Seven Pillars of Wisdom

[jshelr]

ducki

"It's definitely got me started looking at different strategies for ancient research that don't entail constant war."

You can definitely build well and buy tech fast enough to keep just behind the leader. This will not give you the disired control of the game, but it will keep you competitive until you get an opportunity. You can even do this OCC, but with a good-sized civ you can overcome the AI tech-cost advantage at the trade window. Why you would want to when a good war would do it for free is another question.

[Catt]

Theseus - great job It's very difficult to articulate "game wisdom" above the tactical level.

First, I will come back later to challenge your point in the sidebar regarding a "production strategic advantage" which you anticipate may be a major point of contention.

Second, my only significant disagreement with your strategic layout of Civ 3 is with respect to the "Key Enablers." The partner of gold, in Civ 3, is shields. Happiness is a means to an end. Happiness is critically important -- but its purpose is to allow citizens to labor contentedly. Happiness therefore produces both shields and gold. One must manage a happy (or reasonably content) empire -- combined with the lessons to be learned in the "Developing Infrastructure" requirements -- which will produce shields and gold, each of which buys a piece ("enables") the Strategic Advantages available to the player. Happiness, by itself, buys nothing. Happiness, combined with the right strategic (and tactical) game choices, puts a player in the position to pursue a strategic advantage and a game breaker.

Finally, my two cents on "warmongering vs. building" or, in the context of this thread, "0% research" -- or more accurately, the concept of ignoring one facet of the game to pursue an overwhelming advantage in another facet, and using that "facet advantage" to secure advantage in the overall game itself [obviously dipping far more into personal preferences here, now]. Not only is it doable, but it is the surest way to ensure success. An ultra-early focus on warfare against the AI will generate success more often than any other early tactic, IMHO. But such an approach will too often represent an avoidance of the challenges of the game -- it is a variation of the end result of Vel's unbelievably accurate early work on Civ 3 strategy, but an approach that also focuses more on the AI's inability to perform than it does on the player's ability to make the most of the game rules. You can beat the AI consistently, but you can't beat the AI "at its own game."

Great thread

Catt

[Robber Baron]

Tottering on One or Two Pillars

First let me say, awesome thread, Thes! This one really got me thinking.
Now, purely on an elevated and impersonal strategic plane, a successful player has to develop a balanced array of objectives and imperatives, particularly at the higher levels of play. Leave one or two pillars underbuilt and your civ will topple, sooner or later (sooner at Deity; later but eventually at Emporer). The logic here is indisputable.

But then, from a roleplaying/gameplay point of view, I find myself regularly leaning heavily on one or two pillars, and trying to compensate for weakness elsewhere in the structure. Partly because specific game circumstances create specific, limited arrays of opportunities. But also partly because it becomes fun. As I play, a game-specific personality emerges, and then I find myself over-playing the personality. Don't just be war-like, become "Evilgrin Autoraze," bane of the world and the terror of his own troops. Don't just be an assiduous builder, become "Johnny Hop-lightly," cultural patron of your planet.
What's truly unique about CivIII (even more than Civ II) is the extent to which the game allows one to try to construct a range of strategies, and compensate tactical weaknesses with strategic strengths. You can research techs, or try to buy them, or try to bully them out. And so on.
Only occasionally do such one-dimensional players pull out victories. The logic here is right: usually an unbalanced strategy runs a player into serious trouble.
But that's fun, too. It makes for epic, tragic stories. By the time "Evilgrin Autoraze" is sending waves of knights into deathcharges against rifle-defended cities, or "Johnny Hop-lightly" is kneeling in Bach's Cathedral to pray for divine intervention, while outside the walls of his once-glorious capital a stack of enemy infantry and artillery is approaching that his valiant muskets and hoplites will not be able to withstand, I'm way into the drama.

(In any event, for me, winning is kind of boring -- the modern era game is rather tedious to plod through.)

[ducki]

On topic:
In trying to balance my play better, after reading this thread, I adopted a more involved relationship with my military advisor in the AU 205 game. Boy did that pay off early. Thanks for the eloquent strategy writing, Theseus. I might even convert it into some sort of "worksheet" for analyzing games - you know, like those career planning worksheets or those pages that they have in DayTimers about "What are Your Goals" etc.

Probably a good analysis tool for those that don't really care about the numbers game, but need a closer look at what they are doing right and wrong.

Off topic:

Originally posted by Robber Baron
(In any event, for me, winning is kind of boring -- the modern era game is rather tedious to plod through.)

Amen!

Besides, unless you are going for either Diplo or SS victory - and even usually then - don't most players know whether they've won by the time the Modern Age begins, at the latest?

[Thrumble]

Most excellent thread, it has difinitely improved by gameplay! Thanks.

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by ducki
Off topic:

Amen!

Besides, unless you are going for either Diplo or SS victory - and even usually then - don't most players know whether they've won by the time the Modern Age begins, at the latest?

Ducki - I have been in some very exciting nail biting close cinderella story SS victories, but otherwise yes the modern era is a huge drag.

I originally hated the diplo win and how early the SS victories came. But now I appreciate the early out they provide when you are not completely dominating the game.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Catt
First, I will come back later to challenge your point in the sidebar regarding a "production strategic advantage" which you anticipate may be a major point of contention.

Nah, I won't challenge. A production advantage only enables one of the true Strategic Advantages, or game breakers, and more easily enables the Warfare route. There really aren't effective ways to convert production (shields) into either gold or other tradeable assets, and though a modest tech advtange may be assisted by wealth or by building universities more quickly than a lagging production empire, ultimately the production must be turned to wasteful wealth or units, and units need to be used to have much value.

So I don't think a strong production advantage is a true game breaker.

Second, my only significant disagreement with your strategic layout of Civ 3 is with respect to the "Key Enablers." The partner of gold, in Civ 3, is shields. Happiness is a means to an end. Happiness is critically important -- but its purpose is to allow citizens to labor contentedly . . .

It is hard to underestimate the importance of happiness. It is critical to population growth, and population growth leads to shields and gold. Shields and gold are the key enablers to the three principal pillars, the game-breaking strategic advantages.

But I would still label happiness the enabler of the "Enablers." As such, I would put it in the lower level of "pillars" along with tile working and building. I see the strategic as one of 3-1-3: The three strategic advantages; the Enabler - shields and gold (i.e., city output); and the three necessary infrastructure projects; happiness, tile working, and build choices.

Again, great job on articulating the Seven Pillars.

Catt

[Theseus]

I just re-read this for the first time in... a long time.

With the commentary and suggestions, I still stand by it, so:

BUMP.

[Konquest02]

This thread should never need a bump like this one... It's one of the masterpieces of this forum and it deserves a read from everyone!!

--Kon--

[ducki]

Originally posted by Theseus
I just re-read this for the first time in... a long time.

With the commentary and suggestions, I still stand by it, so:

BUMP.

Ha! I just reinstalled Civ (can't find PtW, argh!) and was reading from your Must Read Threads thread.

Not 60 seconds ago I was thinking 'I wonder if Theseus still feels the same or if he'd modify the Seven Pillars' and lo! and behold! Here you are, reaffirming said Pillars.

Once again, thanks for such a well-written strategic level post.

[lockstep]

Still a must-read!

Originally posted by Theseus
For whatever reason, 0% research as a concept just drives me crazy.

I guess that's what Firaxis and Breakaway where also thinking when they decided to include Scientific Great Leaders into Civ3-Conquests.

[Arrian]

You know what else is good about this thread? It's only 2 pages long. Short, and very much to the point.



-Arrian, who notices that several of his posts are now terribly out of synch with his playstyle, which has changed.

[Theseus]

Thanks guys. I'll prolly re-visit this with a bit more C3C under my belt.

[Alex]

Hey, WTF is happening here? I didn't post that post above. Someone must have stolen my account, or this is the weirdest bug of all times...

EDIT: hm, ok, so it was from 2002. I understand now.

[ducki]

Originally posted by Theseus
Thanks guys. I'll prolly re-visit this with a bit more C3C under my belt.

Hey, it's been 3 months, man. Still stand by(on) your Pillars?