Seven Pillars of Wisdom

[jshelr]

There is so much great stuff here that it seems bush to argue. Thanks

On with the argument

"For whatever reason, 0% research as a concept just drives me crazy. Yeah, I know, you sorta can’t go wrong buying techs when they are so much cheaper, but does that give you control? No."

Yes. It does give you control. Much more control and much more reliably, IMO.

You can successfully reach a future tech goal in the most rapid manner possible if you use a combination of zero research and warmongering to extort tech. At some point you will find yourself with four things

1) the tech you would have researched yourself
2) the gold that you didn't spend on research
3) weakened neighbors
4) and an infrastructure that enables you to overcome the initial tech cost advantage given to the AI

Usually that last element is after universities are in place.

When your research infrastructure is ready to hum on its own, then, and only then, would a policy of zero research drive me crazy.

So, remembering that the only reason I'm writing is that I loved the discussion, T's concern about zero research reminds my of Woody Hayes -- Ohio State's football coach in the good old days. He not only insisted on beating Michigan, he insisted on doing it by running off tackle on every play. He was so good that he usually won, even on his own terms. However, for most mere mortals, it's just easier to do it the easy way.

By the way, in answer to Arrian's question, it is sometimes helpful to buy tech so that you are only "one tech level" behind the civ you are planning to attack. Otherwise, I agree. Why spend gold on early research?

BTW, I think the beeline for GL, if you don't start with Alphabet, is a very bad bet. This is because the extortion method is relatively safe and the shields spent for the GL get in the way of building an offensive force.

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by Arrian
I like to try and keep the AI as poor as I can (even if they're smarter than I am), for the simple reason that this helps prevent them from upgrading their units when I hit them.
-Arrian

Is this a factor for the AI being more likely to attack you? You have money and they don't.

[jshelr]

If the AI is smart, it will attack the poor. The rich can bribe for alliances -- which is a good reason to be rich, rather than using gold for research.

[Arrian]

The AI will demand things from you if you're rich, and I suppose will be more likely to attack you, but I don't really fear that. Being attacked too soon can be a hinderance, but so be it. I need that money, because I use mass upgrades (warriors -> swords, chariots -> horsemen, etc). Later in the game (mid-middle ages) I do my best to never dip below a 1000gold treasury. That's partly because of Wall Street, and partly because a surplus is a good idea, so that if you really need to run a serious deficit to get a tech in 4 turns, you can.

-Arrian

[vondrack]

EDIT: deleted parts not relevant any more (a name mismatch in the original posts - promptly corrected by Theseus).

Very fine reading.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Theseus [Sidebar: There is one more way, gaining a production strategic advantage and ending with a diplo / SS / histographic win, but I maintain that above Monarch that is highly unlikely, even given superior tile-working decisions, unless starting terrain is significantly better than that of any of the AI civs… thus, a win ultimately driven by luck, and not by control. Yeah, I expect this will be a major point of contention, but what’s life without a little spice?]

As usual, I will defend those who choose not to defend themselves, the peaceful builders . I strongly disagree with your assertion that this is unlikely above Monarch, as I've played many random warless games at Deity without mediocore starting positions and nothing particularly special or important occuring (I point specifically to a game I posted a few months ago). I don't restart and I play random civs and win consistently via diplo/SS, though, oddly enough and perhaps unexpectedly, I haven't got any cultural wins in this manner. I must admit that I haven't played anything out at SVC caliber in this regard. I will say that diplomacy/trade is a indeed a vital and game dominating strategy that I employ to ensure victory in these situations. I don't know if everyone always does this, but I always grab every possible cent out of every deal, especially early on, when one gold is especially valuable. It is also important to note how the AI regards gpt. In my experience, the AI considers 1 gpt to be equal to 18 gold up front. This can easily be taken advantage of by selling items (typically tech) for gpt while buying with straight gold. That said, it is still generally worthwhile to use what should be a (relatively) large gpt income to buy whatever you need to catch up.

[Theseus]

Fixed... apologies to BOTH parties.

Quick thought:

Arrian's right about efficiency... I would probably re-label #6 to "Production Efficiency" and consider tile working, corruption / waste management, and Palace / FP placement to be subsidiary topics, with a connection to #7 (as everything does) in terms of Courthouses, Police Stations, and the FP.

I'll deal with you crazy 0% research people later.

[Catt]

Theseus - great thread Trying to digest it all and identify where, if anywhere, my view of the game differs from the one you've laid out.

Originally posted by Theseus
Quick thought:

Arrian's right about efficiency... I would probably re-label #6 to "Production Efficiency" and consider tile working, corruption / waste management, and Palace / FP placement to be subsidiary topics, with a connection to #7 (as everything does) in terms of Courthouses, Police Stations, and the FP.

And add in "proper" unit building as a subpoint to #6. Not building infantry in 42-shield cities, for instance.

Catt

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by jshelr
If the AI is smart, it will attack the poor. The rich can bribe for alliances -- which is a good reason to be rich, rather than using gold for research.

Oh? My usual routine (assuming I have a tech lead) is to offer techs as bribes, and get whatever gold or other goodies I can as change out fo the deal. That way I can bribe allies without undermining my own research rate.

Nathan

[wilbill]

Thank you, Theseus, for a very cogent and lucid description of what I'd begun to think of as the "balanced" approach to Civ 3. Early on, I tried all the extreme approaches and found them either mindlessly repetitive (kick their butts early and often) or mindnumbingly dull (grow, grow, grow, build, build, build).

A lengthy excursion into OCC forced me to actually think about what I was doing vis-a-vis the AI and it dawned on me that balance in all areas of the game is the best approach - while waiting for the point in the game where an advantage becomes available (usually an advantage of my own making, but sometimes one I didn't expect) and then using that advantage to leverage a win via whatever victory condition the situation dictates.

Civ 3 is a much better game than a lot of us allow it to be. Certainly better than I allowed it to be. It's not really a war game, although it can be played as one. It's not a diplomacy game even though diplomacy is a very important aspect. And it's not an empire building game - if it was OCC wouldn't work. It's all of those and more. And the more I explore all those aspects of the game the more I enjoy it.

There's a lot of "common knowledge" around that the AI is stupid, repetitive, incapable of winning and so on. I've discovered that if I play the same game, the same way every time, the AI is , in fact, repetitive. If I vary my approach the AI is not only less predictable but capable of some occasional surprises. I'm fairly sure that players who restrict their game to REX-Build-Attack never let the AI move into some of the behaviors it's capable of.

Thanks again for a thought provoking thread. Especially one that didn't ask "Is PTW worth $30?"

[vondrack]

Very well said, willbill!

I find especially your point with the AI repetitivness being tied to the "repetitivness" of the human player very good.

[jshelr]

Nathan writes, "Oh? My usual routine (assuming I have a tech lead) is to offer techs as bribes, and get whatever gold or other goodies I can as change out fo the deal. That way I can bribe allies without undermining my own research rate."

Nathan, this point is accepted without objection on the assumption stated.

If, however, you don't have a tech lead, in the ancient era particularly, and don't have the research horsepower yet to get such a lead, I'd advocate patience and gold accumulation and eventual war over beating your head against the AI's research cost advantage. (Probably this is an emperor-and-above idea.)

Once you have a tech lead, I agree that one of the most fun responses to an attack is to give the attacking civ's neighbor an old, out of date tech or two in exchange for an alliance. This is particularly satisfactory if the ally is geograpically between you and the attacker.

[Arrian]

Theseus,

Where would Wonder building and GA's fit in to your Pillars? They are probably "subsidiary topics" but they're very important ones.

-Arrian

[Orcin]

I just wanted to say that this is one of the best threads that I have read on Civ3 strategy. Often, tactics are confused for strategy, but this strategic framework gives players a concept to guide their actions and choices during the game as opposed to following a "recipe" for winning.

Excellent job, Theseus

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by Arrian
Theseus,

Where would Wonder building and GA's fit in to your Pillars? They are probably "subsidiary topics" but they're very important ones.

-Arrian

Wonders seem to fit into the various pillars. Happiness, Gold, Research, and military advantages are common benefits from them.

I have found that Wonders also provide momentum. However this is probably a "chicken and the egg arguement", since its easier to build wonders if your already doing well. It seems like even the not so important wonders can add up to 'more than the some of their parts' when you build a lot of them.