Emperor level needs a rethink.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Jeem
It seems to me that a lot of players are quite happy to give their thoughts on Emperor/Huge map without trying it for themselves. I've already stated that Emperor level on a normal map isn't that difficult - having played Emperor on a huge map in well over 200 games I think I know what I'm on about by now.

Jesus, that's a lot of games. BTW, the game I posted above is an emperor-huge-archipelago map, so there you go, a huge emperor game.

Originally posted by Jeem
I'd love to hear your views on the Celt save game. That might not be indicative of the normal Emperor/Huge map game I have, but I see it more than I should. Pray tell me how you'd have played that game differently and kept the unstoppable Russkies at bay...

Dominae's suggestion of posting the 4000BC save is a good one, its hard to judge what to differently when the game is halfway in the bag (or further in this case) I'll take a peek at your map and see if I can spot anything obvious myself.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jeem

That's just not right. The higher the level and bigger the map, the stronger the AI gets. Their cities are simply better than yours, and they probably have many more of them.

I felt huge maps games were harder under early versions of Civ. I am now convinced that huge map games are easier than smaller maps.

That's not it. Emperor level forces you into a certain way of doing things. The GL becomes a must have, and you will always end up opting for a militaristic game because you HAVE to in order to survive.

That's simply wrong, on many levels. The GL is by no means a must-have. In fact, I build the GL only occasionaly now, and I play Emperor more often than any other level.

And opting for a militaristic game remains, just as the word "opting" implies, an option. I've played many Emperor-level games without any real offensive warfare, and I've playedseveral games in which I avoided warfare entirely.

Visit the Apolyton University forum here and check out the AU History thread for detailed After-Action-Reports of numerous players' games on the same start-up -- you'll find plenty of examples of no or limited warfare. Be sure to check out the "Give Peace a Chance" game in which the human player could not build a single military unit, offensive or defensive -- winning that game has a lot to do with luck because if the AI comes after you for wahtever reason, you're probably toast, but that said several players won it, even after being attacked.

Considering the recent moves by Firaxis to change the combat system, I'd say that archer rushes were not in their grand plan when the game was developed.

Actually, looking at their stated reasons for exploring the change, it seems to be primarily based on minimizing the occurence of units from widely disparate timeframes within the game enjoying or suffering through seemingly odd battle results. When the designers tested the experimental changes using "same age" units with similar battle stats, they concluded that the proposed change would substantially alter the intended game balance, particularly in the ancient age. I can't see any evidence that it had anything to do with archer rushes as a tactic.

Catt

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Dominae
How about we start a new comparative game (Large size or smaller) on Emperor to see if Culture is truly a bad strategy.

I can't confirm that Culture is bad on large maps or smaller. I can confidently state it's nigh-on impossible on Huge though, or at least choosing culture as the preffered method is. Make sure you aren't confusing choosing the cultural victory as the option just because you removed all the other civs...

Incidentally, just because you poprushed all the time to get cultural improvements up does not mean you deserve to be first in Culture. What it may indicate (among other things) is that poprushing is not such a great tactic on a massive scale.
Dominae

That could be true. It's the first time I've ever tried it, and it seemed to work very well. I choose the Celts for this reason - Agricultural lets them expand (more cities for more temples), and rush building doesn't hurst so bad because most cities grow faster. It seemed logically sound, and looking at the comparitive Culture levels against my nearest neighbours (Aztecs and Vikings - both in awe of my culture), it looked like it was working. Until I met the Russians who were more than double my culture...God knows what the Vikings must have thought about them...

[DrSpike]

Why is a cultural victory hard on huge maps? I confess I've never tried it, but I bet it's as easy as pie.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Cultural victory on Emperor can be achieved without military, you just have to know win to pick your spots. Frankly I got tired of winning that way (accidentally, though there was conquest, much )and usually play with it turned off, not very rewarding to me. For every game that you show me where you can't, I can show you where you can.

Check out this save , its an OCC game, about 3/4 of the way to cultural victory on Emperor. Granted it was a tremendous opening, the one I used in another thread in here (which led me to try it ) but I've done it on worse (slightly worse )

I don't like to brag, so I won't post screenshots, but the game is probably my proudest Civ3 game yet, though again I had a tremendous start. The GPT bug hasn't hurt either

C'mon asleep - let's be reasonable here. With 9 Cattle in my immediate work zone I reckon I could win OCC on Sid level.

Hitting 20,000 in one city is actually easier than the full blown version of cultural victory. Especially with a start like that - I'd be devastated anytime I didn't build a wonder.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


Wow, since it takes me over a week to finish on a Huge map there is no way I could have played that many Huge games.

I've generally got two games running at the same time. One on my own PC (which I play during the day because I'm currently unemployed - or maybe that's WHY I'm unemployed ) and one on my mate's PC (hotseat) which I play when he gets back from work. On average, 5-6 hours a day seems about right.

Also, I've won and lost a lot of Emperor games well before the 'end' so I don't see them all the way through sometimes.

[Dominae]

Jeem, please post a Large map Emperor-level game (4000BC), so that we can all play it and compare notes. That's really the only way to settle this (unless you find some brave souls to play a Huge map game with you).


Dominae

[asleepathewheel]

Hey, hey, no need to rag on my "accomplishments"



I agree that its easier to reach 20x1 than 160k nationwide. A bit dicier, but probably easier.

That said, I'm looking at your save.

1. Some maps just don't lend themselves to a cultural victory. Not sure about this one, as its hard for me to judge this late into the game

2. There's an island between you and the big continent, perhaps an early curragh and galley were in order, it would at least reduce the tech prices.

3. related to number 2, a gamey tactic that I have, ahem, occassionally used involving the Great library. I sometimes take all the cities but the GL city, then when I find myself far behind, or approaching education, I nab it, getting way past education in techs. Gamey yes

4. palace placement-out in bfe, could use in the center more, around gergovia or something

5. Forbidden palace-broken today, might be useful tommorrow

6. Despotic GA-avoid like the plague

7. more mines-all I see is irrigated land, I know most of that might be flood plains, but try to boost production

8. Don't sacrifice your own citizens, its rarely worth it. You need people power. You are way behind in population, which can be remedied by:

9. Build more compactly-your cities cover the land, but need aqueducts and hospitals to use each tile. Remember-more cities=more opportunities for culture.

Thats the stuff off the top of my head. Probably the last point is the most important in my personal games. CXXC spacing is usually what I try to do, maximize early tile usage. Far better to have a little overlap early rather than huge gaps in cities. Plus its much easier to defend.


Hope I've helped even a little bit.

[asleepathewheel]

Oh, one more thing. If you had selected more rivals, then your enemies would not be as large, you know

[asleepathewheel]

Also, you've been beaten to every decent cultural wonder. Why not time some palace prebuilds to help?


What govt were you going to select? I picked Republic and man am I being crushed by the unit support costs. I see that marketplaces are being built. you might try to get those up before the switch to republic.

I'm not sure if you use it, but you might try the luxury slider to help out, I prefer using it to entertainers-keep the food and shields coming in.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt


I felt huge maps games were harder under early versions of Civ. I am now convinced that huge map games are easier than smaller maps.

Every Civ, I've always played the largest map available. Civ3 Emperor on a Huge map is by far the most difficult. The main reason is because the AI expands aggressively in Civ3 and it didn't in the previous two games. The aggressive expansion of the AI was only brought in with Civ3 because the players of Civ1 and Civ2 wanted to see it. It's also the main reason why many previous Civ players hate Civ3 - they think the AI expands too aggressively.

That's simply wrong, on many levels. The GL is by no means a must-have. In fact, I build the GL only occasionaly now, and I play Emperor more often than any other level.

Try downloading my latest save game and then tell me that with a straight face Catt. The GL got me around 15 techs. If I didn't capture it, I'd still be struggling at 40 turns towards construction and the Russians would be in the Industrial age. I'm not lying - it's there to see in the save game!

And opting for a militaristic game remains, just as the word "opting" implies, an option. I've played many Emperor-level games without any real offensive warfare, and I've playedseveral games in which I avoided warfare entirely.

As I mentioned earlier Catt, I erred in assuming most players played the game on a huge map. My comments on Emperor level should probably be taken as meaning 'Emperor on a huge map'. Try it, and keep trying it - you'll soon see just how horrendous it is.

BTW - here's the 4000BC save :-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jeem
Builder strategy isn't feasible at Emperor level on a huge map, so it's hardly going to be feasible on a smaller map is it? Playing on a smaller map will prove what exactly? That military strategies are even more important? Yes....

I have to disagree with this, but agree with some of what you've alluded to more frequently.

I think the game is harder on larger maps especially with more civs. That goes doubly right now with the gpt and corruption bugs.

One of the biggest things the human has going for him/her is a more sophisticated ability to conquer corruption in parts of the empire by wise choices in FP placement and palace relocations. That is pointless right now (the FP bit, the Palace bit is actually more critical).

The gpt bug with fewer civs (like the standard 8) is not as big a deal as it is with more (like 12 or 16). That is because the AI will be able to generate more trades for more gpt with more civs that have uncorrupted cores.

I was slogging through large maps with 12 civs and getting jobbed by resource distribution time and again (well, not that many since a game takes me a long time even if I'm losing because I try not to just quit). When I went down to standard with 8 civs, not only were the resources and luxuries within managable reach, but getting the tech lead on the AI has been significantly easier. This is especially true when the AI winnows itself down from 7 to 2 or 3 contenders by killing each other off.

At any rate, right now I am of the opinion that any type of victory would be more feasible on smaller maps with fewer civs than the larger map normal or maximum. At Emperor level, at least.

[notyoueither]

9. Build more compactly-your cities cover the land, but need aqueducts and hospitals to use each tile. Remember-more cities=more opportunities for culture.

Thats the stuff off the top of my head. Probably the last point is the most important in my personal games. CXXC spacing is usually what I try to do, maximize early tile usage. Far better to have a little overlap early rather than huge gaps in cities. Plus its much easier to defend.

Ahhh, and here's a critical bit. I have been trying also to play a looser city spacing and to avoid the use of camp cities. That may be another reason why I can see Jeem's POV.

[Jaguar]

It's easier to win on smaller maps on the greater difficulty levels, under almost any circumstances.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

That said, I'm looking at your save.

1. Some maps just don't lend themselves to a cultural victory. Not sure about this one, as its hard for me to judge this late into the game

2. There's an island between you and the big continent, perhaps an early curragh and galley were in order, it would at least reduce the tech prices.

I kept getting sunk by barb galleys. If you look at the map closely, you'll see that I did at least attempt to get out there with my curraghs!

3. related to number 2, a gamey tactic that I have, ahem, occassionally used involving the Great library. I sometimes take all the cities but the GL city, then when I find myself far behind, or approaching education, I nab it, getting way past education in techs. Gamey yes

Well, seeing as the Russians were already in the Industrial Age, I think I didn't do too badly out of the GL!

4. palace placement-out in bfe, could use in the center more, around gergovia or something

It doesn't make that much difference on such a huge map really. Entremont was not perfectly placed, but my main cities were doing ok.

5. Forbidden palace-broken today, might be useful tommorrow

I only started building that because I was going to switch to a proper wonder. Did you mention 'gamey' before?

6. Despotic GA-avoid like the plague

I was a Monarchy at the time. I held back until I got it then switched immediately. Same turn I declared war on the Aztecs.

7. more mines-all I see is irrigated land, I know most of that might be flood plains, but try to boost production

Everything that can be mined is, except for deserts. With Agricultural, there is no point in mining deserts because you lose out overall.

8. Don't sacrifice your own citizens, its rarely worth it. You need people power. You are way behind in population, which can be remedied by:

I'm not that far behind in pop. The Russians and Aztecs are miles AHEAD in pop - bit of a difference there.

[quote]
9. Build more compactly-your cities cover the land, but need aqueducts and hospitals to use each tile. Remember-more cities=more opportunities for culture.[quote]

But they also leave you devoid of major 'game-winning' cities later. If I'd placed my cities closer, I wouldn't have been able to throw out those 40-odd Gallic Warriors so quickly because all my major cities would have been competeting for the best resources.

Thats the stuff off the top of my head. Probably the last point is the most important in my personal games. CXXC spacing is usually what I try to do, maximize early tile usage. Far better to have a little overlap early rather than huge gaps in cities. Plus its much easier to defend.

If you want to win by military means, that's the best way for sure. If they land is good throughout your empire it's also a fair tactic - in this case I had mostly a desert, a bit of plains and a jungle to expand into. I wasn't competing for anything particularly good so I thought I'd stretch out a bit and use the influence. Rush building temples and libraries helped to increase the influence further. I don't think I could have increased my culture any faster than I did.

At Emperor level on a huge map, I find it more important to fill up the space than anything else. If you don't - they will.

Hope I've helped even a little bit.

Good comments, and I hope you see my PoV with my replies!