Randomturn's strategy guide for Monarch-Deity

[DanS]

David: most of your advice is excellent. The catapults are worthless, though...

rt: OK, so I saw you beat deity. Details? I'm coming to believe that any successful strategy includes an early game military rush.

[randomturn]

Okay, just crushed deity in a domination victory: small map, 630AD, score of 9757. I used many of the strategies in this thread in terms of civ type, city placement, and military. I was Aztec: religious is so helpful for cheap temples to keep people happy at deity and to protect myself in the culture war which I was otherwise losing. Militaristic was key because I was at war the entire game (depite which, I never got a Leader).

I used the ring method I describe above, founding my second and third cities about 8-9 tiles away from my capital, just enough space for the the AIs to put cities in the gap. I was inviting them to build there. As soon as they did, I took the cities with ease. I had jaguar warriors, but the same thing could have been accomplished with regular warriors (however, the militaristic civ was important in that they got up to elite pretty fast). Not long into the game, then, I was taking cities both inside my city perimeter and just beyond it like crazy. When the AI doesn't have many cities and a weaker military, it will do anything for peace. I would take a couple of cities, leaving that neighbor with 2 or 3, then demand all its gold, gold per turn, workers, any techs I didn't have (and it once even gave me a city) to make peace. Then I'd attack again -- sometimes on the next turn. I was a real bastard. I did this over and over and over. Sometimes I'd wait until it had founded a couple of more cities, then take them -- the AIs always found a city with just one unit defending, no matter how untrustworthy you clearly are. That AI weakness was key.

Using this military strategy, I kept everyone near me hamstrung, their settlers forming cities that I would take over, giving me all their techs, money, and workers for settlements. Their capitals built all but one of the wonders, but I had so many temples that none of my cities converted. They were also key in managing happiness at deity -- I don't see how I could have built them in my distant all-corruption cities without being religious.

I was on the "big continent" and most of the action elsewhere was pretty tame. Even if the rest of the world had been more developed, I was so overwhelmingly powerful using this approach on the main land mass, it would have just delayed the inevitable for a couple of centuries. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of building going on. It was city placement and warfare.

[randomturn]

DanS -- you are definitely right. I have started maybe 10 games on deity, playing only the ancient era. Maybe half of them I could have won if I'd kept going, via space race, or domination (I think the other victories are a little cheesy). But this one wasn't even close, ever.

It made it so abundantly clear to me that early, relentless rushing is essential. You stop for just a few turns. If you want to slow down militarily and start building up your cities after you take some AI cities, you just let the AIs back into the game. Sure, you can if you want, and your game may feel more like civ2 but you won't be playing the optimal game. That's the inevitable result of having an AI that uses the common human player civ2 strategy of rushing expansion without the human abilty to stop and change strategies depending on what its opponent is doing. Just as you have argued, you must use the AI expansion against itself. It's too dumb to stop putting cities near or inside your city perimeter; it's too dumb to stop expanding and focus on building up its cities and military.

It's a little disappointing in that it is impossible to outbuild this AI. I could play an entire game at Civ2 deity and have virtually no warfare. That's just not possible in Civ3 -- unless you count diplomacy as a victory. Alexander's Horse was worried that militray play was being heavily prejudiced in Civ3. Quite the opposite as it turns out, it's the only way to win at deity.

[DanS]

It is obvious that it is impossible to outbuild the AI, so let me propose a theorem... The settler is relatively the least valuable unit available to a human player. Because of this, I think it foolish to build them.

An obvious variant to your above strategy is to create a "military city ring" rather than just a "city ring". Always attack one level deep to an enemy civ. A good stack is nearly impervious and ZOCs are no longer operable. A much more aggressive approach.

[Elrad]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by randomturn
Okay, just crushed deity in a domination victory: small map, 630AD, score of 9757. I used many of the strategies in this thread in terms of civ type, city placement, and military.

Hehe, I also recently beat Diety...although it was on a tiny map as the Iroques. 100bc, Domination, 13700 points

I owe it all to Irrigated Flood Plains, Despotism (Slave Labor) and a horde of Swordsmen and Mounted Warriors (3.2.1, 3.1.2)

My capital was lucky enough to start next to a flood plane with wheat, 5 food/turn!. I got a population gain every 2 turns, and since most units cost 1 pop as soon as atleast 1 shield is filled...I was puping out a unit every 2 turns with just one city! (and on diety thats all I had till 1500bc)

Corruption was a *****, but I was the barbarian, no science, and no production...so who cares. Loot/Plunder/Send those foreign slaves to join your cieties and be labored into more units :0

(I have a post and screenshot about it in the general newsgroup if you want to check it out)

-Elrad

On another note I do think the 16 players trade tech 15 times is very very cheap. I can with 50 gold trade 15 times and end up with 5 new techs, map of the world, 2 luxuries and 1/2 the worlds Treasure/turn comming at me. I think the way it should be is that a commodoties value should drop dramatacly as it becomes more common.

For example, that chivalry you traded for is now worth less because you have it, after you trade it 4 more times opponent #5 will realize he can get it from almost anywhere, or research it dirt cheap....and so he will offer you squat. Perhaps this relationship exists, if so it needs to be raised majorly for high pc # games.

Although I dont play those because turns as early as the middle ages take 1 min for me to process

-Elrad

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by DanS
David: most of your advice is excellent. The catapults are worthless, though...

No they are not, at least against the ai. They are quite useful on defense, and on offense, if you have enough of them. Yes, your mobile units will retreat if they get beaten down, BUT you do have to heal them, which can be a problem in enemy territory. If you have a bunch of catapults to soften the enemy up, your units will be less damaged and you will lose marginally fewer of your attackers.

You DO need to lower the population of the city, if you are going to hold it, even if it is 6 or less, BEFORE you get it.

Now, in theory(ie for MP) catapults are a liability on the offense, and would only make sense to have one in cities and in forts in your territory for the free shots and to bombard any enemy units in range, IMHO.

[yammos]

I agree with your strategy David Weldon, generally I just pursue research depthwise and then end up trading in all backwater techs because they arent so important anymore and thus would trade for less.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by DanS
It is obvious that it is impossible to outbuild the AI, so let me propose a theorem... The settler is relatively the least valuable unit available to a human player. Because of this, I think it foolish to build them.

Yes I agree, but,I've found it requires 6 regular archers to start the first war, so I do build a second city to keep unit costs from bankrupting me.