AU501 - Post-game comments

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Thriller
I am quite happy for any of you to tell me that half of my post-game comments are absolute rubbish (but please, not more than half!), if you will all give me yours. That’s the only way I’m going to learn how the devil Nathan is able to get a SS victory by 1555 (not to mention build a power level 4 times that of his nearest competitor by 600AD!) and Catt (at Demi-God, no less!) is able to build the UN by 1460 and win diplomatically by 1515 from an empire consisting of only 3 islands, without ever having conquered the Japanese!

I'm glad to see you're so keen about learning how to get better at Civ3. However, the onus is mostly on you to learn from the reports posted here. You know what you did, now compare it with what others did and see which way is better.

It would be great if all the veteran players could analyze each and every game and dish out advice, but let's face it this is time-consuming and rather boring after a while. You will get tidbits of advice here and there as players read your report if something jumps out at them, but generally you're better off asking direct questions than waiting for others to comment on your game (especially if you're playing Emperor and so are clearly pretty good already).

So, how about I turn one of your questions around: why do you think Nathan managed to be so powerful at 600AD, and how is this different from what you choose to do?


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Thriller
....and the aftermath:

Ow.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Thriller
[. . .] I invested a good deal of time in writing my views both during and after the game (as you all have) and now I’d really like to learn from the collective wisdom of some of you more experienced players. I am quite happy for any of you to tell me that half of my post-game comments are absolute rubbish (but please, not more than half!), if you will all give me yours.

Your post-game analysis seems solid to me, but a lot of it concerned the AU Mod, and since I played stock rules, I didn't (and don't) want to jump into what for me could only be speculation as opposed to informed debate. I'll just say again for making the effort not just to play but to record, in detail, your thoughts and views with respect to the game. Even without detailed responses on your game from others, compare and contrast what you did with what others did -- by comparing you can get a real sense for what worked well for you and what didn't.

Catt

Edit: Cross-post with Dominae. Good advice from Dom. End Edit

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
When, if ever, is it worthwhile to delay available tech trades in the early game for X or Y number of turns?

When you plan to conquer one or more AI civs on a secluded continent. This is what most of you did with Japan.

Generally, I would say that if a secluded AI civ can pay a reasonable price for your techs I see no reason to delay trading with that civ. An AI civ may have a good economic base but still be horribly backward in tech simply because it's never entered the tech loop. This was the case with Russia in many of your games. With such civs I like to gift all my techs so that they start researching something useful. Since I'm the only one that has contact with them, I'm always the first that gets to trade with them, to obvious benefit. This is a much better use of that civ's Commerce than letting it waste away on already-researched techs.

Keeping civs backward may make you feel powerful because you have a tech lead, but you'll actually do better if everyone is current and you're the one pulling strings behind the tech race.


Dominae

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Catt


Even without detailed responses on your game from others

Actually I'm not looking for comments on my game so much as what others have learned from their own games.

Still, yours and Dom's points are well taken, so thanks guys.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Dominae
So, how about I turn one of your questions around: why do you think Nathan managed to be so powerful at 600AD, and how is this different from what you choose to do?


Dominae

Good question. I think it's safe to say it wasn't because of the resource scarcity

Seriously though, if my maths is correct Nathan had his GA from 210AD to around 430AD, which accounts for a good part of the power build-up - obviously put it to good use. But it started well before that and it's this ability to fire in the early game that eludes me. One clear point is that he had 12 settlements on his home island very early compared to the 8 I had for much of the game. And with all but 2 being coastal....well, the effect on commerce is pretty clear. Plus he settled the 2 western islands in that time. So it's a question of how quickly he was able to get that many cities up and to a reasonable size.....which goes back to the effective use of SETTLER PUMPS!!!!

Early conquest of Sumeria and Japan was undoubtedly part of the equation too.

I'm sure there's plenty of stuff in addition to the above generalisations.

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Catt

Okay - no one has taken up my request Let me phrase it another way. On a landmass that is shared, or that you suspect is shared, by numerous civs you take a real risk in not trading techs as soon as you meet a new civ -- if you don't trade, the newly met civ may trade with other civs and make your holdings worthless. On a map that you suspect may be an archipelago, is such risk reduced enough to justify withholding trades during the time you continue to explore?

Catt

Sorry being a bit late

I used to withhold techs as much as possible (I prefer to play archipelago), but now I'm convinced it's not a clever strategy. Let me explain:
If I find an isolated civ and know it will stay isolated (because I discovered it via a galley which did not manage to suicide), then I would withhold my techs as long as they don't pay me a sizable amount of gold (anyway, they will be useless for a long time).

As for the other civs, my experience is now that as soon as a trade is economically feasible, like enough gold, or another tech, or a luxury, it should be made.
Why? because gold (even 20-50 gp) will enable you to research techs faster and/or hike up the luxury slider, thus cashing more gold in. In other words, it's a positive feedback.

However, I would withold techs for a few rounds in a certain number of occasions. For instance, if some civs are just behind the front-runners, I'll try to wait and sell my tech to everybody on the same turn, instead of having another civ selling 'my' tech around.
I would also withold a tech if I plan a war and need allies/RoPs, or if I 'sense' that a civ is going to declare war to me (that lonley galley/galleon heading out of the blue towards my shores...).
The bottom line is that techs will be researched and traded anyway. I prefer to have the other civs dance to my tune instead of the contrary. A 1-tech advance (or knowing you will research one before the others) is often enough to manage the game.

PS: I will be away next week, so don't please.

[Dominae]

When, if ever, is it worthwhile to delay available tech trades in the early game for X or Y number of turns?

Sometimes, in the very early-game when I have an expensive tech (Masonry, Alphabet) that one of my contacts does not, I'll hold out on trading it to them right away for their crappy stuff (Bronze Working, Warrior Code) in hopes of spotting a couple of Workers up for trade in their capital. I'll do this even on Pangea maps.

It's not really that risky because if civ A only has Warrior Code and Bronze Working, the two techs the AI goes for first, chances are that civ B which knows Alphabet probably knows those too, so the A has nothing to trade for Alphabet. Except Workers! Sometimes you miss out and the AI never finishes its turn with Workers in its capital, so at some point you have to accept a "normal" trade for Alphabet. It's better not to wait too long as you can miss your opportunity to make that trade too.


Dominae

[ducki]

Originally posted by Catt
When, if ever, is it worthwhile to delay available tech trades in the early game for X or Y number of turns?

Dom said most of what I was going to say, but left out some minor points.
How aggressively are you scouting for contacts? Aeson's thread On Scouting details reasons to be extremely aggressive as well as reasons to not trade "on contact" and is a regular re-read of mine.

Most of us built a curragh in the first 1000 years or so - how many of us saw AI curraghs that early? We had a reasonable expectation that it was likely we were the only ones out surfing the waves. In that case, I'd wait a few turns to see if I can find another AI and push my costs down. If not, I'll go ahead and trade if for not other reason than to speed the tech rate and attempt to manipulate the AI into researching things I won't.

I traded somewhat sluggishly while finding Japan, Sumeria, Hittites, and was cautious what I trade when I found Egypt, but once I found Russia and lost my curragh, I decided it was time to start pushing, and hard.

My exception, like most, was Japan. I agonized over Japan quite a bit, IIRC. I didn't want them getting Swordsmen and if I didn't crush them before contact, I'd have to worry about allies. So I traded them enough to keep them dirt poor, but did so in a way that I hoped would manipulate them away from techs that could make my eventual invasion more difficult.

Aside from the early delay and some minor sluggishness until I'd met half the world, I traded "on contact" and got as much as possible for as little as possible.

On a continents/pangea map, or on a map with mostly the American culture group(so many expansionists show up here, it seems), I'd worry about waiting even just one turn to trade, especially if their scout is heading the same direction I am. On 'pelago, especially with ultra-early curraghs, I felt I had a lot more leeway to wait and see, though I didn't have to wait long.


So, I guess the definitive answer, for me at least, is "It depends," like so much in C3. Certain situations I trade as soon as possible, even at not-so-great prices, just so I'm not left out of the loop, and sometimes I'll let an opportunity slip through my fingers simply because it doesn't seem like much of a loss or I'm overly confident in my abilities.

[lethe]

Disclaimer: I didn't actually play the course. I'll be on board for the next AU though.

But I've looked at the map. For a long time. It's not as unreasonable as the critics claim. After genning lots and lots of maps to use as bases for scenarios at home I can tell you this: It's fairly certain that atleast one starting position will be in a much tighter spot for resources than this start was.

It really is this bad on most C3C maps for atleast one starting position, if not multiple starting positions.

Maybe ctrl-shift-q is too easy in normal games?

[Fosse]

I was not able to finish to course due to real life popping up and preventing Civ for a while. I just came to terms with the fact that if I ever do finish the course, everyone else will have moved on to 502. So, here is my response (in my game I am at war with Japan and just about to discover Military Tradition, if anyone cares).

1. What did you learn about the power of Seafaring?
I love it. I think that this is the most fun trait, ignoring the actual bonuses it gives. I agree with the sentiment that 25% sinking is way too low for balance, but I love the trait. It's a fun one, and valuable. The coast trade bonus and the movements (coupled with GL or Magellean) are huge.

2. About Civ3 in general?
This was one of my first games in which I really kept never stopped building workers. I've always known that it is important, always said I would, and never followed through. The difference in a small or large worker force is night and day... and I am preaching the choir.

3. Was there anything you would have done differently?
Bigger armies. First, I thought I had enough horsies and Med Inf to take out the Hittites. They overwhelmed me with countless spears and archers. It was so depressing. Then, Knights and pikes fell to Japans raging hordes of Ancient Cav, horses, spears and archers. My armies were a *little* too small for most players... but hardly too small for the tasks I thought they would be attempting. Severe defeat is embarassing, and I'd build bigger armies to prevent it next time.

4. Which civ gave you the most trouble, and why?
Well, I didn't finish the game, so Japan and the Hittites. Why? My wars with both were slaughters because of their numbers. And the three Hittite cities I took defected back shortly after peace. Maya, and the Netherlands are all shaping up to be real KIAs. Egypt is slightly behind I have to laugh when I read about Russia the powerhouse that annexed Egypt in everyone elses game. In mine all Russia did was build the Great Library, which Egypt promptly stole from them as it wiped them off the face of the Earth.

5. What did you think of the Plague?
Effected one city for a few turns. I'm glad it's in the AU mod, an I'm glad that it didn't set me back too much!


6. How did the AU mod affect gameplay?
I haven't really played stock rules since the AU mod first started coming out...

7. Did you find any Easter eggs?
Those sea lanes were how long?


Regarding the Scenario Maker Debate:

One of the things I like best about AU courses are the fact that they are tampered with a bit. Not created from scratch, but tweaked. We see more KIAs, more interesting choices, and more flavor than the Map Generator can give us. I would play AU games just for the maps even if they had no lesson.

Dominae's choices make for an incredibly interesting game, and I love it. I wish I could comment having been through the industrial resource shortage, but I will say that I would have enjoyed it.

I've never wanted Ultimate Power. In fact, my favorite games are when I'm #2. Or even when I'm fighting for the #2 spot. Resource scarcity in C3C in general, and this map in particular, help that out, and I like it.

Dominae, if you ever want to crank out a dozen maps with no lesson attached I'll be the first in line. Thanks for the game.

[Aqualung71]

Most of this has now been covered, but I will generally try to trade as soon as possible unless it's unlikey the other civ's will contact each other any time soon, which is obviously most likely on archipelago maps and sometimes on continents maps.

One factor for me is that I simply don't like getting too far behind in techs, because one missed trade can have a serious multiplier effect. If you don't stay reasonably close to the leaders in the Ancient age, you may find that the 1 tech you were researching that you'd hoped no-one else had and so could trade it for 2 or 3 others is now held by everyone. You then have nothing to trade and no prospects for anything else soon, while the AI continues to trade between themselves into the Middle ages and you're stuck in the Ancient age up to 6 techs behind. At that point you're in despotism, little income (without currency), slow research rate and in real trouble. This is probably my biggest concern with withholding tech trades, and so for me the risk of doing so is usually too high to accept since a miscalculation at this point can almost ruin your game.

I also try to keep my science rate up as much as possible, particularly after selling techs for cash. I am always weak militarily in the Ancient age and regularly have AI's knocking on my door demanding cash. The less cash you have, the less you lose.

And one thing that really bugs me is when you have cash but a negative earn rate because of high research, then an AI demands all your money and suddenly "your barracks has been sold" pops up. So %^$*# irritating!

Originally posted by ducki
I'll go ahead and trade if for not other reason than to speed the tech rate and attempt to manipulate the AI into researching things I won't.

On this specific point ducki, is your reason for speeding trade like mine....ie, basically to make the game move more quickly towards your victory? Or is there a deeper strategic reason for this? I recall reading in one of Catt's earlier DAR's where he said he was deliberately withholding trades in an effort to slow down the research rate, which I guess is partly where this topic started. I can't recall whether this was a specific strategy in itself or just a consequence of the "withholding tech trades" decision. Perhaps Catt, you might also elucidate a little more on your thinking here.

[ducki]

I guess speeding the game in general might be a subconscious goal, though it doesn't really get to be drudgery until late industrial for me.

I think what I was getting at, and stated poorly, was trying to speed the branch I'm not on - if I'm zipping towards, say, Republic, I'd rather have the AI working on the Monarchy branch, or the Construction branch. Not quite Machiavellian(sp? ) but a semi-manipulative attempt to (effectively) research 2 or more techs at once.

It only occasionally works as well as I'd like, and with flavoring probably even less so - I don't want to know the mechanics of that well enough to predict, so I won't.

In the later game, I will very often trade on discovery of a new tech, even to just one well-paying client, and then squeeze everyone else for what I can get, or let my client be the middle-man so they have enough income to hopefully research something I'm not.

It's probably non-optimal, andI usually just do what "feels" right, as opposed to what empirical knowledge held by some here would dictate. I admire those that know enough to be truly manipulative, I just don't.

[Aqualung71]

[Moved to correct thread]

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Fosse
Those sea lanes were how long?

In retrospect, it was probably a bad idea to put a sea lane all the way to the Maya or the English. Frankly I did not consider what effect the Great Lighthouse would have with respect to this map feature. The ability to trade for every single Luxury so early was not something I intended.

By the way, an "Easter Egg" is a funny little game feature that does not affect gameplay (usually graphics-based). The "The King" Elvis graphics is an example from Civ3 (when it's Elvis' birthday, your King units all look like Elvis). So, by this definition, the only Easter Egg in this scenario was the whale breeding grounds. I guess it's not as funny when you point it out...


Dominae