Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Two

[Velociryx]

Wow...tough crowd...tough crowd. But that's okay....and I certainly understand what you mean, and rest assured that the thread is not permenantly "devolving" into a non-stop discussion of rush tactics.

There is a certain subset of gamer (a...purist, perhaps?) who will accept nothing less than cities spaced exactly five tiles apart (no overlap in any city), and little or limited Despotic-Rushing. That's cool....and it's certainly a noble way to play. And, I *do* hope that the purists out there will not decide to simply leave the thread when the conversations here take a turn down some path that does not fit into their--very specific--playstyle, but I would also say this: Just as a Purist approach is perfectly valid, so too, is ICS and/or Despotic Rush, and...it's undeniably powerful. There are lessons we can learn from the approach. Segments of the approach we can use to improve our own games without giving in and making full use of the technique.

As students of strategy, do we not owe it to ourselves to discern *why* a given strategy/tactic/idea is so powerful, and do what we can to borrow some of the strengths of the approach, meshing it with our existing playing styles? Is that not the very essence of adaptation?

So...all that to say that I DO hope this thread can be a place where both Purists, Rushers, and every one in-between can come to talk about things that work, and WHY they work....and maybe take something away that will help to improve their game.....

-=Vel=-
(still working on the Aztec Civ as a portion of the ongoing article!)

[Vegas Aggie]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Thanks man! Hmmm....and it seems like some conflicting reports re: captured workers and their effectiveness.

Someone care to run a few tests for us so we can verify one way or the other??

I ran a test last night. I was Persia (Huge/Regent/8). I had captured workers from France, Babylon, Zululand and Germany. I was in the modern age, researching the laser. I put them in an area between cities that had forests (grassland) and had them start clearing the forest. They all started in 1850 (two-year turns). My Industrious Persian worker took two turns to clear the forest and was ready to receive new orders in 1854. They built a road in one turn and were ready to receive new orders in 1856, when they built a RR in one turn and were ready to receive new orders in 1858, when they built irrigation in one turn, ready to receive new orders in 1860. Total time to convert grassland forest into RR'd, irrigated grassland: 5 turns.

The Zulu, Babylonian and German workers all worked at the same rate as the industrious French worker. They finished clearing the forest and were ready for new orders in 1858 (four turns), finished the road and were ready for new orders in 1860 (one turn), finished the RR and were ready for new orders in 1864 (two turns), and finished the irrigation and were ready for new orders in 1868 (two turns). Total time to convert grassland forest into RR'd, irrigated grassland: 10 turns.

The results of this test seem indicate all captured workers work at the same rate, regardless of their country of origin and they work at half the rate of your workers.

Some other tests might be helpful, such as playing an industrious civ prior to the tech that doubles worker rates (replacement parts?), and playing a non-industrious civ both before and after that tech.

P.S. The game was a space race win, using REX and using the Despotic whip for a long time. My next game will be on Monarch, using many of the ideas from this thread, thanks Vel (and everyone).

[Gamer at heart]

Originally posted by Velociryx

As students of strategy, do we not owe it to ourselves to discern *why* a given strategy/tactic/idea is so powerful, and do what we can to borrow some of the strengths of the approach, meshing it with our existing playing styles? Is that not the very essence of adaptation?

This I can agree with, and I admit that limited use of the technique, by building only a couple of forced-labour-dedicated cities might be close to acceptable... It still IS food for thoughts, even if not a valid strategy the "purist" in me would enjoy playing.

As for the AI building all the wonders, I try to counter it by starting to buid a palace in one city many turns before I get the advance I need for the target wonder. This way, I can nail it in less than 10 turns right after it becomes available. You also have to reduce the number of wonders you go after since you don't get to build that many in the higher levels. You have to make the ones you DO get really count!

GaH

[Arrian]

Vel,

Of course. I'm sure we can agree to disagree about what style we prefer. Clearly, I'm a bit of a "purist." That I can't bring myself to build a hive (a little SMAC reference for ya there) doesn't mean I think your strategy is invalid - and I definitely recognize its advantages ("Luke, you don't know the POWER of the DARK SIDE"). I just wouldn't enjoy it. So, I will struggle on. 3 tries on Monarch is hardly a good sample size.

eMarkM - I too played CIV II "straight up" for years and years, eventually getting good enough to trounce it 9x out of 10 on Diety. ICS never even occurred to me until I found this Site (and CivFanatics). I honed my strategy further by reading some of the stuff here, but never ICS'd. Best score that I had the patience to finish = 1642% on Deity/7 civs/Europe Map - Spanish (I had so many engineers that I "removed" the Alps and made the Sahara into grassland). Therefore, I hold out hope that I will be able to beat CIV III without it as well.

And re: Wonders. Yeah, I know. I will just have to deal with not building them. Damn. I LIKE building them myself, if for no other reason than being proud of my advanced, cultured civilization. Getting a wonder through conquest is nice and all, but I know it wasn't "mine." But hey, I'm asking for a challenge by choosing a higher difficulty level, right?

-Arrian

[Dyrlac]

Ancient Era Blitz

Wow, getting no work done this morning, err, afternoon. (enter time: 1.7hrs ... professional reading).

I always played Civ II on a purist basis. I find something deeply offensive about that ugly tile-being-used-by-someone-else-square in the city management screen. Nonetheless I played a version of Vel's paired city strat last night and it was impossibly powerful, probably too powerful. Nonetheless, it is very useful to clear out your starting continent and settle into a more peaceful existence.

The major change though was that I did it with horsemen rather than swordsmen (no iron). I have decided that as long as your target civ is not one with a multi-move ancient era UU, an massive rush of horsemen is superior to a standard combined arms swordsman/cat/spear assault. Even a multi-hoplite defended town cannot defeat a half dozen (maybe a bit more) horsies as long as you plan your attack such that your first wave of horsies can retreat to high ground to heal up. Basically, use your regulars and vets to soften up the defenders and retreat, then use your elites to mop up.

The cat's weaknessess - inability to move through tough terrain w/o roads and dismal accuracy - are not compensated by the 10 shield less cost vis a vis horsemen.

Dyr

[Velociryx]

Arri...got that SMAC reference!

Vegas: WhoooHoooo! And thank you for the answer! That's what I was looking for!

The whole topic about Purists and....Opportunists(?) got me thinking about it, and it's importance in discussions of strategy in general, so I wrote a little something about it. With any luck, it won't put anyone to sleep....

****
Purists vs. Opportunists

An interesting series of comments recently right here on this thread led me to start thinking about these two groups, and I suddenly re-discovered something I forgot I even knew….where you are on the spectrum mentioned above will dramatically alter how you play your game. What’s more, it will dramatically alter what kinds of strategies you find acceptable to add into or mesh with your playing style.

So…before you even fire up your next game, you would do well to consider exactly where you fall on the “sliding scale” that exists between the two extremes. To that end, I’ll post some stuff that might be common to both camps:

Absolute Purist:
1) Would never use Pop-Rushing for anything, beelining straight for Republic, and later, Democracy

2) Cities would be five tiles apart….no exceptions, EVER. If a rival civ built a city less than the optimal distance, it would (eventually) either be absorbed or taken by force and razed. Similarly, if a settler, en route to a base site was about to be ambushed by a barbarian, the Absolute Purist would simply let the settler die, rather than found the base where he was to avoid losing him.

3) Would not use the tech-selling “exploit” to raise cash after buying a new tech from a rival civ.

4) Would chop down existing forests (eventually), but would not replant and re-use (IFE).

Absolute Opportunist:
1) Would space cities anywhere resources dictated, regardless of city spacing. One tile apart…two…three….immaterial. Access to the resources and number of cities is the only valid consideration.

2) Relentless use of pop-rushing any time there’s a need for it. Under attack? Rush in a defender! Got the tech for Libraries. Rush it in asap! Planning an attack? Rush build your army!

3) Would utilize any reasonable trick in the book, so long as it’s not outright cheating (ie – would not use the million dollar bug, but sees no problem with fund-raising tech selling, or mass deforestation).

Myself? I fall somewhere toward the middle, I think. I’d like my cities 3-4 tiles apart, but more importantly, I want more cities than whoever my rivals are (checkable each time I do diplomacy). Whatever it takes to get there….I can live with it. Once I can dominate the landmass I’m on, if I want to pretty things up later, that’s easy to do.

If I’m getting pasted, I’m going to respond forcefully, and probably overwhelmingly….lol…that’s just the kind of guy I am. If I have to respond by rushing a unit, you can bet the farm I will. That would include rushing a unit to hit someone preemptively sometimes.

I also use pop-rushing to complete an average of two ancient era buildings per city I have (frequently, when playing the babs, I’ll let their cheap temples and libraries build “naturally” and rush something else (market place and coleseum) a bit later). In games where I’m testing extreme playing styles, I HAVE played where I simply rushed everything, but in general, I average about two buildings and two units a city.

I lumberjack readily, and I use it to my advantage, timing my deforestation to speed build units/buildings, especially when there might be a long period between city growth, or when I don’t want to pop-rush, because lumberjacking will finish the build and much of the pop-rush would wind up being wasted. Sometimes, I replant later in the game to hurry the construction of factories with more lumberjacking, but not always.

I’m not above fund-raising when I acquire a new tech from one AI faction, making the rounds to re-coup what it cost me to get the tech in the first place (and then some!)

Anyway, it’s important to figure out just where you fall on that spectrum, because the answer to that question will help define what game strategies you will or will not use in your game.

In essence, the question is: When you sit down to play Civ3, how much of a straight jacket do you put onto yourself? How much do you limit what you will and won’t do?

There are no right or wrong answers here.

This is not a test you can pass or fail.

But it IS vitally important to think about, because it will, in a very real sense, impact how much flexibility you give yourself in the game, and it will in large part determine which of the strategies you read here you can incorporate into your games. (Because, undoubtedly, you will read some stuff in here that makes you blanche in terms of applying it to your games).

Anyway….definitely a good topic to mull over and reach your own conclusions about, cos it has ENORMOUS impact on your game!

-=Vel=-
(back to the Civ-Article! )

PS: Dyrlac - What map size/game level/ # of civs were you playing? Sounds like your experiences were pretty similar to mine tho....and I'd have to agree. If you're behind militarily and looking for a way to instantly solve that problem, pairing (even for the short term) is one mega-powerful way to do it. Almost....spooky powerful....

[Gamer at heart]

nice way to get everyone back together that purist vs opportunist text. We can all be a little more open about other people's style. I do think Realist vs Player might be a more fitting name tho. I like to think of myself more as a Realist, which doesn't mean I will pass if I find myself in a situation I can take advantage of while still keeping to those principles I play with.

Its quite incredible how ICS divided us all from the start, as great many strategies were brought on this forum and none were disliked as much. I guess it might be because some of us feel like it just gives a much too great a boost to use it. I mean, I must admit it, I love a tough game where I have to do all I can to win, and where there's always a chance of me getting screwd in the final lap. I fear that by using certain tactics I might win too easily, thus losing the whole fun of the game! Everyone has to choose for himself I guess...

[Corporal Clegg]

On the subject of workers, I found something new in my game last night that may not be obvious (at least it wasn't to me).

We all know that one of the strong factors the AI takes into consideration when deciding to go to war with you is your military strength. Weak military = AI attack, strong military = less likely AI attack.

The thing that I didn't realize before last night is that for purposes of the AI declaring war, it appears that workers count as "military" units.

Here's my experience:

I'm the english in the late game, clearly the most powerful civ on the map and approaching a spaceship win. Germany is to my west, across a small choke point that I pinned them in early and have since fortified with fortresses / tanks. Russia to the east, and France to the north. Germany and Russia (surprisingly) were friendly the entire game, and france came at me a few times but I beat them back and took a few of their cities for good measure. America, Babylonians, and Japan on another continent.

I've got about 50 workers running around the map clearing pollution, building RR's, etc. Needless to say I was getting tired of the long terms due to watching them. So, just for kicks and since I had a lock on the win, I disbanded all of them (could have fortified, but decided to disband instead).

The turn after I disbanded all my workers, german signed an MPP with russia and attacked! I beat them back and started to set up my defenses (I frustratingly couldn't attack their territory due to the MPP, unless I wanted a two front war). The next turn the germans allied with the French against me, and since France had an MPP with the rest of the Civs, I was essentially at war with everybody.

Now, since I was really just trying to complete the win, and clearly it seemed they attacked because I disbanded my workers in that pursuit, I decided to do a reload. I generally never due reloads, but for this specific case I made an exception.

On the reload, I didn't disband my workers and instead fortified all of them. In this case, all civs remained peaceful with me for the remainder of the game and I got the spaceship victory!

This was very interesting to me because it means that while I am making workers primarily to improve my territory, it also makes me look stronger in the eyes of the AI....very nice.

It also means that the "poplulation banking" techniques discussed earlier in this thread (building extra workers when your cities stop growing), also builds you military might in the eyes of the AI.

Just something I found interesting that I figured I would share and hear if anybody else had similar experiences.

Clegg.

[eMarkM]

before you even fire up your next game, you would do well to consider exactly where you fall on the “sliding scale” that exists between the two extremes.

Vel, I didn't want to come off too strong in my previous response, just seemed like you were moving too much to the Dark Side as they say. But you make good points about testing extremes.

Where do I fall in the specturm? I certainly pop rush more than I did before. At first I only did it when I was sorely pressed and it was a matter of life and death. Now I do the same as you, about 2-3 times per city before switching gov't. It's just too powerful to ignore. But I won't do it endlessly, I don't want big happiness problems in the future.

I have absolutely no problem w/ whatever you can get away with in tech trading. I don't consider it an "exploit" at all. That's half the fun of the game. To me, that's not too serious of an issue. I'll set science low to raise cash to buy tech. Now I won't just sell to anyone, they have to give me a halfway decent offer. And I never backstab on a deal, ie, paying gold/turn and declaring war in middle of deal. That's more a matter of maintaining rep than being a purist. In the end game I'll backstab if I no longer care what others think of me.

I'll let slight overlaps in cities, but basically like them spread out. However, I'm willing to experiment with the "training camp" idea in my next game on Emp. But generally abhor ICS strategies.

I won't play the ugly despot rush. Though I'm moderating on this a bit, too. Maybe I'll play one to see how it works. As you say when you play these extremes you can incorporate bits into your own "normal" game. When I "rushed" the Romans by happenstance with 2 warriors and took one of their then 3 cities, it put a big hurt on them and let me play catch up. We all know how an early loss has exponential repercussions through the ages and it works that way for the AI, too. Romans never really recovered from it. I'm much more prone now to send warrior scouts in pairs or something and keep in mind a very early attack to set back a civ. We'll have to come up with a "moderate despot rush" strategy for gaining an early edge.

Have no problem lumberjacking. I will plant/chop/plant/chop in corruption plagued cities to get the one-shield wonders some improvements. But only when my industrious workers have improved every tile in my empire. That comes first. I love the feeling when I do shift-A on a worker and he sits there because there's nothing left to do! Got to love industrious. That's when I put together my lumberjacking crews. The purist in me, however, usually doesn't let a team plant/chop/collect 10 shields more than once a turn. I wouldn't mind if they capped it like that in a patch.

e

[Spaced Cowboy]

Vel, Arrian, and the rest. Great posts! Keep up the good work. I'm Jonesin bad for playing this game but haven't had the chance to try any of these cool strats since Sunday. Worse yet I'm on my way to Vegas for next week and have a question (since I'm at work and cannot check myself). Does CIV3 run under Windows 2000??? I only have two laptops and the other is NT which I know does not work. Help, I'm leaving at five today and need to know quick.

On another note: I've been lurking for some time. I played Americans once and had a lot of captured Iroquois and Aztec workers who seemed only half as effective as my American guys. I captured some French workers later on but quit before I got them back to my island, I was way ahead on that game and ready to move up to monarch.

Speaking of which, have any of you guys noticed that your start position is always crap on monarch? I spend the whole day on Sat trying to get a good start but never did (always on a peninsula or in mountains, artic, etc. Once I dropped down to Regent (current game as Egypt) I got a bunch or really goo starting locations. Comments?

[eMarkM]

it appears that workers count as "military" units.

That's funny. Kind of like when the military advisor says they have a "strong" military. Ok, they may have more units, but I have cavalry and they don't even have knights. Didn't think it would be considering workers, too.

I would think they would compute that based on, say, total hp, or total offense+defense, something like that. Workers as military, that's silly.

e

[Arrian]

ahhh

So THAT's why workers are listed as part of your "army" on the military advisor screen. They count toward your total unit strength! I never even considered that. How... silly.

Vel - I don't pass the "total purist" test you set forth. 5 tiles apart? You can have no/minimal overlap at 4. I definitely use forced labor... for temples and libraries and such. Not units, although that may change. I have chopped and replanted trees to help out some 1-shield cities, but generally don't use it until my workers have nothing else to do, late in the game when I have zero need for it (I could just buy the stuff). To use it extensively would involve manually controlling stacks of workers which did nothing but chop and plant.. ugh. I'm ALL ABOUT selling older tech to the AI for tons of money. I will haggle to the very last dollar (how American, huh?) to get maximum advantage. If the AI wants to pay me all it has for ecology, great! So I guess I'm not as pure as I thought I was

RPMisCool - I dunno about Win2000, as I think mine is '98. As some of my earlier posts indicate, I certainly have noticed poor starting positions on Monarch... but again, 3 tries does not a proper evaluation make.

-Arrian

[sophist]

For what it's worth, there's a tooltip over the worker action buttons that will tell you how long it will take to complete a particular job. You don't actually have to do it and wait.

Originally posted by Vegas Aggie


I ran a test last night. I was Persia (Huge/Regent/8). I had captured workers from France, Babylon, Zululand and Germany. I was in the modern age, researching the laser. I put them in an area between cities that had forests (grassland) and had them start clearing the forest. They all started in 1850 (two-year turns). My Industrious Persian worker took two turns to clear the forest and was ready to receive new orders in 1854. They built a road in one turn and were ready to receive new orders in 1856, when they built a RR in one turn and were ready to receive new orders in 1858, when they built irrigation in one turn, ready to receive new orders in 1860. Total time to convert grassland forest into RR'd, irrigated grassland: 5 turns.

The Zulu, Babylonian and German workers all worked at the same rate as the industrious French worker. They finished clearing the forest and were ready for new orders in 1858 (four turns), finished the road and were ready for new orders in 1860 (one turn), finished the RR and were ready for new orders in 1864 (two turns), and finished the irrigation and were ready for new orders in 1868 (two turns). Total time to convert grassland forest into RR'd, irrigated grassland: 10 turns.

[sophist]

One thing to point out is that you get no culture from captured improvements. Zero. Zip. Nada. Building Great Library in 600 BC means that by 400AD, that city is generating an extra 12 culture points. That's not too shabby.

Which brings up an interesting point that the REX-happy players in this thread might want to consider (caveat: I've only gotten to Monarch level). If you are going for strong culture, you should only build one settler out of your capital and then build every culture-enhancing improvement as soon as possible. A temple built in 2000BC is generating 4 points of culture in 1000BC. A cathedral built in 500BC is generating 6 points of culture in 500AD. And so forth. If you're going for a cultural victory, it seems to me the only reasonable way is the 20,000 point single city, and that almost has to be your capital.

Incidentally, it'd be interesting to have wonders/improvements that ONLY grant culture. As in a 9 culture wonder that does nothing else. Maybe it'd have to be more. Or an improvement that grants 4 culture. Or whatever.

Originally posted by Arrian

And re: Wonders. Yeah, I know. I will just have to deal with not building them. Damn. I LIKE building them myself, if for no other reason than being proud of my advanced, cultured civilization. Getting a wonder through conquest is nice and all, but I know it wasn't "mine." But hey, I'm asking for a challenge by choosing a higher difficulty level, right?

-Arrian

[Spaced Cowboy]

Arrian, thanks for the reply, I "duhhh" checked the website and Win2000 is go for the trip, sweet! (Although I may be twarted by Direct X 8.0).

About the poor starting location. I started somewhere between 50-100 games on Fri-Sat. All of them except for one was a crap location. I am so about: Shirt-Ctrl_Q ... (if you have quickstart selected) takes you to a new start from the old one. I know that you have possibly noticed this, what about the rest of the crowd. By the way, I played so long on Fri/Sat that I could hardly move my mouse hand and tried playing entirely with the keyboard, which apparently is not possible, or maybe I need to revisit the shortcut page again.