Emperor games C3C: how to improve your skills

[ToeTruck]

Yea, I didn't have much of a military either.

I had two Warriors and a couple of Swiss Mercenary for kicks.

I also built a couple of Infantry during the late game lull because I like to establish ROPs with everyone and explore around. Sometimes you can use extra units as "blockers" to influence how the AI behaves. Explorers work just as well if not better; I just couldn't resist using the Rubber.

I also had two Curraghs to make contact and one Galleon in case I needed to send worker teams to help the AI connect some coal. That's another advantage of establishing ROPs with everyone. You can get deep in the AIs territory to connect extra luxuries and strategic resources.

In most OCC games, though, you don't need many units other than workers. I've played OCC games to a Spacerace Victory with only two Warriors. The fact that you only have one city is what deters the AI from attacking, not the number of units you have. In fact, I've often found that having *two* cities is riskier than only having one. Sometimes the AI will attack the second you build a second city - then you're toast.

- TT

[ToeTruck]

Originally posted by Dominae
Umm, for those of you that are wondering: I stole all techs "Safely", not "Carefully". I forgot the name of the one with the highest probability of success. Anyway, it's the one that costs the most.

Thanks Dom, I'll give that approach a shot some day. Sounds like fun.

- TT

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage


why did you build your 'expensive hardware' the first place, when you were going for a diplo victory anyway? I just upgraded my spearmen directly to riflemen.

Just in case someone got some uppity ideas and needed to be taught a lesson. Granted, not very likely, but hell I didn't need the cash and there was nothing else to build!

As usual, the logistics proved to be the most time-consuming

Yep, that's the biggest reason I didn't continue. The invasion logistics can take soooooo much time,

[Aqualung71]

On OCC...

I played an OCC game once, many moons ago, just to see what it was all about. I managed to win somehow, but I forget what level - I'm sure it would have been an easier level because the concept freaked me out so much!

I applaud players who know the game well enough to win OCC at higher levels - truly awewsome, as it takes adaptive strategy and is not an easy thing to do. However, the ability of players to win an OCC game shows how incompetent the AI really is. Realistically, it should not even be remotely possible to win an OCC game - particularly with a handful of cheap defenders. Again, I'm not taking anything away from Dom's and TT's victories - they illustrate a deep knowledge of everything Civ3 - I just think the AI should be programmed to recognise its threats better and send a few tanks in to obliterate the challenger, regardless of how diplomatically savvy the human player has been.

End of rant

[ToeTruck]

Re: On OCC...

Originally posted by Thriller
I applaud players who know the game well enough to win OCC at higher levels - truly awewsome, as it takes adaptive strategy and is not an easy thing to do. However, the ability of players to win an OCC game shows how incompetent the AI really is. Realistically, it should not even be minutely possible to win an OCC game - particularly with a handful of cheap defenders. Again, I'm not taking anything away from Dom's and TT's victories - they illustrate a deep knowledge of everything Civ3 - I just think the AI should be programmed to recognise its threats better and send a few tanks in to obliterate the challenger, regardless of how diplomatically savvy the human player has been.

Hi Thriller. Thanks, and I agree entirely.

The AI is woefully inadequate when it comes to identifying the threat from OCC. It should recognize that the human player is about to win the game and thus should be eliminated quickly.

The extension of that statement, however, is that all the AI civs should drop all disagreements and band together against the winning human player. As I'm sure you've experienced with board games and the like, that type of play really sucks. It can degenerate into a series of "pile on the leader" alliances.

So, in some sense, the programmers who wrote the AI had the decency to avoid that type of strategy and allowed the AI civs to bow out graciously. In that light, I appreciate the programmers intentions.

However, back to your point, the AI could do a better job of recognizing real threats and it could apply some better "ground rules" such as "never, ever leave a rival at one city" or "kill an opponent when they're weak."

What I've learned (and it's nothing special really) are the cracks in which a small civ can squeeze through. I've learned to trade freely and give away techs, to arrange ROPs with everyone, and to never trade away my World Map. I've also learned to make sure luxuries are connected all across the board and how to maintain the balance of power between rivals.

It's fun to play that way, but I agree that it is a little absurd to think a single city can build a spaceship before a 50+ city monster KAI.

Well, gotta go. Thanks for the post.

- TT

[Dominae]

Re: On OCC...

Originally posted by Thriller
Realistically, it should not even be remotely possible to win an OCC game - particularly with a handful of cheap defenders.

Well, it's a step up from Civ2, where you could win with a single size 1 city!

[Aqualung71]

I only got into Civ2 a couple of months before Civ3 came out, so I'm not all that experienced with it. I know a lot of people love it and prefer it to Civ3 even, but I just don't get it. I've seen people commenting about the huge exploits available there....and I guess you're referring to one.

But out of curiosity....how could you win in Civ2 with a single size 1 city?

[DrSpike]

Read Samson's thread in the Great Library in Civ2 forums. IIRC it was called OCC on a shoestring.

Also, a turn log is here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum3/HTML/001830.html?10

[vmxa1]

I was a huge Civ2 fan, but it is no way as good as CivIII. It is closer to play Civ3 on chieftain and Civ2 on any level you want.

It was a lot of fun though. I have not played a single game since CivIII.

[DrSpike]

Civ3 is potentially the better SP game. But in depth, Civ2 wins hands down.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Civ3 is potentially the better SP game. But in depth, Civ2 wins hands down.

This is what I don't understand - I've read so many times people talking about how easy Civ2 was to exploit, and how the AI was crap and easy to fool and the game was one dimensional - ie, get to the right tech and you win.

So what is it about Civ2 that makes you say it has better depth? Not a rant DS - a genuine question.

[vmxa1]

I have to ask the same question, what depth? I think you confuse replay with depth. It has no depth, unless you compare it to tetris.

I listed it as my #1 or #2 for years, but in truth it is very weak in many ways. The ZoC, Spies, losing whole stack to one unit. Cities cannot be defeated by the AI, it has no clue.

The list is endless. I don't spurn it do to age as I just played Moo1 today and it is older than civ2.

[Mountain Sage]

here we go (double post)

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
Krill,

Let’s compare our two games. But before that, just to tell you that I had lots of fun. I rarely had such a good starting position (I usually pick up the 2nd or 3rd one, makes the game more challenging).
However, I’m not vey convinced about the Mayans. Oh, the agricultural trait is great, expecially with these settings, but a GA via their UU while in Despotism… ouch! what a waste!
Anyway, here we go…

710BC: general
Our rexxing is going very well indeed. Our neighbours are Spain and the Romans, well, could have been worse. Spain is just at war with Rome, which suits me well. Time to build up our military and go bonk some heads…

[Mountain Sage]

710BC: research
Thanks to 2 early curraghs (one sank), we managed to become THE tech broker. We researched Philosophy, which brought us CoL. Republic in 7 turns.