Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Two

[Just My 2 Cents]

just a thought:

How one player plays his game shouldn't affect other gamers, should it? Is there one master player who decides how the other players should play? Are we all mindless automotons who need instructions from the more evolved gamers on what is considered acceptable? I've played countless hours of AC and was able to beat it on the Transcend level but many times I had to employ ICS to do it...

Does this make me less of a gamer? I don't think so. I didn't cheat, I simply employed a viable strategy. Other people may not approve of this strategy but hey everyone's entitled to their own opinion. If you cheat fine. In my opinion it ruins the game experience but you bought the game so it's none of my damn business. If you're a "frequent reloader" why the hell should I care? Guess what guys: it's cheesy but many lower level gamers (who don't have the time to religously read strategy forums and are only allotted 1 hour a night of computer time because many wives in the real-world would not tolerate any "staying up all night for just one more turn" nonsense) consider it a viable strategy.

My best friend also enjoys the SMAC/Civ series. He is what you would call a "purist" in the sense he avoids overlap when possible and always honours his agreements with the computer AI. I myself love to have cities with absolutely no overlap but acknowledge that in order to keep up with the AI sometimes its important to have that settler build where he is situated so you can build another settler in 10 turns instead of 15. And since I know the computer will backstab me if the opportunity presents itself I allow myself the same luxury. He doesn't approve of my overlap strategy but can admit it's really a question of preference, not exploiting.

RE: Pop rushing, what's the big deal? If you don't like to do it in your game, that's fine but to bash other people because they use this tactic and imply it's cheating? Come on. I just got one of my other friends hooked to Civ and I demonstrated the ICS and despot rush strategies and guess what? He still gets his butt kicked on Warlord level, 8 civs, standard map. They're still viable strategies but by no means are they a guaranteed win. I also suggested trying for a quick military victory via building cheap ancient-era infantry. Just like eMarkM would have suspected, he went for the mindless warrior rush strategy but there was no happy ending here children, my friend once again got his ass handed to him.

I play on Monarch level usually, 8 civs, huge map and I can usually win. Am I the world's greatest Civ player? Hell no, not even close. I have yet to win a game on Emperor and I already know the reason why: I can't expand quickly enough. But I have some tricks up my sleeve and I'm not that crap else I'd still be playing on Chieftain for some laughs. Yes I could beat Civ/Civ2/AC on the highest difficulty settings. No I did not cheat. No I was not a frequent reloader. Yes I did employ ICS about half the time. Yes I was usually a pacifist/builder. But the guys who played militarily, who went for the fastest win possible with the highest score? I still give them credit because it's not as easy as one would think or else everyone in this forum would be saying "surefire way to win on Deity level is to pump out mass warriors and rush the computer, even my grandmother can pull it off".

To summarize, I don't see what's the big deal with discussing strategies. ICS and pop-rushing aren't exploits and can't even be mentioned in the same breath as "cheating". eMarkM specifically, you're probably a better player than I but I don't think you should look down at the other gamers who prefer to rush. Just like your creating a "vassal state" strategy wherein the player keeps his AI opponent at a level where he can still be provoked to declare war yet be pacified in several turns to the point of giving up techs is a viable ploy, some might consider it an exploit (does anyone remember the "right click the faction in Alpha Centauri, demand withdrawal, usually instant war" trick?). I think it's good gaming but that's neither here nor there. I myself also enjoy building an empire that can stand the test of time but I have no objections to a player who employs "mindless unit rushing" strategies. Civ is also a war-game after all, albeit a mediocre one.

Long story short, everyone play the game how you want to since there's no right or wrong, and even if you cheat it will all catch up to you if multiplayer is ever released. And the guys who win on multiplayer will all be cheesy ICS unit rushers anyway who suck in singleplayer, or something like that.

Long live ICS.

[Adam Wallock]

Hi All!-

I've been lurking/following this thread since day one and I thought I'd surface. I got Civ3 on Oct 30 and have played hundreds of hours since. I'm on a brief hiatus for Wiz8 but still thinking a lot about Civ3.

This thread is IMNSHO one of the only ones worth reading here or at Civfanatics. I really am enjoying the depth of thought that a select few of you (especially Vel) have put into the posts.

I do actually have some insight to share tho'.

What no one seems to have mentioned, unless I missed it, is an additional advantage to to Despotic Rush in Ancient Era conquest. When you capture a city, if you start rushing improvments and units down to Pop 1 and then let it grow back to Pop 2 and then rush once more (back to pop 1 again ) the remaining citizen will be the last to grow, i.e. Native to your Civ.

This brand of ethnic cleansing almost eliminates the possibility of cultural reversion, and stocks the city up with the culture and units it needs to hold and expand your new borders.

If you are using a rush strat. anyway (even to a limited extent) this seems to be a very useful safeguard against all that conquest being for naught. Especially if you are conquering cities from a Civ with culture much higher than yours which could easily be the case if you have spent the first 3500 years rushing military.

I sure hope this tidbit can further the wonderful exploration of strategic themes that this thread represents. Please keep up the good work everyone. I know the lurkers are loving it too!

[Hastus]

Workers Revolution? (Or how to use workers offensive)

This is something I am still experimenting with but its a good idea that may become useful.

I like to win by Conquest or Domination in the Modern time.
If you start a war in industrial time or modern time it could usually drag on for a long time if your goal is total conquest or domination.

At those eras I have already built all the mines,irrigation roads and railroads in my empire and the workers are only used for the pollution patrol. I sometimes use them for lumberjacking/planting to speed up city advancements in total corruption towns but I find it very tiresome. So most of the time my large work force (including many captured workers ) just are at sleep.

So what I decided to do is before I declare war against any civilization I have a built up a strong force ready to strike at their capital. That way I will be able to take it at one turn after war is declared. However what I also do is call up my target civilization just before I declare war and give them around 20 workers for free (This takes them from polite to furious btw,no idea why ).

That way I am able to take their capital the at one turn,and have a workforce of 20 man being able to build fortresses etc or join the city. Often I also rush in airport as the first improvement effectivily making their own Capital a landbridge to the rest of their empire.

I find this strategy a good way to securely relocate my workforce to hostile lands.

Another thing that I have thought about but do not know if it works is the possibility to give a huge mass of workers to a civilization that have already built all the improvements around their towns,railroads etc.. And that also already got a a good workforce themselfs. The question is..will the AI add my workers to their citys if they got around 30 extra workers? This is just a theory but if that is the case would that not cause a revolution in his towns? Making war alot more easy and perhaps even defecting towns? Anyway,that is just speculations. I need to experiment with that.

As always,this is the god of threads. I have got tons of great ideas from here. Thanks to all who keeps the great ideas flowing.

[vmxa1]

I am not going to put in any opion on cheating, but I do want to respond to the idea that every is entitled to an opion. They are, but when you expound on it publicly are can expect to be challenged. At that point one persons opion is right and the others position is wrong. They can not both be correct if they in conflict. IN either case all can surely do as they please, but can ot expect it to be respected.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Adam Wallock

When you capture a city, if you start rushing improvments and units down to Pop 1 and then let it grow back to Pop 2 and then rush once more (back to pop 1 again ) the remaining citizen will be the last to grow, i.e. Native to your Civ.

Mentioned as a Tip on page 37 of the Prima Guide

[cousLee]

It was my uncle that introduced me to the Civ series with #1. He was definatly a frequent re-loader, and when I asked him about it he had this much to say.
"it's my floggin game! I Win when and where I want! I didn't pay $xx to have my arse handed to me, if I wanted that, I would get married". Now, I don't necessarrily agree with him on some of his point, but he was right about one thing. It's his game.

You can have diffrent opinions from far ends of the spectre and both be right. Whether or not the debate is held publicy. If you get the most enjoyment out of your game by MASS reloading, your not wrong. It is after all your game. If you get the most enjoyment out of your game playing ultra-purist, your not wrong either. It YOUR game. What makes you both right, is you both found your own individual way to ring the most enjoyment out of your purchase. I have no problem with either side of the argument.

I am only semi-purist. When I get a new game, I play a no-holds barred session to develop a working strategy, then go semi-purist on my second and subsequent games. It also helps me find bugs to be on the lookout for (to avoid). Sometimes, finding those are a hoot in themselves. Like in my game I am playing now, I had eradicated the Romans very early on my little island, but later on, during diplomacy with another, had the option to offer "contact with" with the eliminatee... for 40 gold. I had good chuckle at that, took the measly 40 gold, and figured not my problem if the Russians hadn't yet realized they (Romans) were gone. It may be possible they re-seeded (have heard mention of that happening) , but I doubt it. A cheat? why so? because I know they are gone? bah. All I did was take advantage of an unsuspection AI. Will we end up in a war? most likely. When they do pull a sneak attack, I will attribute it to the mis-information they paid for. Does it happen in RL? sure it does. There are too many posts about LE to dispute that. But it was only funny once, and will refrain from using it again. I really don't need the cheezy tactics to get a mere 40 credits. If my game is that bad, I should try a lower level. But it didn't ruin my game experience because of it. (unlke my first training game, an empty victory indeed). But thats me. and it's my game. (and I am getting my arse reammed in this one anyway if number of bases are crucial). What really gets me, is people that in one post complain that people don't play purist, and in the same or following post, they talk about having to re-start the game 100 times to get a good starting position. I will 99% of time take whats given. What may look like a nasty start, may indeed turn out to be a jewel. (which is the reason for this post). I admit I made some crucial early game blunders, which is why I have half the cities the AI has, but my island has turnned out to be not too shabby. I still have tech parity, and lead the culture pack with well built-up cities. I started surrounded mostly by desert terrain, on this 89 tile island. But it got much better as I expanded. Had I reloaded for a better start, I would have missed out on the 7 gems, 7 ivory, iron, and freshwater lake. It had a whopping 2 hut, and the Romans. Got a tech each from the huts, and one from the Romans.... right before I eradicated him with my entire army of 2 warriors. Now I have a plot of land with every tile type (good for future resource yet to show), and 7 core cities set in near-purist fashion, and room for one more if I wanted almost all desert to work on (pffftttt). Got the lighthouse built, and shot off in two directions. One town I plopped down very near to the Russians with 2 incense in the window, but the border sprawl denied me the horsies. no biggie. Thanks to the Russian harbors, I traded one of those and a gem to the Germans for the same thing plus 5G per turn. NOW i can build my war charriots and hopefully get on par with base numbers. The other direction, well, that town is gonna be an outpost for some time, but will be a good launch point when and if I take on them Germans. France pissed me off tho, beat me out of the GL and stuck me with the GW. they got that and the pyramyds in their capitol. ANYWAY. sorry for taking up soo much thread.

The strategy point, is don't judge a book by it's cover. what looks like a bad start may be your diety victory looking you in the face. Thanks for reading, if you made it this far.

[cousLee]

I did have one thought about despot rushing, and long term penalties. How that kind of penalty really stop the whip? After beating them senseless for an army, disband the base to a worker and penalty averted.

If you really wanted to make it hurt, after too many uses, have there be a chance of your units going barbarian (who wants veteran barbarian swordsmen running around.. yilkes). This in addition to dimising return. As that could prob be averted the same way as above.

[Raging Mouse]

Cultural Defense and how to break it

I don't know if this has been said before, but if not then I hope it helps.

In the game I'm currently playing, I decided to conquer India's luxury resources, but ended up having to kill the entire country. Why? Because it was late in the came, and india was my equal, culturally. Initially, my target was only one city right behind the border, with dyes right next to it. Since I didn't want to switch away from Democracy, I figured anything more would be a waste of resources.

Easy peasy. I went in, and my combined horde of cavalry and cannons were able to take the city without losses. I garrison the city with three cavalries and a cannon while the rest fan out into the countrside to break India's retaliation. 11 indian citizens remain in the city when the turn ends.

Next turn, I get the heartwarming message that my newly conquered city has defected back to india, together with my three cavalries and my cannon. Making getting it back a true pain.

A small analysis showed that I was quite close to their capital, and two other cities of India had spheres of influence that would have gone past the conquered city, had it not had any influence of it's own. VERY probable cause of defection, in other words.

Solution: First I took my remaining three cannons, plus another four coming along later, and bombed the crapola out of said city until only one citizen remained. That took three turns. Once I reconquered it, I wanted to make sure I could keep it, so I had to conquer both the other cities to nullify their cultural influence.

Next problem: Now I had two new cities, and each of them had two Indian cities with huge spheres of influence threatening to eat them up.

At this point I figured I couldn't conquer the cities fast enough to prevent cultural defection. So; I cooked up this winning recipe:

1) Never ever garrison a city you think will defect to the enemy.

2) Starvation Schmarvation! Keep them happy, not well fed! Every single citizen should be an entertainer!

3) Strike back! As soon as there's no resistor left, rush-build a library. Not a temple, as they're more expensive and produce less culture.

4) Do some preliminary work. Bombing a city down to it's last citizen dramatically decreases the difficulty of keeping it from defecting, since that single citizen will likely be either content or happy.

And with these four golden rules, India was gone. And all it cost was... ehm... the lives of tens of thousands of potential civilian defectors. There's a lesson to be learned here; Cities are valuable, but not the population in them.

There. Hope this helps you beat those culturally superior nations.

[cousLee]

Good point about it's the cities, not the population.

RE 3> Thats one of the main reasons I like the religious trait. Temples are cheap, so are cathedrals. Cheaper even than a library. But in trying to build them (en masse), I have noticed that I get tech parity only near the mid-middle ages, and if I don't do a little tech whoring, parity comes a bit further down the road. So even tho your going against a cultural monster, you stand a fair chance of having better units. Best idea imo, is hit those civs early, before they become too much of a cultural powerhouse.

I just launched a campagin against against the polite Russians, as trading in silk and horsies(esp) is not acceptable. From my AI styled city,drop position. I attacked away from the capitol. and captured a size 4 town. Cut a whole peninsula off her territory. Turn of capture, 4 resistors. next turn, 4 verry happy russian workers, no defection yet, even tho it (and my launch pad), have the russian capitol between them and mine. I truly suspect it has a lot to do with the luxury resources. I have six comming in to the captured town via the harbor in the launch town. Plus 10% on the luxuries slider.

I do sit at the top of the culture hill, but not that much on top. (not miles ahead of anyone). So make sure you got them new citizens of yours happy suckers. Even if you have to up the luxury slider bar for a few turns, at a loss, it's better to lose a few gold coins, than it is to lose half your invasion force with your new prize.

(darn typos)

[Just My 2 Cents]

vmxa1: the whole point of opinion/preference is there IS no right or wrong.

my favourite colour is blue. yours is orange. who's right? am I fascist for liking blue? are you a homosexual for wearing orange shirts? can you detect I'm being sarcastic? but I guess on a forum one of us has to be right so we'll wait for vel to judge, right?

took up way too much of this thread last time so I'll be quick. I have enough friends in the real-world so I'm not here to make friends. Most forums like this are about 30 posters kissing up to the guy who is supposedly the most popular, or is supposedly a woman, or whatever. I enjoy reading most of the posts because the strategic insights are usually revealing but that's about it.

every idiot is entitled to his opinion, even me. but that's all it is. once again vmxa1, if you get the next 15 posters to tell me I'm wrong it won't affect me, that's not right or wrong, it's mob mentality.

[vmxa1]

When someone says Elvis is alive and that is their opinion, they are either right or they are not. If you say I like blue and that is my opinion, your are correct, that is neither correct or in error, it is an opinion. The problem is that people claim it is their opinion on something that is not really an opinion. It is either a fact or it is not. The discussion is about a given form of cheating. It is either right or it is not. It is really not a matter of opinion. You are either cheating or you are not.

[ChrisShaffer]

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Cheat v.
1. trans. To escheat, confiscate. Obs.
2. To defraud; to deprive of by deceit.
3.
a. To deceive, impose upon, trick.
b. To lead into (an action) by deception.
4. intr.
a. To deal fraudulently, practise deceit.
b. to cheat on: to be sexually unfaithful to (one's spouse). Also without on. colloq. (chiefly U.S.).
5. trans. To beguile (weariness, tedium, etc.).
6. To obtain by cheating. Obs.
7. trans. and intr. Cinematogr. To suppress or adapt (part of a film) during editing so as to create a desired illusion. So cheated ppl. a., cheating vbl. n. Cf. CHEAT n.1 4c.

I believe that 3a and 4a are the best choice of definitions for our purposes. I note that all of these definitions depend on some sort of deception, trickery, or fraudulent dealing.

Thus, if someone is open about what they did, it is not cheating. It may not be a valid entry for the tournament, but it is not cheating!

[Capt Dizle]

Thanks Chris. I appreciate a guy with a dictionary. That is the mark of someone who is trying to cheat miscommunication. I salute you.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary

1. to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud.
2. to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice.
3. to defeat the purpose or blunt the effects of

Number three there is the basis of my posts about the entries in the tourney by people who used the reload method of producing a high score. I have no problem with people playing the game anyway they want, but, to submit such a production, whether disclosed or not, seems to me to be cheating.

If you lose a battle and reload you have "defeated the purpose" or "blunted the effects" of the combat system. By this definition you have "cheated" irregardless of whether or not you disclosed what you did.
You cheated the game.

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Thanks Chris. I appreciate a guy with a dictionary. That is the mark of someone who is trying to cheat miscommunication. I salute you.

I've reported your post to the moderators. Calling someone a cheater is very rude. I'd ask you for an apology, but I suspect it's useless. What's gotten into you jimmytrick? You're a great tactician, but you've been devolving into personal attacks that detract from your arguments and simply make you look bad. Why?

edit - my complaint is retracted below, I misread jt's post.

[Velociryx]

Whoa….looks like it’s been a tough couple of days!

I’m not entirely surprised though….any time you get people together talking about something they’re passionate about, there’s bound to be some friction.

What saddens me a bit though, is that I fear the fighting has caused the strategy thread to lose its “Five Star” rating, and I truly believe it was worthy of those five stars. There have been a lot of people who have put a lot of time, energy, and effort into posting their ideas here (besides me, let me point out! I have no life….this is fun for me, but there are plenty of people who post here who don’t have the spare time I do, but they post anyway).

Anyway….perhaps if we let the dust settle on the issue of what is or is not a cheat, we can get back to talking nuts and bolts of strategy.

Truce?

::hopeful smile::

-=Vel=-
(who has pretty much been Civing all weekend, and has a LOT to write about!)