Strategy Notes From Vel - The Early Game....

[Velociryx]

Stuff I forgot in my last post, and other goodies:

When talking about pollution, I mentioned that you could assign 4-6 workers to pollution patrol duties AND get them free to boot! But then, with all the calls coming in here, I kinna forgot to say how, so I’ll start with that….

First, hold diplomacy a lot, if you don’t already….tweak existing deals and/or re-negotiate. And don’t be shy about nixing someone else’s deal if a better offer comes along! In that regard, develop a real nose for business, and sometimes (in 16 Civ games), I have found it useful to keep a notebook handy so I can jot down who’s getting what, and for how much, and have it available at a glance (entries include such things as: Joan of hot, Ivory, 23g/turn)

And, when you hold diplomacy, take a look at the options available to you. Oftentimes (I think it’s keyed to if that Civ has been at war or no, and gained/lost workers), you’ll see an entry for workers. BUY them!!! As far as I can tell, they don’t increase your per turn maintenance costs, and of course, that’s one more for you and one less for your opponent! Also, the most I’ve ever paid for a worker was 30g, so it’s not like it’s going to break the bank, and a few turns spent terraforming, and he’s as good as paid for himself and the paltry sum you spent to bring him into the fold!

Anyway, in the last game I played through, I picked up more than a dozen workers on the cheap this way….VERY cool, cheap way to bulk up the labor force!

The “A” Word
Armies. Most people don’t care for them, but I think we’ve been looking at it in the wrong way/not thinking about exactly what they CAN accomplish. I’ve been experimenting with that, and I’ve gained a whole new respect for armies.

First, consider that each unit fights till it gets till its last HP, and then withdraws and a fresh unit comes up. Thus, an early game army consisting of Swordsmen has the MAJOR benefit of cavalry (ie – retreats when badly injured, increasing survivability), and has three times more HP than anything it’s going to normally come up against.

Which means….

Armies can’t blitz, so don’t bother putting blitz-troops IN an army. They’re more useful to you separate!

Armies shine the brightest when composed of grunts. Infantry. Ground pounders.

An army consisting of three different units MAY be useful in a specialized situation or two, but my experimentation has revealed that a homogenous army does better than a mixed, and you’re gonna LOVE what an army of Longbowmen can do during a Middle Age assault on a town, or an army of Mechanized Infantry can do for you defensively in the modern era.

It’s a given that in every battle, the computer presents his best defender, so present your best attacker! Let your army lead the charge against those city walls and see if the sturdy spearman can chew through 15 points worth of pissed off swordsman….

Defensively, there’s no unit that the computer can bring to bear on you that’ll top a full-strength army, so if you’ve just taken a city and want to use it as a forward base. Plop an army in it and laugh as he tries to take it.

Hell, plop two down, either in the city or in mountain forts approaching it, and just let him come (and by the way, tell him to bring friends….LOTS of friends…he’ll need them!).

So…all that to say that I have changed my mind about Armies. No, they’re not going to ever replace the standard battle group….too tough to get, and maybe that’s for the best, because my experimentation with them has revealed them to be a lot more useful than I first gave them credit for.

Why are we here?
No…I’m not referring to the age old, philosophic question, but over the holiday weekend, a friend of mine, and long-time fan of turn based, 4x games came over, had a few (okay…SEVERAL) drinks, and we started discussing them in general.

The question was this: “Given that the “Rush” Strategy has been the single most powerful method of playing since the birth of the 4x genre (and later, RTS wargames)….why bother trying? Why talk about and dissect strategies that are not needed to beat the AI, when all you have to do is use the tried and true rush?

And that got me thinking.

He had a point, after all.

Certainly it would be easier to just build 400-odd warriors and send them fanning out in all directions until a faction was discovered….no discourse, no diplomacy, just run over him, dying by the score, but slowly gaining ground, and then repeating until there simply were no factions remaining.

I win.

Yay. ::as he stifles a yawn::

Please….if I EVER decide to win a game that way, someone come to my house and shoot me, ‘k?

I cannot think of a worse waste of fifty bucks, than to buy Civ3, and proceed to spend the next six to ten hours scooting little quarter-inch tall, grunting soldiers across a kinna pretty map just to say “I win!”

No thanks.

Can you do that?

Sure.

In fact, there is evidence to suggest that on the absolute hardest level of difficulty, it’s the only way to fly, and if that’s true, then I can honestly tell you I don’t see myself spending much time playing the hardest level of difficulty, because for me, the combat engine is not the reason I bought Civ3.

It’s the chance to lose myself….to immerse myself in a detailed, fantastic empire building simulation.

To trade and quibble with my rival civs.

To execute masterstrokes of diplomacy that result in the slow (ohhh, say 1000 years or so) decline of a rival Civ….to know that YOU did that through cunning maneuver (and by that, I DO NOT mean cunning maneuver of little quarter inch tall, grunting cave warriors in order to follow his latest settler/warrior around to take that city too!) and skill….for me….THAT’s where the magic is.

To me, the essence….the beauty of the game lies in what happens if you let the civs live to grow up a little and start interacting with each other (you included!), and everything I write about here is with that in mind, first and foremost.

For me, there would be few worse forms of torture than to sit me down at the computer and force me to play a mind-numbing game of “let’s move the little multi-colored pixels for a few hours,” which is, after all, the essence of the rush game.

No subtlety.

No strategy.

Some tactic, admittedly, but I’d wager that you’ll find more tactical subtlety and finesse in any given fifteen minute stint on the history channel (even the commercials!) than you’ll find in most games where the rush method is being employed.

Oh….there IS some decision-making to be found…how to optimally position the city, and some wickedly-honed intuition to be able to “sniff out” where the opposition might be lurking in the shadows so you can snuff them out all the faster.

But strategy, it ain’t.

Nothing wrong with playing the game that way I suppose, and if there are people out there who play the game that way and enjoy it, great!

But then, those people probably aren’t reading this thread anyway.

Now…what would be really awesome is if there WERE a few people who played the game like that on regular occasion, but who came here to read and discuss anyway, cos you know what that says to me?

It says that, yeah, they’re playing the game that way, but they’re really not enjoying it, and they’re searching. Looking for some spark and magic in their games.

So that’s why I spend so much time writing about this stuff.

Cos this…right here, putting ideas out onto this forum with 30-odd thousand page views and seeing what happens when other folks start using them….being around a bunch of people who are like-minded in that we WANT the other Civs to live (well…most of them at least!) so make the game itself richer….hearing from people who have either experimented with the ideas here, or who bring something totally new and different with them….THAT’s where the magic is…..

And that’s awesome….

-=Vel=-

PS: Besides that....rushing works vs. the AI, and (if your human opponent is *also* rushing, it works against him too, and there is a certain "window" where rushing will work against a human opponent, but after that window closes, you'll find that your warriors are pretty handily getting turned into mulch by a better, higher tech army that you have little or no hope of producing, much less fending off....they call it the "rush" cos it relies on speed, and time is not the friend of the rush game. The longer it drags out, the less viable the rush becomes....

(my two cents anyway)
-v.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Zurai001
Hate to break it to you.... Hannibal DID conquer Rome. The only reason he left is because a Roman General attacked Carthage and the Carthaginian leaders recalled Hannibal and his armies.

You are wrong. Hannibal did not (nor could he) conquer the City of Rome.

He was in control of a large part of Italy, but with the exception of large, walled cities, and he didn´t have the means to take them.

[Zorkk]

tee hee

by Vel

Please?.if I EVER decide to win a game that way, someone come to my house and shoot me, ?k?

Alrighty... but can I get you to put that down on paper??

Nice post.

I want to say, how MUCH I agree with your points about the RUSH. It's silly, and it's lame. in ANY game. I used to (not anymore) play a lot of RTS games online, but quickly grew very tired of them because of people that rush, and seem to enjoy taking out me out of the game with their first, weakest units.

Where's the fun in that? Where's the build up, the empire building?! that's more than half the fun of a game. they should rename RTS games to RTR games.. real time rush, cuz that's invariable what alway's happens. (against human opponents)

IF civ 3 get's multiplayer, I'm sure we'll see very little rushing in it. Everyone is getting used building an early military to help against the computer, and your words are very true Vel, in that there's will be a small window of opportunity for rushing, but that's it.

AT LAST we have a game (Civ3) that is TRUE strategy. It really does make me think about what i'm going to do. Make a plan, and hopefully be able to execute it. I have a thriving, growing population, with a much more advanced economic model, way better than send out peons to mine gold, wood & stone and that's it for your economy.

I myself am really really enjoying the introduction of luxury, and strategic resources (makes civ even more like the board game Advanced Civilization.. anyone played it??). I've found they give my game an additional depth, as the resources can be very important for long term strategy.

One thing I wish for in civ 3. a longer modern age. I tell ya... by the time i'm in modern age, the AI is usually behind me (even in my first regent game i'm just playing) and by that point it feels like i've won, and I'm just going thru the motions. I will have to try playing on monarch next to see how I do. But having a long drawn out war in the modern age could be very interesting. Perhaps I'm a little too warlike, in that I go to war to keep the AI civ's below me as much as I can.

Keep up the strategy notes vel, I love reading this thread, and it has given me the edge I needed in the game.

Sorry for being a bit off topic (no new strategy from me, sorry) but I had to reply to the bit about RTS games, since i hate them with a passion now! Ghengis Khan from koei has been my favorite strategy game for years upon years!

Zorkk

[Comrade Tribune]

The Rush

Reading your thoughts about the Rush, I found myself strangely agreeing and disagreeing at the same time, so one reason I write this is to sort out my own thoughts.

First thought: In a TBS game, extreme Rush strategies simply should not work. If they do work, and this is not intentional, it´s a design mistake.

Second thought: Define Rush. In a broad sense, any kind of Blitzkrieg could be considered a Rush strategy, and therefore bad style. Where would you draw the line?

Third thought: Multiplayer. I am afraid there will be more than a 'Small Window of Opportunity' for Rushing. Those Civs with early, fast offensive UU´s (Actecs, Egyptians, Iroqois) will be forced to rush their nearest neighbour with their UU, or they forego their specific advantage.

Fourth thought: To make myself clear, I share your sentiment -I extremely dislike the Rush; BUT: If it works better than anything else, and we don´t do it, then we are using bad strategy. IF, in the real world, the Iroquois COULD have conquered the world with their Horsemen, they should have done so, of course. I would.

[vmxa1]

Ok Vel, how do you get to the point where you have CV and flankers? I get to that point and the game is soon over. I once built a carrier, but never got around to manning it. I like art/cannon, but they really slow down the train. We need a unit that can carry them (truck/train).
I would like to this thread put into a document that can be edited. If I could stop playing long enough, I could do it myself (nay that ain't likely).
As to keeping what you take, that is mandatory to me, but it has been hard at times. One game I was on one end and could not get at the other civs to keep them in check. I finally stomped the closest one and the others all attacked with RoP's. I was hit in one town by so many units I had to use the page to see the whole list. They attacked every turns for years, until I finally got them in check. It was a gas thought, Elites and leaders popping out every where. Their units were weak Warrior Jags and spearmen for the first 20 years. When they came with better stuff I had mobile armour. One other city fought off very large wave as well. I had an army of elite calvs and many other goodies and they had to come in one tile only, can you say slaughter.
Question, I have been with holding aqua/hosp boost on some cities that have limited habitable land. Such as a city I had to build or take over that was on the ocean edge and would have few land squares, or many mountain tiles. I figured to keep them small to avoid the starving problem, would you say it is better to let them grow more?

[vmxa1]

Vel, Armies are fun. Most of what you said about them I agree with. I would make one as soon as I can, even a one man one if it can win a quick battle. Now I can make EPIC and get even more Leaders. I then add more troops. The army is the best way to start the assault if you do not have cannon types at hand as they can take down any one and the rest of the defenders tend to be weaker. I nearly lost my amry of elite cavs attacking a 12 pop city to a pikemen though. On defense the point you made is nearly so, but I have had many close calls when the AI was able to send large numbers. It is scarfy to watch 15-18 attackers nearly each get one hit point in and put your army on the ropes. I have seen the army fight to near death in that case, when I had other fresh units waiting??? Anyway they are not omnipotent.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Stuff I forgot in my last post, and other goodies:

And, when you hold diplomacy, take a look at the options available to you. Oftentimes (I think it’s keyed to if that Civ has been at war or no, and gained/lost workers), you’ll see an entry for workers.

Anytime an AI Civ has a worker in their capitol city you can trade for them. It also works the other way around, as you can give any worker in your capitol to the AI Civ of your choice. I think trading units would be a great addition to the game, but currently it only works with workers that I've noticed.

As far as rushing is concerned, all any computer game can offer is "manipulate these pixels this way" regardless of the strategy. The fun comes in when you play in a way that stimulates your imagination. Same thing as text, it's a really boring, tedious medium if you stop to think about it. But if you connect with whats written it can be engrossing. I enjoy many different paths that the Civ games have offered, and I like playing the mindless hordes from time to time. The problem is that I enjoy building, research, and diplomacy just as much, and I do agree that in most computer strategy games that rushing is the "best" way to play from a scoring or multiplayer standpoint.

From a scoring standpoint, and against the AI, the same is true for Civ3. In multiplayer, I think it will be more balanced, as any gains gotten by war with one player, will be offset by falling behind the others. I for one would NEVER give someone rushing me any techs, no matter how hard I was being pressed. (something the AI should figure out) The whole reason rushing works against the AI is because it targets its flaws. AI will give you anything to declare peace once you take a couple cities, something a player would know isn't going to keep another attack from happening anyways. There needs to be a "barbaric" light that other AI civ's start to see you in as you break peace treaties, getting to the point where no one would ever allow you to deal with them in any way ever again.

Also, I don't think warriors are a very good idea to rush with in any case, at least not from the moment you can build any other unit, as you get a 40 shield unit just as cheaply as a 10 shield one. If you want to rush, at least take a civ that has an early UU, starts with warrior code, or bronzeworking. Horsemen or Swordsmen (and their UU counterparts) are usually much more effective, and once you get the advances and resources needed, they dont cost anything more. But even if I have to choose between rushing a warrior or a spearman, there's no contest.

[Kinjiru]

Industrial Age and Despotism

I have been playing around with this idea for a bit and thought I might as well share it with everyone.

When you get to the industrial (and modern) age, everything costs so dang much, shield-wise. Granted, by running democracy and setting your science slider to 10% you can generate a lot of cash to rush-buy stuff, but still, I long for the pop-rush.

So, why not do a pop-rush?

Get all your cities to a point where they are ready for say, a factory. Start building factories and get them maybe 20% complete.

Then call for a revolution and switch back to despotism. Execute a pop-rush in all your cities, then switch back to democracy.

Now, this strategy is a real winner if you are a religous civ and you only lose two total turns to anarchy, but it can be viable with any civ. The key is making sure you can handle the impact of the anarchic period (have a good army ready in case some other civ gets uppity, have reserve cash on hand, etc).

[gnomos]

The Worker Worm

I've been having a blast with the french on chief level with a huge map, in early industrial ages.

The cavalry unit roxors, especially when backed up with about 20 workers (you need to be able to build railroads too).

The 3 movement on cavalry is key, you need to be able to rush through the culture zone and be able to attack in the same turn. You blitz a city, and capture any nearby workers. Raze the city if you don't have enough troops to properly garison it to quell resistors. Then quickly build a rail line through your newly conquered territory, right up to the far side (captured workers help add to your labor force). You leave behind a trail of workers on each tile. Then you motor the next wave of cavalry down the rail line, charge the next city, and conquer it. Once you punch through the defensive perimeter, the going gets really easy. The occasional amphibious landing can help crack any older cities with larger culture radiuses. Generally, you need about 4-5 cavalry for each city you want to conquer, the enemy civs need their own road network because your workers have 1 movement, and you need enough workers to lay track (french workers make great rail builders). If you do this right, you can take 15+ cities in one turn, leaving behind a "worm" of workers on your new rail line . After your cavalry have attacked, they often still have movement points left; when you've exhausted all your units you can then slide them along your new railrod to garrison the cities you have captured and decided to keep.

[inca911]

A few thoughts....

Hiya! Just a few thoughts regarding some topics that have been discussed on this thread.

On Armies:

It is extremely important to remember that the principle of Combined Arms must be applied to Armies just as it is to other units. To achieve their true potential, Armies must be supported minimally by Bombardment units and must not be used without those critical defense-crushing members when sacking a city. An Army is not intended to achieve victory if improperly used! An Army is simply a very high-powered attacking unit and if you recklessly throw it against a fortified position, it will break apart. Additionally, as the paramount high-power attacking unit in the games, Armies have best served me in ripping a pathway into the heart of an enemy so that my other supporting units can rush in and secure resources, destroy infrastructure, raze cities, etc. It is very satisfying to fire the fields of my enemy and destroy 1000s of years of their development in a matter of a few turns.

On Combat Concepts:

I have seen many complaints about stone age warriors defeating mounted Knights. If people did not use the labels of Archer/Tank/Cavalry to personify/describe the units and instead viewed them in the cold mathematical world of probability and statistics as 1.2.1 or 4.3.3 units, then combat would be viewed in a much more pleasing and rational manner. The act of rendering Civ3 combat into the picture of a stone age warrior with a spear facing a mounted charge of armored Knight gives a much different expected outcome than the math indicates. Combat = Math = Probability. People win the lottery all the time and statistically this is no different than some of the less-probable outcomes that arise from Civ3 combat. Think like the combat engine if you want to keep some sanity.

All Wars Must Have Objectives:

Remember that all wars have finite objectives and one must plan accordingly for the successful and unsuccessful conclusion of wars. Securing resources, denial of resources (my personal favorite), Wonder acquisition, genocide (aka no more cultural defections!). All these must be clearly defined to avoid an over-extension of your capabilities. Waging war for no good reason only leads to your civ being behind in tech/wealth/culture. Many posts that I have seen throughout the forum cite specific targets and objectives and I hope that the better combat style of the AI results in better player strategy for wars.

On Pillaging:

If you have little likelihood of keeping a town, and a successful siege is equally unobtainable, do not forget the power of pillaging! There is no real reason to attempt to capture a fortified, walled city in the hills when you can pillage its mines, destroy its roads, cut off its access to vital resources and luxuries and move on to a more obtainable objective (or just more pillaging!). Crippling the production capabilities of a town is often better than needlessly expending valuable units attempting to capture it. The AI no longer wars against solidly fortified and garrisoned targets and one should follow their lead in this matter. Imagine if they did this more actively to you! It takes many, many years even after the war officially ended before you would be back at pre-war production levels. That in itself should be a good indication that a war who's sole purpose is to destroy unprotected infrastructure can cripple the long-term productivity and advancement of a once powerful civ. Even better, you can accomplish this with more obsolete units and you never have to engage the enemy on it's terms. If they wish to stop the firing of their fields, they must move to engage you!

Happy Civ3ing!

[gnomos]

The Pillage Wave

Pillaging can really soften up the enemy.

Send in a wave of cheap units to pillage everything in sight. This will draw the enemy units out of their cities to deal with it. Then you can sweep in with fast units like cavalry to kill his defenders out in the open. Pillaging roads can cut his cities off from resources to build reinforcements. It can also send his cities into civil disorder, halting all production. It also slows down reinforcements. Finally, it brings workers out in the open where they can be captured.

[cheerful]

I found Vel's expansion and build sequence hard to execute at Emperor level. My 2nd citizen is unhappy in my capital. This totally screws up the turn count.

Also, anyone know the full unit upgrade graph and cost?

[Velociryx]

Emperor level, do one of two things:

Either
1) Build a second warrior for garrison duty (warrior - warrior - settler) or
2) Make it a priority to connect luxury items to your capitol

(and optionally)
If you're playing a religious civ, rush in a temple before you begin your "regular" expansion routine.

-=Vel=-
(who does not have the requested chart, but who's always got a backup plan....)

[Magic_Al]

Great bonus for first sea contact

I discovered the other day that there is a HUGE benefit to being the first civ on your continent to make contact with civs on other continents. This requires that you be able to make deep-sea journeys either via tech or wonder, of course.

It turns out that newly discovered civs are willing to pay dearly for two things: World Maps, Territory Maps and Contacts. In two games I've been able to make first contact with a series of civs and got huge gifts from them. Here's an example:

- Sailed to new continent & met Germans. In exchange for my World Map they gave me contact with 3 other civs as well as 200 gold (all of it) and 6 gold per turn for 20 turns. For contact with 2 other civs, they traded 2 techs and 3 more gold per turn.
- Immediately was called on by the Chinese who offered me even better terms: 80 gold plus 2 per turn just for the Territory Map, 8 gold per turn plus 2 techs for them to contact 2 other civs. Contact with the last civ was a gift since they were out of things to trade.

I got a similar response from the 3rd new civ on the continent. My gold per turn was suddenly increasing by +28/turn!

Addmittedly, this is only a one-time bonus, but the more civs you meet in this manner, the better. When all was said and done, I netted about 800 gold and 4 new techs.

Good luck,

--Alan--

--Alan--

[zeace]

Re: Great bonus for first sea contact

Originally posted by Magic_Al
I discovered the other day that there is a HUGE benefit to being the first civ on your continent to make contact with civs on other continents. This requires that you be able to make deep-sea journeys either via tech or wonder, of course.

It turns out that newly discovered civs are willing to pay dearly for two things: World Maps, Territory Maps and Contacts. In two games I've been able to make first contact with a series of civs and got huge gifts from them. Here's an example:


--Alan--

I agree that first intercontinental contact is a huge advantage, but if you're the only one who has the cross-ocean you shouldn't trade anyone contact with anyone from the other continent. Since the two continents are keot isolated, the AI can't sell its techs to the other Civs. You become a middleman....

I managed to be the most advanced civ inspite of having 0% science using this strategy. Just keep trading tech for tech(usually+money) between the continents.

This works best if the continents happen to be researching different branchs. In my game my continent was driving towards Democracy while the other continent was moving towards Chemistry. By trading the early parts of the branches for the later parts I kept the tech lead and made lots of money... The AI was even thankful that I was willing to trade with them...

Monopolies are great things, don't waste yours by trading contact. Of course if someone is about to break your monopoly immedieatly sell everyone contact with everyone else. Then turn your science rate back up and spend the money you've made.