Announcement

**Catt** · February 12, 2004, 15:27

I can't critique your game at the moment, but I am sure someone will step up and give you feedback.

As to the thread title's question: Yes, being a builder is still quite viable, IMHO. There is a difference of opinion on whether the greater resource scarcity in the initial C3C releases unduly hamstrings a builder approach; my view is that it doesn't but others' view is that it does.

Catt

**DrSpike** · February 12, 2004, 15:48

I also think it hasn't really changed much from Vanilla/PTW.

If you mean can you build a nice empire with mostly peace, then of course yes, as was always the case. If you mean never warring then the answer (and it always was) is sometimes.

Some games you start too close to opponents. If the 'builder' player refuses to war then they can lose whether it's Vanilla/PTW or C3C. For me it's just about adapting.........if I am playing a spaceship game for instance I am quite happy to expand into space if I have it and not worry about war unless it becomes necessary. Equally start next to civ(s) and if you want land you'll have to take it at one point or another.

**lethe** · February 12, 2004, 17:27

I think you switched to republic too early. I used to do that alot too, but have learnt to hold off until core cities atleast have marketplaces up and running, or living dangerously and scrapping almost all military units...

**vmxa1** · February 12, 2004, 17:37

Hermann the Lombard, it is hard to say much from the data posted.

I would say that a builder game is possible, certainly at Regent. depending on what you mean by that term. If it means total peace, not likey. If it means you don't start any wars and end them as soon as you can, then yes.

The catch is what the resource roulette wheel does. If you are missing a number of key resources, you will probably find it hard to aquire them without war.

Post some early saves, peferably the 4000bc and one about the time you switched governments.

**lethe** · February 12, 2004, 19:08

It's possible to do builder games on Emperor. I'd even say it's easier than it was in vanilla/ptw. Not because it's easier per se, but because you aren't constantly tempted to farm for leaders to hurry wonders.

But warmongering is off course much easier.

Strange, almost all changes made in Civ 3 compared to it's predecessors seems to favor the builder, yet it's (much) harder to play a builder at the higher levels than it was in Civ 2/SMAC.

**Hermann the Lombard** · February 13, 2004, 02:02

Well, I'm glad to hear a consensus that a Builder/Limited War strategy is still viable, at least on such a low level. That year-old thread implied that it was viable up to Monarch, but dicey above that (and hopeless at the highest levels). "Mostly peace" or "not starting any wars" sound OK, but I will tend to start limited wars for specific purposes, such as resource access or denial, lancing an AI boil, or even the occasional "Patience my _ss, I want to kill something!"

If I have extremely close neighbors at the start, I pick up my Vel Club and start oscillating.

It's likely that I did switch to Republic too soon, or at least with too many military units. If I was really itching to annex some Egyptian cities, it might have made sense to go for Monarchy...but I really wanted Republic for the Persians...and this way I got my Golden Age while in Republic.

I attach a zip file with two positions: 3600 BC and 370 BC (with 15 turns to go researching Republic). My next save was about 500 years later. Anyway, thanks to all for the advice!

-- HtL

**Hermann the Lombard** · February 13, 2004, 02:05

Hmm...no attachment. Let's try that again.

Attached Files

htlpersians.zip (149.0 KB, 59 views)

**vmxa1** · February 13, 2004, 03:37

I am not sure if the what you discribe is a builder. More like opportunistic. Which is a common practice.

**MrWhereItsAt** · February 13, 2004, 04:49

A big yes to what vmxa just said.

As to the point of the thread, I think the resource scarcity issue may have been a big part of trying to make C3C more viable for builders than previous iterations were. Especially with extremely scarce later resources, there will be fewer civs with the ability to overwhelm another civ through sheer weapons technology, and thus you can defend yourself more effectively than before. With Riflemen coming in with no resource requirements and 6 defense, defense without resources is a more realistic option than attacking without them (Longbowmen attack 4

). Above Monarch may still be dicey - you will certainly need to start being quite nice to the AI, as they can be rather aggressive up there.

**DrSpike** · February 13, 2004, 07:11

Hmm, Catt posted that he thought the scarcity wasn't planned in the scarcity thread. Also I would add that even if this was not the case I don't think they were trying to make a builder game easier through the change.........if anything it makes it slightly harder overall for the builder, though I wouldn't go as far as SR does.

**Hermann the Lombard** · February 13, 2004, 12:26

Originally posted by vmxa1
I am not sure if the what you discribe is a builder. More like opportunistic. Which is a common practice.

Come to think of it, you're right...and the style was more or less new to me in Civ3. In Civ2 I did a bunch of OCC games, never building or taking a second city. I succeeded with cities as small as four pop (though never with only one). I also liked to set up civs with (say) four super cities, or with eight total cities, and it was perfectly viable to win that way. [Mind you, I've noticed occasional references here to OCC, so I gather it's still possible...but I'm not sure it would be on Deity as it was in Civ2.] I guess those games small civs with highly developed cities are what I *really* mean by "Builder." The opportunistic style I learned from Vel Part Two (and Three when it came out).

Resource Scarcity: I haven't had trouble with late-era scarcity because the game is usually over before that, and of course the Vel Doctrine includes wars for resource acquisition and denial. However, it sounds like it would be a good idea to make relative resource scarcity an option. Some of us really like the challenge of limited resources; others think it takes the fun out of the game. "It's not a problem, it's an opportunity."

-- HtL

**Arrian** · February 13, 2004, 12:32

The scarcity can make things difficult for the builder.

I've got an Emperor game going in which I started out builder (had my own island) and went warmonger (attacked Russia, which had 3 luxury types despite being one of the smallest civs around). I've been doing a lot of fighting in the industrial age, and have finally eeked out a lead in Land Area. I own roughly 1/4 of the world (with 40% of the pop). Yet I have the following:

2-3 horsies
2-3 sources of iron
1 source of saltpeter
2 sources of coal, one of which was *just* captured and is as yet unconnected
2 sources of rubber, one of which was *just* captured.
ZERO sources of oil.

The last one is a rather recent discovery. And it has sealed the fate of China. I was pondering hitting them anyway, but now I feel I must attack. They have 1 oil source, and of course a luxury. IIRC, the rest of the world's oil resides in Scandanavia and Mongolia, both of which HATE me and have repeatedly sneak attacked me.

Another vaguely irritating thing has been my inability to trade for 2 of the luxury types for almost the entire game (there was a window where I was able to get gems out of the Vikings, but since they sneak attacked me - twice - I haven't been able to get one for trade, even after peace was established). There just aren't enough to go around, and the AI will trade with itself before the human. I've never once seen furs available for trade (Mongols).

Continuing with the scarcity thing, the second biggest civ is Germany, behind me by a couple of percentage points in land area, and they have lacked saltpeter, coal and rubber for most of the time they have been aware of those resources. I believe the times they did not lack them, they were trading for them. It happens to have worked out nicely for me, because they would otherwise be a monstrous KAI. Instead, I've been able to use them as my ally against the evil Mongols and Vikings. Superior Mongol/Viking units versus superior German numbers, plus me. The result has been a blood-soaked stalemate with my civ gaining ground here and there. All but Scandy and China (island) are Fascists.

I could post it tonight if anyone feels it speaks to this issue...

-Arrian

**lethe** · February 13, 2004, 13:22

Ok, here goes:

1) You have too few workers. Way too few workers. Even with industrious you need atleast one worker per two cities. Eventually you reach a critical mass of workers, where you can get six tiles improved for a new city quickly, then you have enough workers.

2) Persepolis doesn't have a granary. Sinner! Unless my capital is somehow gimped I build a granary first. Yes, before any troops. On demi-god this requires some luxury slider loving to keep going, on regent it should be easy.

3) Aggresive expansion is good. But Antioch is too far up north. On a higher difficulty it would be culture flipped real fast, and even on Regent you stand a good chance of losing it. A better site for a forward base for the coming northward expansion would be the hill 889 from the volcano at the peninsula intersection.

I'll replay it and give a blow-by-blow report of when and why I did things.

**vmxa1** · February 13, 2004, 14:14

You beat me to the punch. A quick look shows 3 workers. I would like one per city. You do have a few in the works, but that is another problem.

One city is making a worker and it is size 1 and will not grow in time to build the worker. This mean you are wasting the time. No sense in building a worker or a settler if it can not be complete on schedule, due to the towns size. IOW you can't make a worker in 3 turns if the town is not going to be size 2 at that time.
If it will not grow to size 2 for 7 turns, you are not going to get that worker.

I do not like to see workers spent on colonies ever, but surely not so early in the game. A town should be planet next to the resource instead. You can wait for it and use the worker to get something done.

I do not have a problem with a new town making a unit ealry in the game without a barracks. I do how ever not want to see units like immortals being build with out one. A warrior ok, UU no thanks.

The lack of workers cost you gold, which cost you research. You see Pasagradae with two tiles impoved and not being worked. A mined hill not being worked. The mining of the hill was expensive in terms of worker turns and should not be done with out a use.

I do not really see any camps or pumps. A layout for that would see the camps very close to the capitol. It is not a great location for camps and pumps, but you do what you can.

I see very few mines and a number of bonus grassland tiles not mined, this is the price of the lack of workers.

I would move to get towns to claim those luxs.

Announcement

C3C: Is "Builder" still viable?

C3C: Is "Builder" still viable?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment