Emperor level needs a rethink.

[Jeem]

Sure, I'd like to see that save game.

One question though - do you think if you hadn't sunk 15-20 ships, you'd still be anywhere in this game?

I, on the other hand, am playing out a large map game as the French. I've turned off spaceships as there is no concept of me losing a space race.

Doing pretty well in culture considering I'm neither scientific or religious (and commercial is crap when you can't build the FP). I'll probably choose a cultural or domination victory for this one. There is no question in my mind that large map games are much easier than huge maps.

[Jeem]

One of the main reasons why I'm doing ok in this game is that I was never miles behind in tech (and no, I didn't build the Great Library either). This meant I could build the Gardens and Bach's, which are two wonders I rarely get on huge maps.

I think the reason for this is that as you are forced to expand further on a huge map, you spend less time developing your core cities. I basically expanded until I ran out of room in this game - thing is, that happened much faster than it normally would on a huge map so I built faster.

I'm still behind the Ottomans in culture, even though I've built just about everything I can in all my cities. If this had been a huge map, the Ottomans would have ran away with the game - I'd probably have lost a few of my own cities to flipping.

[WarpStorm]

Maybe you are expanding further than is in your best interest on Huge maps. The way the game is set up, as you are no doubt aware, there is a point of diminishing returns. This might be why you find them to be more difficult.

[Dominae]

Could you post your 4000BC savegame from the Large map game (as the French) you just mentioned. It should be kicking around your Auto savegame folder.


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jeem
One question though - do you think if you hadn't sunk 15-20 ships, you'd still be anywhere in this game?

Yes, but it would have taken longer to reach parity and would have been dicier if I faced an attack.

I played about 10 more turns since posting last night. The attached save is from 630 AD; in the intervening 10 or so turns I traded Music Theory to the Aztecs for 2 luxuries and gpt; the Aztecs have beaten me to Navigation (I am 6 or 7 turns away) but I still expect to be able to trade old techs for luxuries before the Aztecs corner the market.

Catt

[Jeem]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Maybe you are expanding further than is in your best interest on Huge maps. The way the game is set up, as you are no doubt aware, there is a point of diminishing returns. This might be why you find them to be more difficult.

If you don't, the AI will though, and it's diminishing returns point is somewhat higher than yours. If you sit back at the desired level, the AI just gets bigger and bigger.

Anyway, here's the 4000bc save. It looks like an excellent start but make the most out of Paris because it rapidly goes downhill.

[notyoueither]

Hmmm... it looks like apples and oranges, to a point.

Jeem is playing classic civ from the looks of it. Loose city spacing (minimum 4) with minimum overlap, and even losing some productive tiles (marsh bypassed).

Cat is doing what many of us would do, packing in as many cities as are required to make use of all land and to secure borders. Perhaps making use of some early camp cities as well (dunno, can't see them but can see gaps big enough for them in the core).

Wildly different results are to be expected.

[Aeson]

I've always found Huge maps the easiest. The 'difficult' part of difficulty increases in Civ3 are mainly due to starting advantages the AI gets. The AI is not very good at applying an advantage to increase it's lead. Once the player has overcome the AI starting advantages the games tend to play out much the same across difficulty levels. These starting advantages for the AI do not scale with mapsize.

That means that the AI's initial advantage on a map is smaller the larger the map size. 15-20 units may be a big deal on a Standard sized map, but are rather inconsequential on a Huge sized map where militaries can end up in the hundreds.

Also, expansion time is longer the larger the map (assuming relative numbers of opponents per mapsize). It takes the player a bit of time to overcome AI expansion bonuses (free Settlers and Workers on the highest levels), and time is what Huge maps give the player.

To overcome those advantages basically requires city specialization. The AI will not set up 4 turn Settler factories, 2 turn Worker factories, and military camps. Peacefully, on Deity, it is possible to out-expand the AI given enough room because the player can specialize cities to take full advantage of terrain and improve tiles with a mind towards that specialization. You may not always have enough room to do so on a Huge map, but you will have more room than on a smaller map with similar terrain, number of AI, and starting locations (again, relative to the size of the map).

The AI is also terrible at managing corruption. This means the bigger they get, the less use they get out of what they have. The player has various measures they can take to deal with corruption (even at absolute level) and still make use of those 'useless' cities. There tend to be more of those 'useless' cities on larger map sizes, and so it is an area where the player can take advantage.

Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, the main difference between the AI and player is the ability to adapt to various situations. The AI is stuck playing a certain way regardless of what opportunities arise. The player can identify and take advantage of those opportunities in the most efficient manner. The larger the map, the more opportunities will arise. More targets to choose from, more units involved, bigger AI treasuries to sack (diplomatically or militarily), more separation between civs.

-------------------

As for Cultural 100k victories, it is easily the least understood path to victory on these forums. Building cultural improvements at the start tends to be counter-productive, as you first need to build up a proper economic and territorial base before investing shields into cultural improvements.

The AI cannot compete with the player culturally because they don't have the capability to understand this, or to specialize. They will build those Temples right off, which does give them an early culture lead, but in the process they are giving the player the opportunity to out-expand them, to claim more territory, place more cities, and thus have a higher cultural ceiling. Because they don't alter their build-queues in relation to the player's decision to pursue a Cultural 100k victory, that means they are 'wasting' resources on building non-cultural improvements in every city that would have helped them keep in the Cultural race otherwise.

The larger the map, the easier Cultural 100k games become. Cultural 100k is entirely based on number of cities, how soon they are founded, and how quickly the cultural improvements can be built. More room for more cities means more culture, simply put. The best and luckiest AI's, on Huge maps, will barely break 50k Culture by around halfway through the game. The player should always be able to hit 100k before then on a Huge map.

You may have to do some fighting to expand... and certainly do to play an optimal 100k date, but to compete the AI will have to do much more. If you don't want to expand militarily, then don't expect to gain the advantages available by doing so. Your date will be later, because you won't have as many cities to build cultural improvements in. If you get a start where you can peacefully expand to the same size as the biggest AI, you can always double up your city spacing to have 2x the number of cities, and thus 2x the cultural ceiling.

[asleepathewheel]

doesn't a cultural win on a huge map require 160,000 culture points? Or am I mistaken?

[Aeson]

Yes, in C3C it does. Didn't know that! Still the number of cities possible to culture ratio is much better than on other map sizes.

Will make the date a little later, but shouldn't have any effect on the likelyhood of getting the condition. If you can double up the AI to 100k, should be right on schedual to double up the AI at 160k later on in the game.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Aeson
Yes, in C3C it does. Didn't know that! Still the number of cities possible to culture ratio is much better than on other map sizes.

But the more cities you have, the worse corruption gets and the harder it is to build early temples and libraries. The more cities you have, the more spread out you get and corruption is even worse. On a huge map, around 2/3rds of your cities can end up not much better than worker factories. The thing is, if you don't put those cities down, the AI will - and although it suffers from corruption too, it's played at Regent level. Therefore, corruption is nowhere near as bad for the AI as it is for the human. The human might be able to counter this later in the game, but by that time any cultural improvements you build will have next to no chance of doubling their output.

In my France game, the Ottomans are not leading the Culture race because they built their temples and libraries before me (I gave them Literature) - they are leading because they are able to build temples and libraries faster in *all* of their cities - not just the core 5-6. Considering I'm Commercial, the corruption 'bonus' at this level is not even enough to outproduce the Ottomans - In effect, the AI starts the game with the Commercial trait over the human player anyway. In this game, the Ottomans have been fighting the Dutch for practically the whole game also. Lots of cities = big armies and big culture for the AI.

The Ottomans are always a very hard cultural race. The combination of Industrious and Scientific is probably the best for the AI at this level - even better than the Babylonians. To do well in culture, you really need to have those Temples and Libraries built as soon as possible, because the 1000 year doubling of culture is massive.

For all that, I'm still clawing them back at the rate of 200 Culture per turn in this game. I know the huge maps to well to know that I'd be at best 1/2 the Ottomans culture at this stage usually - and they'd be pulling away from me. In around 20 turns I'll be leading the culture race, and by building the internet I'll probably get to that 130K eventually - as the French! How often does that happen in games you see?

It certainly seems that large maps are much, much easier to my preffered style of play at any rate.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hmmm... it looks like apples and oranges, to a point.

Jeem is playing classic civ from the looks of it. Loose city spacing (minimum 4) with minimum overlap, and even losing some productive tiles (marsh bypassed).

***slight spoiler***

Everything south of Rouen in my game was one huge jungle and marsh. By the time I started settling it, the Dutch already had two cities on the bottom of it. If I'd been spacing my cities closer, I'd probably have ended up the the Dutch taking most of the south for themselves (and it would still probably be a jungle/marsh)

At the late game stage, those overlaps can really slow down your economy and production. Pretty soon, I'll be working every single square in all my cities, ballooning in population and getting free entertainers/scientists. When I get to tanks, I'll probably have 10+ cities capable of building them in two turns each (one with mobilising). That's why I'm pretty confident I can run through the Ottomans and Vikings and win by domination if I choose.

Cat is doing what many of us would do, packing in as many cities as are required to make use of all land and to secure borders. Perhaps making use of some early camp cities as well (dunno, can't see them but can see gaps big enough for them in the core).

Wildly different results are to be expected.

Looking at my Celt save and Catt's, we've done almost the same thing to a certain point. We hold a similar land area and the cities are similarly placed, although his cities are much larger than mine. I did struggle badly in tech in this game because the Aztecs and Vikings also did, so Monarchy was later than desired.

At around the same stage, I had a much larger military than Catt's (twice the size actually, and 30+ Swords compared to 11). I also had a better culture value, and was well ahead of the Aztecs in that respect. The overall scores are pretty similar I think.

The main difference is, the Russians haven't run amok on the other continent and Catt's game is pretty balanced overall. He will need to take out the Aztecs at some stage though (if he means to win by a cultural victory).

It's not all that different really. In my game, I was in a very good position until the Russians met me (remember, they had Navigation and most likely were in the Industrial era before I was out of the ancient era). It can happen sometimes on a huge map, and does quite a lot. Expansionist in the AI's hands is the main problem most games I find. If it's not the Russians, it'll be the Arabs usually.

[Aeson]

In around 20 turns I'll be leading the culture race, and by building the internet I'll probably get to that 130K eventually - as the French! How often does that happen in games you see?

Civ traits (cheap builds) aren't all that important towards Cultural victories. Religious and Scientific can cut 20-30 turns off the Cultural 100k date together, but that's around 1% or 2% of the turns in even a very fast Cultural victory. The other traits also boost Cultural accumulation indirectly. Commercial civs tend to be good builders, and Industrious is one of the best traits. Together they allow more cash, and more production, than any other combination. Even then it's not so much about traits as playstyle. I've won Cultural 100k games with the Zulu, before 1500AD. Granted I conquered out to the domination limit rather quickly, and had a huge number of cities, but that's just playing to a civ's strengths.

On a Huge map it's possible to get to 100k by around 1100AD in PtW/vanilla, and at the rate culture is coming in at that point (1000+ per turn), it would finish 160k well before the AI's got near 80k (probably around 1400AD, or the halfway point of the game). There was a game submitted to Civfanatics HOF which had 384k culture at 2050AD on Deity. Obviously it wasn't allowable because Cultural victory had been turned off (along with all the others), but it shows just how much culture is possible to accumulate over the course of the game. I'd wager a really well played game could hit 450-500k before 2050AD.

But the more cities you have, the worse corruption gets and the harder it is to build early temples and libraries.

Once you're in a representative government you can cash rush cultural improvements to great effect, and disbanding military (built in core cities which already have built all their cultural improvements) helps a lot too. C3C and engineers should make it easier to build cultural improvements in corrupt areas as well.

On Huge/Deity maps, 1000AD is a good target date to hit the Domination limit and also have most of your cities with Marketplaces and Aquaducts (where necessary) in a milked game. If you take those 200 shields per city (when there are 400+ of them, most of them 99% corrupt) and instead build Temples, Libraries, and Cathedrals, you've basically sealed a Cultural victory just a little later in the game. Now that you can have Specialists add shields to your cities, it will even work better.

A Grassland tile will support the Laborer and a Specialist after Railroads (~800AD on Deity), and a Plains tile will support half a Specialist. This allows a well placed 20 tile city, totally corrupt, to produce around 20-40 shields a turn. More likely are 12 tile cites (no need for Hospitals, no pollution) all producing around half as much.

I'm just guessing that the AI won't even come close to matching such production out of totally corrupt cities. They Mine/Irrigate in a checkerboard fashion, which would cut the Specialists in half, and they don't use the Luxury slider or build Marketplaces fast enough in corrupt areas to take full advantage of Luxury resources, so most of their Specialists end up as Entertainers. I've used Draft/Disband to average around 5-10 shields per turn out of most of my corrupt cities in a game, but Civil Engineers look like they will beat that hands down.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Aeson
Civ traits (cheap builds) aren't all that important towards Cultural victories. Religious and Scientific can cut 20-30 turns off the Cultural 100k date together, but that's around 1% or 2% of the turns in even a very fast Cultural victory.

A lot depends on the start, but I disagree with that. The doubling effect is what allows the religious and scientific civs to really pull away (The Ottomans have turned that 250 culture loss against me into a gain in <50 turns in my France game - that's because we've now hit the 1800's and probably every single university the Ottomans have are doubling culture.)

The other traits also boost Cultural accumulation indirectly. Commercial civs tend to be good builders, and Industrious is one of the best traits. Together they allow more cash, and more production, than any other combination.

Sure they do. Late game, Ind/Com is a powerhouse that is hard to match. Most of the problems come in the early game though and this one was no different. I had to suffer years of torment from the Ottomans, knowing that when I hit the early industrial era, I'd be all but unstoppable. The game seems poorly balanced in this respect. However, Culture is letting me down now because I couldn't build those temples and libraries fast enough. Sure, you build everything faster as ind/commercial, but it's nothing like as good as being scientific or religious in terms of culture. With culture, it's all about the earliest possible building of temples and libraries - ind/com cannot compete with either in that case.

Even then it's not so much about traits as playstyle. I've won Cultural 100k games with the Zulu, before 1500AD. Granted I conquered out to the domination limit rather quickly, and had a huge number of cities, but that's just playing to a civ's strengths.

This is my main point on cultural victories - they aren't actually chosen at game start. You often find yourself in the position to choose your victory and through domination or whatever, can easily end the game with a 'cultural' victory. It's not really the same thing when you take out your main (sometimes only) cultural rival and win by default.

On a Huge map it's possible to get to 100k by around 1100AD in PtW/vanilla, and at the rate culture is coming in at that point (1000+ per turn), it would finish 160k well before the AI's got near 80k (probably around 1400AD, or the halfway point of the game). There was a game submitted to Civfanatics HOF which had 384k culture at 2050AD on Deity. Obviously it wasn't allowable because Cultural victory had been turned off (along with all the others), but it shows just how much culture is possible to accumulate over the course of the game. I'd wager a really well played game could hit 450-500k before 2050AD.

It can happen. With so many players playing the game worldwide, you will get the odd occasion where a race can just blow all others away in whatever manner they choose. They aren't common though. The best I managed on vanilla civ3 was a 1600ad cultural victory (overall, not OCC) with the Eqyptians on a huge map. I didn't even realise I was in that position until the AI informed me that I'd won the game...

Once you're in a representative government you can cash rush cultural improvements to great effect, and disbanding military (built in core cities which already have built all their cultural improvements) helps a lot too. C3C and engineers should make it easier to build cultural improvements in corrupt areas as well.

I dislike using 'crafty tactics' myself. It was the same with SMAC and SMACX - you could disband crawlers for their full production (it was possible to build wonders in a single turn just by disbanding crawlers in the city) and if you ever followed the SMAC forum here you'd see that was the main tactic! The same goes for rushing across the ocean in curraghs - To me it's about making the game an enjoyable experience, not breaking the game's faults in order to win. I never use any of the game-breaking tactics (although I might in an MP game, naturally)

I'm just guessing that the AI won't even come close to matching such production out of totally corrupt cities. They Mine/Irrigate in a checkerboard fashion, which would cut the Specialists in half, and they don't use the Luxury slider or build Marketplaces fast enough in corrupt areas to take full advantage of Luxury resources, so most of their Specialists end up as Entertainers. I've used Draft/Disband to average around 5-10 shields per turn out of most of my corrupt cities in a game, but Civil Engineers look like they will beat that hands down.

Again, it's a bit 'gamey' if you don't mind me saying so. I assume you play Deity level based on these comments? I probably would if I used every option available to me, but I'm trying to keep the game balanced as much as possible without resorting to 'breaking' it. Do you see what I'm getting at? Most people who play the game will not even have considered most of the really dodgy tactics the game allows. I consider myself no better than an average 'player' of the game, and maybe that's why I see such a massive disparity between Monarch and Emperor games.

[Puma]

As for myself...

I've noticed that if you're trying to avoid warfare on emperor, success depends on many situations. It's especially hard if a crazy civ like the romans is next door or if you don't suck it up and give the AIs whatever they ask for whenever they ask for it. If you even reject a single threat your whole game will become militaristic.

This is one of the hardest aspects of cultural/diplomatic victory in emperor (and I play huge maps often) ... you have to suck it up and give them whatever they want. The best tactic to this is to not have any spare or lead at any time.

I looked at the game very negatively when I started playing emperor ... I had grown used to easily manipulating/controlling the AI on monarch; but after a while on emperor I learned to give in ... and then my perspective changed.

I still agree that cultural victories are very difficult in emperor. I've never done it with the Americans for example. If not carrying the appropriate civilization trait, the happiness settings do not allow you to to rush libraries and temples without catastrophic and long lasting results. Scientific and religious civs alwasy seem to kick a88 in emperor and I think this is partly due to the fact that they do not carry the same happiness limitations that the human player does ... but it's not impossible.

I noticed one limitation I had with respect to cultural victory in emperor was that I also tried to have the largest army, the most territory, the largest bank account, and the tech lead; but it is properties like these that make the AI more annoyed at you and less likely to permit a peaceful victory. When I learned to maintain a smaller army and to cram more culture per city per territory, then things got easier - though that still made the babylonians and the egyptians a pain.

As for the combat issue, I think it's always better to be on the defensive. That terrain bonus does wonders. If you are always attacking and attacking, you'll lose more units, and more annoying cases of "WTF I should've won that round" will occur. That's just how it works.

It has a lot to do with perspective.