Wonder Guide

[Catt]

Originally posted by ducki
I strongly feel that the ability to Build Armies should be tied to Any Civ discovers Armies. Sure, leave the Epic hidden behind "Victorious Army", but don't hide "Build Army" behind the wretchedly cruel RNG.

It's the one Catch-22 in the game that I really despise, mostly because it's illogical and makes certain wonders attainable _solely_ by the imperfection of computer-based RNGs.

[. . . ]

I just disagree with making such a big part of a game (that's supposedly about management) dependent on both play-style and the RNG.

Well said, and I understand your point, but I generally veer away from allowing real-life history or historical arguments to carry much (if any) weight on a gameplay issue. Once you open the "real-life" can of worms, you open the door to millions of changes, the gameplay value of which is generally unproven (and too often an afterthought). I think its too easy to begin to confuse RL facts with gameplay facts, or rather to look at both through the same prizm (i.e., you say this issue is one you despise because it is "illogical" -- illogical against which logic rule set?).

In a similar vein, the RNG-dependant view can also be applied to any number of gameplay issues. But in any event, I don't think that armies in and of themselves are a very big part of the game. In fact, to the extent that they are a part of the game, I would argue that the vast majority of their significance lies in the ancient and middle ages. Cavalry armies are very nice, but once into the age of infantry, armies, I think, become a "nice to have" rather than a significant tactical advantage.

From a gameplay perspective, if the ability to build armies is made available to all upon the first army (from anyone), then what you'll have is an AI army somewhere early, and the Military Academy will be an available build to all at Military Tradition in every game, with the few exceptions being some achipelago maps where early warfare is highly constrained. The fact is, IMHO, that at least one AI will generate a leader if the human doesn't, and that AI is far more likely than not to use it to build an army. (True - as I argued above, I believe that the relative strength and utility of an army declines significantly in the age of infantry, so perhaps the switch you propose wouldn't have much of an impact in any event -- and note that the AU mod is structured exactly as you propose, but in an effort to get the AI to build more armies).

I'd love to try out Armies in depth, but most of my games are Leaderless.

I recently read one of the "Must Read..." threads about the "Most Fun Militaristic Civs" and there was one guy that posted about getting 20 leaders in a single game. He used one of them to build a marketplace, for god sakes!

Read all those threads (although from your contributions here I assumed you had read them all and bring a lot of independent experience and insight in any event) -- there is no reason most of your games should be leaderless if you set as a goal the generation of leaders. Depending on the random game parameters I get, I might set leader generation as a high priority (and I might not!) -- in such cases it's usually pretty easy to generate leaders once you know how.

Sorry for the rant. Maybe I should just mod my own game and quit whining about this item...

I didn't take it as a rant! Just a well-argued view.

Originally posted by nbarclay
The ideal with Manhatten might be to keep Manhatten as a great wonder but instead of having it enable building nukes worldwide directly, have it enable a less expensive small wonder that other civs could build to get the same ability. After all, it sort of makes sense that the first civ to figure out how to build nukes would have a tougher job than the others. I don't know whether that could be set up in the editor or not, though.

I wouldn't mind testing something like this (although it is not currently possible in the editor) -- I think the regime as it stands now defaults to many human players ignoring the MP, letting an AI waste shields on the wonder and getting the ability to build nukes for "free." Perhaps a small wonder build would at least require a like investment of shields in order to go nuclear.

My big concern with the desire to make the MP purely a small wonder is that a nuclear advantage, if willingly used, can be a game-breaker. Currently we still need access to uranium and the techs to build nukes (so the game must be reasonably close), but the freedom to avoid investing a large amount of shields in a wonder if the leader (or someone else already has) might allow an AI player that is slightly behind to more quickly achieve nuclear balance.

It's hard to say without testing in close situations, but I secretly believe that the MP as small wonder or great wonder, in whatever form, will actually have very little gameplay effects, and no gameplay effects in the vast majority of games.

Catt

[ducki]

Originally posted by Catt
illogical against which logic rule set?).

Ouch, you've out-logicked me. Good one.

I don't think that armies in and of themselves are a very big part of the game.

That may be, but leaders, apparently for most here, are a big part of the game, especially when it comes to Wonder-building at higher levels. When I'm in a Catch-22 of No Leaders, so I can't make an Army, so I can't make the Epic, so I have a smaller chance of Leaders, it's annoying.

Read all those threads (although from your contributions here I assumed you had read them all and bring a lot of independent experience and insight in any event)

I've read most of them. I skipped a lot of them early on, because I was idealistic and naive, thinking I could largely ignore the War Machine part of the game, aside from defense. Which you can easily do at Warlord and Regent, at your own Peril at Monarch, and I don't know about Emperor and Deity.
I'm going back now and reading a lot of the warmongering threads, leader threads, etc.

-- there is no reason most of your games should be leaderless if you set as a goal the generation of leaders.

I've tried.
Holding my Elites in reserve.
Supporting my military with plenty of Cannon/Arty.
Using Vets(and the rarely built Regulars) to wear down an enemy unit so my Elites can have an easy victory.
Using a Defender+Elite team to wander around and mop up obsolete enemy units.
Holding a "defensive" war where the AI can send units to be whittled down by bombardment and picked off by elites.

If there's more technique I'm missing, please share.

in such cases it's usually pretty easy to generate leaders once you know how.

How about a thread on just that? I'm telling ya, I've tried and the RNG hates me. Maybe I'm missing something small. A screenshot-heavy step-by-step How to Hold a War and Generate Leaders thread might help those of us that just don't "get it" on Leader generation.


All this long-windedness just to say, I disagree with the model due to my experience. This is possibly the best game I've ever played and I don't want to give the impression that I hate it, but I sure don't like hiding Increased Leader Generation behind Leader Generation.

Maybe it really is balanced. The builder gets wonders by building them, the warmonger gets them by inspiring them(leaders), but even in games where I go to war early - 8 archers rushing Rome before Legions seems pretty early to my builderly self - I still end up at the end of the Industrial Era/beginning Modern with 1 or fewer leaders, no armies, and having missed 2 small wonders.

Anyone feel like doing a "How to Hold a War..." thread? Maybe I really am doing something wrong.

[Jawa Jocky]

Ducki please remember that the combat results and leader creation are figured out statisically in the same way.

I would compare your lack of leaders to a tank getting killed by a spearman. It's just a string a bad results. Keep with the proven strategies and your luck will turn around.

I've played with Militaristic civs and had only 1 leader, and I've played non-militaristic and had several leaders.

I guess I need something on topic:

Has anyone built the the Internet yet (besides Gore)?

[Arrian]

ducki,

My advice concerning leader generation:

1) play a militaristic civ. Though the 1/16 (1/32 on defense) chance of leader generation from an elite combat victory doesn't change, the number of elite units you will have does. That, and cheap barracks helps in early warfare.

2) Your entire civ should be geared towards war. You want a large number of troops, preferably mobile (horsemen), with which you will beat on multiple AI civs.

3) Be patient, grasshopper. When I was first working out how to do this right, I often failed to restrain myself from just wiping the opposition out. Now I'm much more likely (prior to the switch to republic... and maybe for a bit after) to hang out and kill those single archers sent out by the shattered remnants of one of my opponents.

One thing about the HE: even though I usually play warmonger style and like to get leaders, I don't always use them on an army for the HE.

Yeah, you heard me right. Allow me to explain. You see, the HE only helps you if you generate 2 or more leaders after you build it (you must use 1 leader up, so you have to recoup him and then gain another to receive any benifit). Leaders tend to be incredibly powerful in the early to mid game, and weak late. Therefore, the promise of leaders tomorrow for 1 today may or may not be attractive to me. If I have a large number of elite troops that I will be using, I will build the HE. If there are no major projects (wonders/FP or palace move) available/needed, I will build the HE. If, however, I don't have that many elites, or if my ancient warring is winding down, I will use the leader on a more crucial project, sacrificing the prospect of extras down the road.

Hmm... I intend to play tonight... maybe I'll fire up a Monarch game as Japan or China and do up some screenies re: leader generation... no promises, ducki (my girlfriend plays CivIII too now, and sometimes battles for comp time), but you may get your thread.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by ducki
Sure, leave the Epic hidden behind "Victorious Army", but don't hide "Build Army" behind the wretchedly cruel RNG.

Originally posted by ducki
When I'm in a Catch-22 of No Leaders, so I can't make an Army, so I can't make the Epic, so I have a smaller chance of Leaders, it's annoying. [. . . .] . . . but I sure don't like hiding Increased Leader Generation behind Leader Generation.

OK - now I'm a bit confused -- the goalposts seemed to have moved a bit. I thought your original point was that the ability to build armies shouldn't be tied to leader generation (as opposed to a "leader increasing" wonder tied to leader generation).

In any event, I am more sympathetic to the HE (i.e., increased leader chances) not being dependent on generating a first leader. But I also like the strategic choice imposed on the player when deciding what to do with a leader if only one choice offers the opportunity for increased numbers of future leaders -- a juciy wonder, or an army (so I can build the HE and hopefully get more leaders)? Without the present implementation of the HE, I would be building early armies far less often than I currently do.

Originally posted by ducki
I've tried.
Holding my Elites in reserve.
Supporting my military with plenty of Cannon/Arty.
Using Vets(and the rarely built Regulars) to wear down an enemy unit so my Elites can have an easy victory.
Using a Defender+Elite team to wander around and mop up obsolete enemy units.
Holding a "defensive" war where the AI can send units to be whittled down by bombardment and picked off by elites.

If there's more technique I'm missing, please share.

I think that's a pretty good summary, and I'm sure there's an old thread somewhere, but probably a good idea to start a new one. Maybe I'll give it a shot if I have some time later today.

In the meantime, without trying to start that thread here, and acknowledging that this isn't a nice "bite-size" tip, one of the most important things I personally do when leader generation is a strategic imperative is to fight a "lazy war" (as opposed to a defenisve war). I define a lazy war as one where I can do severe damage to an AI civ if I choose to do so, but don't. The thinking is as follows: (1) I need cannon fodder to fight in order to generate both elites and then leaders; (2) in order to enjoy a steady supply of cannon fodder, I need an enemy that "thinks" it can win the war, and has a sufficiently productive empire to produce a steady stream of units; and (3) if I inflict too much damage on an enemy, it will start to huddle in its cities, and won't have the production capability to provide me my cannon fodder. To put it another way, if I capture or raze 25% of an empire, and pillage luxuries, etc. so that production takes a nose dive, then I end up sitting around waiting for a lone archer or longbowman to emerge every 5 or 6 turns. The same thing can happen if I don't present a credible offensive threat to an AI civ -- I need to be sure that his productive efforts are devoted to building my cannon fodder -- I never want to see him behaving as I do when a non-credible AI declares war on me, i.e., going about my business casually destroying the small trickle of offensive units that occasionally show up in my territory. This is not conducive to generating leaders. I'd rather have a steady stream of units (even powerful units) thrown at me than a crippled enemy occasionally offering up a sacrifice.

"Lazy war," unlike "defensive war," requires that I fight and threaten, and often that I fight and threaten on the AI's turf. But I have to avoid destruction - little pillaging and often few city captures. Too often in a defensive war, the AI will not send enough cannon fodder my way, and too often in an offensive war too much damage is done to an AI's production capabilities to allow it to send appropriate amounts of cannon fodder.

Finally, still as a part of the "lazy war" concept, just be aware that leader generation requires investment, often significant investment -- the investment is made up of lots of shields worth of units being destroyed while waiting for a leader. You need elites which means your veterans need promotions -- you must fight and fight often, and you will frequently lose. It is a price I'll pay if I've set my goal as leader generation.

Just remember that at the end of a lazy war, inflict some real pain on the AI for making you take so much time and invest so many shields in order to generate the leader(s) you were after

Catt

[Arrian]

"Lazy war" I love it. That's a good one, Catt.

That requires even more patience than my "pick off the archers/longbows."

-Arrian
ps perhaps we can collaborate on illustrating our leader generation tips...

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
Has anyone built the the Internet yet (besides Gore)?

Funny you should mention it . . .

I played a game as the Arabs. Rather than exploit to the fullest what I felt was a clear production advantage by mowing down the opposition, I settled into a languid drift towards a SS victory, hoping to glean some insights into the AI's late-game play. My strongest competitor was the Ottoman empire. I had about a 2 or 3 tech lead, reduced by one as Osman entered the modern age.

I choose to bypass Fission (and the UN) and instead research Computers and then Miniturization -- the plan was to build both Seti and the Internet, but not waste any shields building research labs. I figured I would drop back for Fission afterwards. I succeeded in building the wonders (although I actually lost the UN to the Ottomans, who must've gone straight for it). It was certainly nice to enjoy maintenence-free and instantaneous research labs.

A couple of interesting points: (1) you get the 50% research boost from the free RL even in cities without the pre-requisite university (or even library); and (2) in any late game war, there is no need to rush temples in captured cities for the border expansion -- each city immediately gets a RL which starts generating 2 culture right from the start (at first I couldn't figure out how my borders were expanding when I trimmed a neighbor that got uppity).

Maintenence free 50% research boost, and free 2 culture . . . nice, but I'm not sure how many times I'll actually go after Miniturization instead of just focusing on a SS win if I get to that point. I suspect I may detour to Miniturization in the circumstances I have already done so -- a small or decent tech cushion, and just to avoid building a lot of RLs.

Catt

[Catt]

Originally posted by Arrian
"Lazy war" I love it. That's a good one, Catt.

That requires even more patience than my "pick off the archers/longbows."

-Arrian
ps perhaps we can collaborate on illustrating our leader generation tips...

I hadn't thought of screenies, but that's a good idea. I feel pretty good about my abilities to generate leaders, but you and some of the other regulars are better at it than me -- I'd love to see some of your tips and would happily contribute where I can. So I would happily colloborate.

Catt

[ducki]

Originally posted by Catt
OK - now I'm a bit confused -- the goalposts seemed to have moved a bit. I thought your original point was that the ability to build armies shouldn't be tied to leader generation (as opposed to a "leader increasing" wonder tied to leader generation).

Not moved, just poorly defined originally.

A wonder is locked up behind Victorious Army, which is locked up behind Difficult Decision, which is locked up behind the RNG, which is locked up behind Decision to War.

I sent you more in a PM to stop the threadjack.


It's still about the wonders, but I've taken us so far off the main idea that I feel PM/new thread is better.

[Theseus]

Pending a new GL-generation thread, I suggest trying Rome or Japan... Legions and Samurai will often survive and be effective as elites for long periods of time.

Catt, "Lazy War" is a great concept / phrase... that's sorta what I had in mind going all the way back to the "Care and Feeding" thread. I think most people don't realize how important this is as a component of GL-generation.

OT: I love the Military Academy. Ever since I saw that screenshot of Zachriel's Armies, I've tried to better integrate LARGE numbers of Armies into my late (if not early) game. Sure, I might get there via GLs, but I wanna make sure I get there. Also, as much as I love improving Armies through mixing units over time I also love having some empties around, especially when I get Motor Trans and Rep Parts.

[King_Henry]

Originally posted by player1
Sheakespear Th. - 0 (ZERO)
What's the point of this wonder.

How can you say no to that wonder? I would rate it a 4 for the culture. But only for the culture.

[Silpy]

I am happy (mainly) with the current wonders. I only want one changed. I beleive that the Manhatton Project should become a small wonder, with the affect that the civ in question could build nukes. So, everybody gets a warning when a civ becomes a nucalear power. If you have varing affects, it will all get too compicated.

[Panag]

hi ,

each civilization should have the ability to build at least one wonder , .....

have a nice day

[Stuie]

Originally posted by ducki
I found that I'd complete the ToE exactly in the middle of my current Research, so I reapplied my beeline to Electronics(Hoover)....

Or, you could switch research the turn prior to ToE being finished, take two free techs, and then switch back to the half-researched tech. Personally I'd rather keep my research going than accumulate a bunch of gold.

[j_wedd]

Theory Of Evolution -- 1

Theory Of Evolution -- 1

Gives you two free secondary advances free, this is not too benificial towards your civilization, the wonder is much like a very small version of the Great Library. Boosts your scientific level up the science tree if you have already discovered all of the secondary advances.

My view is that The Theory of Evolution is one of the more important wonders.
In Civ3 PTW the ToE gives 2 advances of your choice NOT 2 secondary advances. I always get Radio and one other industrial age advance. This means that I get well ahead of the other civs in the tech race. In addition i am almost guaranteed to get the Hoover Dam, another top wonder.
In fact the tech lead can then be so great that the others simply cannot catch up.
Incidentially I always play on emporer !