Picking the right Civ!

[Arrian]

Txurce,

Good job on that one - refresh my memory, was that Monarch or Emperor level?

I find the 160k sq. miles very interesting, considering that last night I tried to finish off my Japanese game to see what the score would be. I built two cities in territory I had blocked off with my Cavalry (I had 40 Cav just lying around in former Roman territory, so I formed a wall and kept empty space available). This jumped my sq. miles to 132k. Nothing. I built temples/cathedrals and the borders expanded, plus I built a third new city and got its borders to expand. Nothing. In frustration, I declared war on Germany and took five cities (two of which had border expansions by the time I gave up for the night). Nothing. I ended up going to bed without a win. I decided not to save it - I'm actually kinda psyched about this, because it means I can easily gain control of the last luxury I don't own (spices) without triggering the win. I had worried that I'd have to block off the spices I wanted like I did in former Rome w/Cav, and use colonies.

Still, I just wanted to see what the score would be. Germany has riflemen, so I really didn't want to have to fight them yet. I was gonna wait for tanks. I did get three great leaders (presto! three armies in-theatre), but I took heavy casualties in order to capture a major hill city south of Berlin. The damn thing had 4 or 5 vet riflemen in it. It ate a Cav army, several vets, and a couple of elites before I took it. 9 of 11 artillery shots missed. The other two hit buildings.

Sir Ralph,

Good analysis on map size differences. My strat is definitely geared toward normal/8 civs. Large maps with more space really limit one's ability to conquer your own continent in ancient times. I've seen it done... with the Iroquois.

Txurce's suggestion of the Aztecs isn't a bad one - I thought of it after I'd written my last post, the only disadvantage being GA timing... but hey, same problemo with the Iroquois (better unit payoff, though).

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph,
It's interesting how strategies can vary (if only relatively slightly) by one's goals or prefered starting conditions. An early GA is no big deal to me, since it comes when I am engaged in my all-important wars of expansion, which means I'll take all the extra units I can get. But I can see how playing huge world/9 civs an early GA could be largely a waste, since your first engagement is quite possibly not decisive, due to distance. Out of curiosity, do games on huge maps with a full complement of civs play out much like standard/8 civs? I ask because your prefered scale allowed me to see for the first time why anyone would take certain civs... especially most of the late bloomers.

While bouncing the capital makes much more sense on a huge world, and enough extra work that I have yet to do it, it seems more precise than waiting for a GL (however likely), and positions the capital in a more efficient place.

[Harovan]

What concerns your attempts to win by domination, I would suggest you to use the tool MapStat. It shows your approach to the domination limit with 1-tile-accuracy, and it is not considered a cheat (at least in the CFC tournaments). There were reported some problems lately, but I had none with it yet, and the author is actively improving it.

I will probably take the Americans for my next huge/9 game, for the following reasons:

- no need to be militaristic, because with these settings early wars are not effective, due to the big distances between the civs.
- being religious would be nice, but since I build my cities dense now (3-apart), I don't need temples to close gaps, and a high culture is later more a disadvantage than benefit. What concerns happiness, being expansionist I never had a problem hooking up 4+ luxuries. I go for republic as soon as I can and have built marketplaces in my core cities, and will stay a republic for the rest of the game. WW ist not so rampant in republic as it's in democracy.
- expansionist is the key for a big empire
- industrious improves this effect by fast roads for your expanding settlers.

I first build 4 cities around my capital, if it's possible, in this shape:

. . O . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . O
. . . X . . .
O . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . O . .

X being my capital, O the other cities. Then, I continue only the O-shape. This will leave 3x3 gaps in the structure, but that's ok. The AI won't sneak cities in. This way, I seize a huge amount of land. Later, I build cities in the centers of the gaps, closing them and making a gapless empire without any temple. The cities will overlap, but that's ok with me. I don't want them to grow above 12, so no need for more food. I build 5 hospitals or only a few more, for battlefield medicine. I don't need mass transports/recycling centers... if I ever hit the modern age.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Txurce
Out of curiosity, do games on huge maps with a full complement of civs play out much like standard/8 civs? I ask because your prefered scale allowed me to see for the first time why anyone would take certain civs... especially most of the late bloomers.

It's similar, with huge/16 you'll get boxed in during the BC's too. If I play huge/16, I play with continents, that's about the same like twice 8/pangaea. Huge/9 I play on a pangaea, usually with a domination or conquest goal. But the conquest does definitely not start earlier than in the medieval age, so an ancient UU is a waste. For this reason, I dropped the Iroquois.

[Arrian]

Yeah, I would think you would want a medieval or even industrial UU for that setup. Hmm... expansionist... medieval/industrial UU... Russia? Not a great UU, but how about the timing (this assumes you don't trigger your GA via Wonders).

-Arrian

[Harovan]

I was playing around with this thought (see my note on my next Marla's game). I just had a great russian game in the CFC tournament. The UU is not of the best, but if it comes to these $"#&%!* longbowmen, it's definitely better than cavalries .

[Theseus]

Great thread!

Some of Arrian and Txurce's dialogue spawned a thought:

There is a tendency, perhaps left over from Civ2, perhaps just natural, to compete with the AI in the land grab.

Why bother?

Especially on standard / large maps (nods to Sir Ralph), it seems that early war is a preferred strat. Well, success there will be determined by timing (relative strength in units) and size of force. If that's is the case, why bother building early cities on anything but GREAT sites... the cost in Settlers / Workers / defense is high, and they won;t contribute to the war effort.

Build on highly productive sites only, and kick ass militarily... don;t worry about the AI civs' Settlers, as you'll address the secondary and tertiary cities that they build soon enough!!

It might start out ugly, and feel sort of weak (lack of a consolidated territory), but I bet as long as the AIs' territories don;t cut off any of your cities (and thus the benefit of resources when you go to war), this will work wonderfully for the early warmongerer.

BTW, OT, the discussion about choice of civs on this thread has to a great extent revolved around the early game, with a focus on warmongering on standard maps... what do you consider early war??

[Txurce]

Arrian,

My Iroquois domination game was on Emperor level. You had a similar experience with the variance in how much land you needed to win also? What was the final tally? My prior two were around 133k sq. mi. I'll have to see if MapStat works on Macs, once Sir Ralph lets me know where to find it! (9 out of 11 artillery misses? You may as well have used catapults!)

Sir Ralph,

The Americans make a lot of sense for your prefered game parameters, although I assume their UU continues to rival the man'o'war in worthlessness. The Russians also look promising. My guess would have been that a civ like the Chinese or Japanese would do very well, because the era of their UU is when you could hope to gain control of a big, sparse world. I still don't see the point of playing with modern-era civs like Germany, but imagine that this will be a very different story in MP, given the likelihood of closely fought games that go down to the wire.

I try to build my cities in a ring around the capital if possible, but there are so many variables - geography, building toward the AI - that I don't really have a locked-in start mode. On the other hand...

Theseus,

Your suggestion to build only prime-real estate cities seems like an extension of Arrian's "build 5 or 6, take the rest" approach. My question would concern the time I waste walking my settler in search of that prime real estate. This loss of time (and population) can be exponential early in the game. Especially if I have a good settler source in one of my first two cities, I might be better off building a plains city, building a barracks, and letting that size-2er pump out units from very early on. What do you think?

My early wars always feel like they start late: a few hundred years short of the BC/AD line, to a couple of hundred after.

[Theseus]

Hmmm, good point... obviously dependent on the terrain. I an a "re-starter" so I guess whole idea rest on having generally good terrain.

However, given poor terrain, is it not possible that my premise is even more true? In that case, one needs to create lebensraum to have the time to build properly... severely damaging nearby early civs might be optimal, in that they become vassals / punching bags, etc., but also act as a buffer around your territory.

In such a case I might still follow Arrian's mold, or build even perhaps fewer cities, with an eye towards quick growth to 4-5 pop, with good food productionand then corresponding high shield production, to thus produce a very early aggression force.

You've seen some my earlier thoughts... "whenever you have relative strength, attack," where relative strength can either be at the unit or force level. That is what the early "rushes" are about... why not truly focus early civ development on this concept?

[Editor's note: Reputation? Hah!]

To answer my own question: I am bummed if I don't start a war by 2000-1500 BC. Slightly psycho, I know, but I think it a crucial time to damage nearby civs (one city down counts for quite a lot in the long run), and the value of the off-chance that I generate an extremely early GL (Pyramids before 1000 or 1500 BC is a game-winner).

Also, I am re-reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and aside frome the basic premise that high food production has dictated the history of human civilization, it is Diamond's clear thought that the evolution from bands forward was a product of warfare.

So I guess I'm just doing what my teachers taught me.

[Txurce]

Theseus,

Re: building only on prime land, you may have a point in that a few cities with lots of shields are better than more mediocre ones. I agree that it makes more sense the worse your starting location. Have you tried this yet?

It would also help me to even imagine how I could start a war between 2000-1500BC. I agree that taking over even one city at this stage can make a huge difference to both civs in question. And you'd only need a few archers to accomplish this (I know, you're going to say "Why not warriors?"). The thing to watch out for, at least on Emperor, is the early numerical edge that the AI gets. I started a game the other day where, just as I built my second Iroquois city, the Russians sent over two warriors and two spearmen, and took my capital. Until then, I thought the AI was programmed to give you a chance at the start; I'm sure it is, but it's not a lock, as I found out.

Some of you guys may be interested in a book that just came out on tanks, which has received very good reviews.

[Harovan]

Txurce: MapStat is in the Files forum, in this thread. There's a Java version, which definitely should work with a Mac, although I haven't checked this yet. You'll like it, it's great if you play (or want to avoid) domination.

As to the "modern" civs. The Americans make no big sense here indeed, because of the useless UU. I'll play them rather for their traits, not the UU. But being a German, I tried Germany of course, and I can assure you, if you ever hit the late industrial age: There's nothing what can stop Panzers. Absolutely nothing, believe me.

[Arrian]

Just for the hell of it, I tried out Rome last night. It did not go well. Then again, it's not like I did anything brilliant either. I just walked up to a Greek city with 6 legionaries and attacked (the rest were on the way, I blew 650ish gold upgrading vet warriors). The city (size 1, flat land, no river involved) had two regular hoplites in it. My grand legionaries managed to inflict 2hp total damage, while promoting 1 hoplite to elite and the other to vet. Greece 6, Rome 0, golden age for Greece. Yikes. Shoulda hit Egypt first and returned for Greece once I had horsies.

Txurce,

I haven't actually finished that Japan game. I will, I just took a break to play around with Rome. I still don't understand why they made the Romans "commercial" instead of "industrious." But anyway...

Theseus,

I have definitely gotten into the mindset that I don't really care about the "landgrab" anymore. All I am concerned with is building a solid core of 6-8 cities, connecting up horses (and iron if possible), and connecting up 1 luxury. I'm not gonna race the AI to city locations, unless there is a horse resource at stake. Just like you said - it's a waste of resources. I fully intend to crush my neighbors anyway, so why bother building settlers to build outlier cities which will be totally corrupt for a looooong time? I'd rather build my assault force. Speaking of which, I do usually force myself to build about 8 cities, because of unit support issues. I need money to upgrade, so I need to have enough cities to support my troops for free, so I can be running a nice surplus every turn until the big upgrade is complete.

War in 1500bc? Estas loco, amigo. I might do that with Germany, China or the Aztecs (start with archers and/or jags). Maybe. But nearly every time I've gambled with warriors, I've lost. Besides, I want the AI to build up for a bit, for two reasons: more cities to capture instead of raze, and more units to fight & kill - which means more chances of getting leaders. I agree that getting the Pyramids early is nice, but when my strat works well, I often use my first leader on the Pyramids. That would be around 500-400bc. Sometimes a neighbor builds it. I love that. I get it anyway, but not the culture.

-Arrian

[God]

My ranking of the traits:
1. Religious: The best beacuase a) cheap temples, a must for newly caputered cities and 1 turn anarchy is amazing. In the Industrial Age I am constantly switching govs and religious truly shines there.

2. Industrious: Very good early in the game getting those horses and iron hooked up and mining the bonus grassland.

3. Militaristic: More promotions to elite means more leaders. I have got 11 leaders in a Japan game so far, and still counting.

4. Expansionist: I thought it was an ok trait and I never really used it but now after being inspired by Aesons 64,000 diety game as Iroquois I have changed my tactics. Those scouts can also be used to deny others civs iron, for knight conquest by the player.

5. Scientific: This is generally a popular trait, but I don't agree. The cheap libaries are nice, but I find if I need culture in caputered cities I much rather build a cheaper, far more effective temple in it. Libaries don't seem to help too much in corrupt conquered cities. Free tech is good, but its something not essential.

6. Commercial: This is a pretty bad trait. Its the only one that I don't miss when I play a civ without that trait. Corruption may be a bit less but I can deal with corruption. I really don't expect or want to have my distant cities building their own tanks. Thats what my main cities are for. Extra commerce ain't a big deal either because money is usually never a huge problem.

The best UUs are the Mounted Warrior and the Samurai. The MW may not be as good as Immortals on offense or defense but the movement is the key. MWs will still cut through spearmen with ease, and I with them its possible to eliminate more than 2 civs on a huge map. Samurai are good because they come at a good time, and because they seem to always have luck on their side. They cut through pikes better than knights even though they have the same offense.

The best civs are the Egyptians and the Japanese. Iroquois will be up there as soon as I finish my current Iroquois game. Why? They all have the relgious trait, big decider. Egyptian industrious is awesome, they are the best builder civ. Japan produces leaders like mad and has an awesome UU. Same with Iroquois. Kill a few civs with MWs and with iron denial, rush over the rest by upgrading your MWs.

I played as Japan and used the early conquest method with horsemen. It was very succesful. Japan starts with the wheel meaning immediate chariots. I have managed to use a chariot and warrior gambit to take out one civ on Monarch level. Those chariots are also very cheap and are cheaply upgraded to horsemen IIRC.

[Catt]

My $0.02

Overall -- Egyptians.

Refined -- Egyptians for Builder; Japanese for War-mongering.

Many excellent posts here and I won't rehash everything. Suffice it to say that Religious trait is fabulous; Industrious is near fabulous.

One other reason for the Egyptians that I haven't seen much mention of: the UU. Not because it's good, but precisely because the UU is virtually worthless..

I believe that the impact of a properly timed Golden Age is one of the greatest truly game-outcome-altering events possible, better than any wonder, any leader-generation, etc. While Mounted Warriors, Immortals, Aztec Warriors, etc. all have some wonderful stats, these wonderful stats prompt earliest possible use of the UU, and a GA in the ancient age just can't compare to a GA in the early / mid Middle Ages. So make five or six Egyptian War Chariots, and just hide them in a well-defended city until you're ready for a GA; use swordsmen, horsemen, etc. for your military forces. When you're ready for a GA, use those blasted war chariots to take out an undefended longbowman or severaly wounded knight. Presto, properly timed GA.

Japanese -- well, you actually get to use your UU as soon as it is available without worrying about triggering an early GA.

[Harovan]

Played a few ancient ages with the Americans, just to check build and research order, threats by possible neighbors (Aztecs, duh), etc. They are a very good civ for maps with many space, namely huge maps with less than maximum civs. Ability to build granaries (and the Pyramids) from the start, scouts and fast settlers due to a good road net gives quick expansion. 3-turn-mines rock. And I need only one worker per 2 cities, that saves resources and pop points, again for quicker expansion. A dense 6-8 city core with granaries and no corruption, and 4-5 workers for roads makes a settler flood par excellence. The "outer" cities produce mainly units and settlers only, when their pop hits 3. First research goal is horses. If building enough scouts, no further research is needed in the ancient age. I think I will start a real game with them this weekend.