Archer Rush Part II - Revenge of AAHZ...

[ZEE]

.

[Fleme]

I liked the Nibbler avatar more.

[UnOrthOdOx]

@ Fleme: Me too. Course, I haven't even managed to figure out what this avatar is...

@ AAHZ: I'll throw down the challenge. Let's see Tokugawa on Monarch.

I do not like GP farms. I will cottage spam every city in my empire and still have 3-4 great people in my size8+ cities. Dont believe me? i will show you screenshots.

Ah, but with one pump you could have those same 3-4 people in your cities and have used another 6+ on techs or golden ages, or whatnot. Really, as a Philosophical civ, you're not attaining your full potential without a GPP. Now, not all maps lend themselves to one, but still.

[ZEE]

.

[Theben]

Oh, I never said you did poorly, quite the opposite. I just said that you could've done better.

And yes, I realize the whole point of this thread is about early warfare.

[Brutus66]

I tried your strategy of an archer rush on a small map with four AI opponents.

I quickly wiped out the French and the Dutch and took out half the Viking cities, but then the money from the conquered cities ran out and the game's anti-ICS pressures set in.

I found myself running at such a deficit that new units were disbanded as soon as they were created, and my science was at a standstill.

The Vikings founded a couple new cities and then came after me and, with only one unit allowed to garrison a city and at -15 gold per turn, I had no way to fight back.

Veteran players will no doubt point out that I tried to occupy too many cities too early, that I should have razed some, etc., and I realize this. My point here is that the way the game tries to combat ICS strikes me as very artificial and contrived. I felt penalized for being too successful.

[ZEE]

.

[snoopy369]

ICS penalties are there for a reason - ICS was a 'must-do' strategy in prior civs. The penalties encourage not ICSing, and instead growing appropriately; they also make it possible for multiple strategies:
* Conquer the world quickly
* Build a bunch of cities
* Build a few very good cities
etc.

You can overcome a too-quick expansion/conquest, you have to manage it carefully though. The techs you go for are very relevant (currency, code of laws), the buildings also (marketplaces, libraries, courthouses), the workers (build lots of them, and massively improve all cities), and the specialized cities (you need at least one if not two commerce cities, and a couple of Scientist cities can often be the difference between teching and not teching in the middle era).

Workers are probably the most important. Build enough workers so that you can improve EVERY city you conquer - and bring them along. This is key - if you can get every conquered city reasonably quickly up to size 4, and work tiles that generate at least 5 commerce total (cottages, grassland/plains river, windmills, etc.), your cities will be giving you more than they take generally, and you won't be going negative (even at a very large size). Growing to size 4 is trivial for most cities, at anywhere up to monarch difficulty...

Finally - it is NOT artificial/contrived. Pretty much every major empire collapsed because of the financial and cultural pressures of overexpansion. Alexander the Great is a good example of this... he conquered a lot, but he didn't have the worker army so to speak, to improve the cities he conquered; so his empire fell apart nearly immediately (and would have regardless of his death or not).

Only Rome got anywhere close to stable, of the major empires in eurasia - and they did it through worker armies, aka roman legions. They improved the land and built a trade network throughout their empire, and it lasted for nearly half a millenium.

You would do well to emulate them...

[Brutus66]

Originally posted by snoopy369

Finally - it is NOT artificial/contrived.

That is your opinion.

Alexander never would have conquered more than three or four cities over the span of his short life if the real world worked the same as the game mechanics do.

And the reason his empire collapsed was because he died without a clear and able successor. The Greeks were a fractious people that were notorious for their internecine battles, but if an heir had existed that was as brilliant and capable as he was, who knows; the empire may have endured.

The game is designed to prevent the old strategy of quickly expanding and overwhelming your opponents, the idea being that that strategy was repetitive and dull and it was more interesting to take an interest in fewer cities and to nurture them. But historically, some civilizations did exactly that. If you modeled the birth and expansion of the Roman Empire in the game, it would probably be like lightning, especially considering how many years go by per turn early on.

[wodan11]

Real world justifications of the game are just that -- justifications. Rationalizations, if you will.

Ultimately, as long as the game makes sense, then it's done a good job at what it is: a game.

Brutus, yes you were penalized for being too successful in the military arena. However, you neglected your empire's economy. You were less than successful in that aspect of growing your empire. It's possible to use military to bolster your economy, but those are short term gains and, at some point, it's necessary to address the economic shortcomings or to "pay the piper".

(Actually, I don't know that I've ever come across a more appropriate use of that idiom.

Wodan

[Krill]

*smashes head against a wall*

How many ****ing times does it have to be said. The year on each turn doesn't ****ing matter. RL has no relevence to this, because it's a sodding game.

[Krill]

[/rant]

[Brutus66]

Take it easy, Krill.

Chess is a game that is based on abstract concepts. Civ can't hide behind that defense. It's somewhere in a grey area; it flirts with being a wargame or a historical simulation at times, but when things threaten to get complicated (like a realistic resolution for combat) it retreats back to the idea of being just an entertainment-only game.

I'm almost sorry I said anything. I am being taken as a troll when that was not what I had intended.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Civ is no wargame, nor is it a historical sim. It never attempts to be, either, from my point of view. (perhaps in a scenario, but not the core game)

It is a 4X game. Yes, it uses history as it's setting, but no more than that.

Now, as for the "problem" of the ICS triggering economics issues. It is all in how you plan and play. As mentioned above, if you're going to be conquering early, it is possible. You just have to get certain things in your mind first. Techs, buildings, etc.

CIV has weeded out the mindless warmonger from the equation. Now we warmongers are forced to balance an empire, not just find the most efficient means of killing. To that end, for early conquest:

You will be running 0% science. Therefore you need libraries, and scientists, to fuel your research. 2 scientists in a bunch of cities can serve you quite nice through the medieval ages. The Great Library is just frosting on the cake if you manage it.

When and if you get big enough, you'll be running negative even at 0%. Therefore you need to increase your gold income from somewhere. Religion, prophets, markets, merchants, courthouses to reduce the maintanence, cottage spam in large cities, SOMETHING.

Also, keep in mind. Not ALL cities should be kept. Burn the insolence out of them. If the city lacks food, burn it. Lacks commerce tiles? Burn it. It doesn't matter if 50 turns down the road it might be able to hook up a third iron for you. If it's not going to grow and contribute gold. BURN IT (one exception would be for a happy resource you can connect quickly, or PERHAPS a key strategic resource you lack)

"There are cities that are not assaulted.
There is terrain for which one does not contend" - Sun Tzu

[fed1943]

Well said, UnO.

It is not just the builder who needs to build the military, the
warmonger also needs to nurture the places where his troops
are born.

Best regards,