, what's the value of having a GP earlier? You have to calculate the benefit of having (whatever it is) for X turns more. And, in many cases, having it earlier provides other benefits. For example, if you settle a great scientist, not only do you get +1 hammer and +3 (+6) science for X turns more, but you also have to consider that beakers earlier are much more valuable than beakers later. Why? Because those beakers are used to get Axes earlier, or Libraries earlier, or Courthouses earlier: each of which provides compounding benefits.

Wodan

[Rockoon]

To add to the GP discussion...

..early game great folk are always extremely valuable.

Artist?

Win the border war.

Merchant?

Upgrade your army.

Prophet?

Build a shrine, or add hammers to a city that wont have many before workshops.

Scientist?

It is hard to imagine not wanting another Academy in the early game

Spy?

There is no debate. Free looks followed by free techs.

Engineer?

Pick a wonder.. any wonder.. Costs 1 turn of production.


All early great folk are overpowered and philosophical can get much more than 40% more in the early game. Try 100% more. The philo pops his second one at the same time the other kids are popping their first one.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by wodan11

I'd say even that is a poor example. Let's look at just one GP. Yes, just one (the first one).

Thank you for repeating what I had already said

[Blake]

couerdelion raises some great points on why bigger is better.

Border Security is a BIG motivation for warmongering, every neighbor you wipe out is one less variable in Diplomacy. A neighbor who continues to exist an either attack you, or let 3rd parties through their borders. If you conquer them, you eliminate the attack option, and the 3rd party now has to trudge through YOUR culture to get to the core cities.

At a certain point it can become too expensive to defend without sacrificial cities, having cities you can afford to lose is ESSENTIAL. It works better against the AI, but it also works against humans. In the Teach Alexman PBEM, I baited Alexman into moving a large offensive stack into one of my cities - I then wiped it out. You don't have to be an AI or rookie to underestimate the dangers inherit to hostile culture.

Realistically you're not going to defend an enemy stack into submission, once the siege opens fire the defending stack is dead. This means against invaders, you have to fight a rolling war - let them advance, punish them, you CAN NOT rely on rigid borders to hold - it just doesn't work that way, a determined enough foe is going to take down cities.

Losing cities has to be part of a good players strategy - because it's too expensive to DEFEND cities. It's cheaper to have more cities and lose a few of them in a war...
Let me clarify.
It's too expensive to have an "Unbreakable Defense", that doesn't mean you should forget about defending cities.
What I mean, is the most cost effective way to win a war is to lose cities, but make the enemy PAY DEARLY for taking them. Essentially you have the enemy win a bunch of phyrric victories and lose the war.

But you need to be able to suffer the enemy winning those phyrric victories, which necessitates having "marginal territory" you can afford to lose - the problem with the standard sized empire, is that it relies entirely on efficiency to be competitive, sustaining losses will be a major blow to that efficiency - you can't just casually shrug off the loss of core cities.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by couerdelion


Thank you for repeating what I had already said

a) It bears repeating; it's the biggest benefit by far
b) You hadn't said it in the last post, so my comments were accurate (you gave a poor example)
c) Clarification and emphasis is always appropriate when someone has a question or does not understand; to indicate otherwise is to imply you have an agenda to hoodwink the reader by using more general, broad-sweeping statements

Wodan