Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Two

[gruedragon]

Vel (and others),

I have a couple of questions:

The first is on tech whoring. How do you know when a civ has researched something? Do you call them up every turn? If so, doesn't that make them annoyed at you like Civ2/SMAC?

Secondly: Given the overwhelming advantage some civs have due to their unique unit and/or combination of traits, do you every see yourself turning the civ-specific abilities off? Myself, I'm leaning towards turning them off so everyone starts on the same level.

[Fitz]

Re: Base pairing & expansion paradigm.

Lol ... Well, I was paying attention to this thread, but I turned my back for a weekend. What are you going to do when the folks get home and see this mess?

Nice to see there are so many devotee's to Civ3 strat, seems like way more than my SMACing days.

*waves to all his new (hopefully) friends*

Anyway, to test Vel's comments on base pairing and the expansion paradigm, and follow his suggestion that I actually get stuck into this game, I started a new game on Friday.

My first game as the Chinese on the lowest level was getting boring, and I hadn't followed any sort of plan, so it was time for something new anyway.

Huge map, 16 civs, regent level (it is only my second game), continents, random Civ (greeks it turns out).

Expansion Paradigm
Method:
First cranks out a worker, then a settler, settler, etc ...

Second Base founded in good food location, then does the same as the first base. These two workers improve for food the best two squares, then improve a high shield square, then start roading my empire.

Third base founded in high resource area, builds worker, then warriors for itself, then first two bases, then exploration.

Fourth + bases founded to my personal grid (4 spaces, three diagonal, one up/across), emphasis on food sites first. I determined by my initial contacts that I could comfortably get a grid of 5 x 5, or 25 bases. Each of these bases follows the pattern of building: worker, warrior, temple, settler, settler, etc.

Comments:
Initially a thin expansion, with 2 bases keeping the expansion alive, 1 base making some troops/explorers, and the others getting some basic culture then completing the expansion to 25 bases. I was on par with (and slightly ahead of) the AI, probably only because of the low level. I decided to sacrafice early exploration in favor of expansion and defense, which worked fine in this specific case but could potentially hurt future games. It seems that I picked just the right number of bases, although I actually didn't decide on 25 until I had 8-9 in place and knew a little about where nearby civs and good base spots were. Lack of exploration meant that I could only pin in 2 of 5 civs on my continent with my base grid (mearly a grid for aethetic reasons). However, that worked ok, since that gave me two weak civs to pick on later.

Interlude
On my continent, I had pinned in the Egyptians and Chinese to my south, with the Japanese to my west, and the Romans and Indians to my north. The Japanese were aleady pretty strong, and the Romans/Indians far away, so I decided to follow (probably to my future regret) the "pick on the weak guy" stratagy. Chinese were to be the first target, followed by the Egyptians (and their horses). I already had discovered Iron, and convieniently enough had some right next to my unit producing base.

Base Pairing
Method:
After my 25 bases were in place, all bases continue to crank out settlers until I have12 "training camps", effectively 1 for each base internal to my 5 x 5 grid, except one side is ocean, so I included three bases there. At this point, each "real" base changes to Culture production, and the training camps start producing swordsmen, with a few catapults and hoplites mixed in. Population whipping started immediately. Once the army was big enough (~10 swordsmen, 5 hoplites, 5 catapults), the invasion of the Chinese began.

Results
Overwhelmed the 7 Chinese bases, then move on to the Egyptians (~9 bases). By the time I got to the Egyptians (about 3 techs, probably 60-70 turns) my army had at least doubled it's size, even after losses. Another 60-70 turns later (about another 3 techs, I'm just estimating here ), it was time to look at that tough nut, the Japanese. Basically, total dominance to this point.

Comments:
The stratagy is obviously extremely powerful, and at this point in the game I have started pulling up those training camps and recycling them back into the real bases. I've switched to Republic, which may make my envisioned war against the Japanese impossible. The only thing that stopped the total annihilation of the Japanese already was my (probably incorrect) use of population sacrafice. Instead of putting a police unit in the base to quell the single dissenter, I relied on luxuries. I shortly found that a single luxury doesn't quell multiple pop sacrifices. Each pop sac after the first (maybe the second, I wasn't paying total attention) required another luxury. Obviously this isn't true of police, or I'm sure that Vel would have mentioned it. I personally felt that I had advantage enough already, so why make it an obscene advantage. Thus, the new units kept going to the front as soon as they appeared, and the sole entertaininers left behind meant the base never grew until the unhappines affect disappeared or I got a new luxury. Since I got 3 new luxuries in the course of conquering my two neighbors, it wasn't the end of the world.

If I had garrisoned them, I'm sure that instead of the 120 or so turns I took to wipe out two civs would have only taken 70-80.

Conlusions
Base pairing & pop rushing seems to be an extreme advantage, as well as being ugly. On this low level I'm sure that had I taken half my original 25 bases and used them to build a military I would have done fine. Alternately, I could have set a higher target number (since going from 25 to 37 took almost no time) and gone half and half, or maybe even a higher fraction as military. I think for higher levels that closer base spacing (three squares) would speed up the expansion phase and keep me competetive in that regard, but obviously the idea of crushing my oponents early in this fashion would have to be rethought, since I doubt even then I could wipe out two civs (some 16 bases) even with 35 bases (17+ on military, not rushed) that early in the game.

[DFHNY]

16 hours later

Vel et al:
Played for 16 hours saturday. Very nice game. Had 2 friends over, so it took longer as we all had to agree on various tactics/strats. Few on the boards mention playing civ3 with friends but I find it boring/scary to play it solo. I mean who is there to see you kick ass, etc. Played persians/std size/regent, bad starting points over and over. I have never had the computer give me a good starting point really, always thinking about moving my palace but never do. After a while you just ignore the corruption and play the game.

1. Do you turn off diplomatic victory? Seems anyone can build that darn UN and win thus stopping your fun. Is there a way to postpone the vote?

2. We noticed that combat troops with the same attack # do better or worse against other troops, why? E.g. we fought long and hard with immortals vs. babs bowman and it was about a break even fight. Then I got the longbow but rarely used it (right same 4 to attack...) until I learned by experience that it never loses to a bab bowman! That was a good thing to learn as I lost a major battle for their capitol and came back with muskets and the long bow to take it out. Is the rule always use the "most recent" weapon invented?

3. I have played 6 long games now and rarely if ever get leaders, must be some trick to it. Also have never gotten enough of a lead to get early wonders, but by Bach am far enough ahead of the AI that he can't reach it. People who get the pyramids or great library must really know that "early" game.

4. Do you have a good tactic for using the bombardment weapons? I have yet to find them effective in the field (as opposed to civ2 where I found I could rarely take a city w/o catapult, and the cannon, now there was a gun).

Thx
Dan in brooklyn

[Thoth]

Re: Ditto...Ditto....

Originally posted by inca911

One question remains:
When you obtain a city from the AI, do you get their military units as well or must you staff the city by yourself?

When a city changes hands through diplomacy, all units in it are instantly transported to their former capital.

[Bblue]

Lack of Bells and Whistles/ Victory thoughts

I have to agree whole-heartedly with Vel on his (and others) points that Civ III does lack some of the 'feeling' of the earlier Civs and SMAC. I really miss the wonder movies and even those crackpot advisors from Civ II. Sure sometimes's I'd click right through them, but more often then not I'd watch them, in a way they gave a feeling of accomplishment (yeah, PC game accomplishments, whoopie) I get the feeling they really cut out the bells and whistles in CivIII, not that they are nessasary my any stretch of the imagination, but for me they are missed. Atleast they didn't seem to skimp on the AI as a whole. (Overall, I'd have to say the core AI is by far the best I've played agianst, definatley not human, but we're not dealing with Deep Blue here)


Now on to some thing vagley related to stratagy (I did say vaugly ) How do ya'll feel about the victory conditions? As stated in many others privous posts I find the diplomatic victory... well it has an unfinished, abrupt feel to it. No haggling like in SMAC?, no real warning it's coming? Ai Civs rarely abstaining from a vote? Feels... small. I do however see it's place in the game, but see the need for some additional work. Stadagywise, the UN is an absolute must build (keep it from the niegbors and control when and IF it gets used, I'll only use it if it looks like I'm gonna lose the space race/ only happened once so far)

The Space Race... 10 components instead of 40, combined with the 4 turn tech cap. I NEVER get to see the upper end techs in the Modern age. Had the game since it was released and still haven't had the need (or time) to research Stealth, Genetics,.. anything past the component requirements. With the 4 turn research cap and the reduced number of components, that puppy is ready to fly a turn or 3 after I research the tech for the last part. Well I did research Genetics once, built the Cure and won a a 20,000 pt cultural victory a few turns later, but the Ais were atleast 1/2 way done with thier Spaceships and I could have had my SS done, but I wanted to do a cultural victory that game. IS it just me? or does anyone else find that the modern techs after the ones that give SS components have become just.... additional 'future techs', if that much. Stadagywise, is there any real use for the latter modern techs?

[HenryMad]

Re: One small gripe....

Originally posted by Velociryx
You know what this game is lacking in somehow? Atmosphere and suspense! I mean....sure, when you're doing a delicate balancing act re: diplomacy, there's a certain dramatic tension, and the sweep of history certainly makes for a dramatic setting but....case in point:

In SMAC, when you build the Secret Project (read: Wonder) ....

I totally agree with you Vel. Those wonderful SMAX in game movies have greatily enhanced my gaming experience.
Maybe because I'm a scifi fan, but sometimes I was really believing to be on Chiron fighting mindworms or the awful Miriam who was too close to my capital from the very beginning........

nevertheless, this is another story

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Velociryx
More on Armies:
An army only counts as one garrison for purposes of quelling discontent. IMO, it should quell all discontent in a given city regardless of the type of government you're running, at the price of say....increased corruption or something (discontent populace venting in other ways?).

Hmm. This is seems to be false. I had stationed an army in a city for repair and it's 3 units each showed up with a smiley next to its icon. I could tell it was the in-army units making the citizens content, as these units do not show health bars. Are you sure? I'll test it again myself today.

[sophist]

I've had the same experience with an army of 3 units having 3 garrison units.

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


Hmm. This is seems to be false. I had stationed an army in a city for repair and it's 3 units each showed up with a smiley next to its icon. I could tell it was the in-army units making the citizens content, as these units do not show health bars. Are you sure? I'll test it again myself today.

[bloodlust]

Does I hear 16 ?

EDIT: upps stupid question - deleted
__________________

[sophist]

And another thing about combined arms.... Using artillery and fast units when attacking a city are key for one reason I haven't seen mentioned. Consider: morale upgrades are only done after an outright victory (i.e., the other guy dies). If your fast unit retreats, then there's no morale upgrade for the defender. There's nothing more frustrating than throwing a swordsman at a spearman and then losing it because the swordsman won't retreat. And then to add insult to injury, the spearman gets promoted so your attack strengthens them (If it doesn't kill you...?). On the other hand, if you attack with a weaker unit (say a horseman) and it has to retreat, 1) your unit survives 2) the enemy defender does not promote! This is especially important against a militaristic civ (stupid Japanese *grumble* *grumble*) where the odds of the defender promoting are pretty high. On top of this, there are no outright victories with bombardment either. If you fail in your bombardment, the defender still doesn't promote. And if you succeed, that gives a better chance of victory to your slow melee units. So if you use artillery and fast units to whittle defenders down, not only do you 1) save units 2) have a higher chance of saving elite units, you also win faster because you have a reduced chance of promoting the enemy defenders.


I fear the day the AI gets patched to use artillery properly.

[Padmewan]

Not to keep this thread on its diversionary path, but I also agree about the lack of atmosphere. Since in-game movies are a standard for just about any genre, I feel like we're "owed" something extra for our money. Different music for each Civ, or at least each set of Civ's (Western, Eastern, Middle Eastern, native American) would have been nice.

I also don't feel like I'm negotiating with anyone in CivIII the way I was in SMAC. The robustness of the various pacts were part of the charm. I'd start developing a real fondness for my allies in SMAC -- and yes, the diplomatic victory was much more satisfying because of the effort of wheeling and dealing.

The problem with the lack of utility of late-game techs was a problem in SMAC too. By the time I was ready to roll out the most advanced possible units it was only my forbearance that prevented the end of the game.

[Arrian]

Mornin' all.

1st off, yeah, I think that atmosphere could be a bit better - but then again, I shut off all the CIV II bells and whistles once I'd seen them once... slowed down my domination of the world and all. The UN victory is... shall we say "minimalist." I would like to have seen something more like the council vote in MOO2, or the more varied uses of it in SMAC. Whatever.

Anyway, I was pondering some things last night as I methodically annihilated the Germans and relieved the Aztecs of their rubber, aluminum and incense. The AI's weaknesses show up more in the late game.

DISCLAIMER: I rather like the AI in Civ III, and I think it is a vast improvement. I understand that there is no HAL, and that for the time being, AI is quite limited.

That being said, if Firaxis does want to tinker with the AI for a later version of the game (like a MPG edition, perhaps), they may want to carefully consider how the AI buys tech when it's behind.

Example:

It's circa 1760, and the world is at war... all except me. I got what I wanted and got the hell outta dodge. I'm a democracy (was the whole time), whilst the remaining AI civs are all communist. Thus, my tech lead figures to increase. I just developed ecology. I called up Cathy over in Russia and Joan "I loved you the entire game, but then I attacked your MPP partner, forcing you into war with me, so now I hate you forever and ever" of Arc and discussed terms for the sale of this new secret. I received 300 gold and 55 gold/turn from Russia and 250 gold and 54 gold/turn from GI Joan.

That's a lot. Now, since we lack a cheat mode, ala Civ II, there is no way to check on whether or not the AI civs would have been better off pumping that cash into research. Granted, they were communist, at war, and ecology does get them 1 step closer to Modern Armor. Still, it's not a deal I'd make.

I was also thinking about how the AI's attitude toward you works. Stay with me through the rather long story below, as there is, in fact, a point:

Since the world exploded into war, nearly everyone was fighting everyone else. I had two MPP's at the start of it all, and they sucked me into 1 war I wanted, and four that I didn't. The one I wanted was vs. Germany, which netted me coal, 3 extra oil, and some totally corrupt territory. The others were essentially wars on the other continent that Joan of Arc became involved in. She and I had an MPP, and thus I got sucked in. Now, 2 turns after the MPP forced me to fight everyone, she called me up and cancelled it (the 20 turns were up). The MPP that remained was w/the Zulu... who had gotten involved on my behalf in some of the wars. Joan soon enough attacked shaka, and I had to fight Joan, my former ally. Arg. I was also at war with the English and Russians, due to my former MPP with Joan. These wars were "phony" in that I never attacked them. Joan, however, had a city right next to my very important silk city. This I captured... and razed. Since then, I have made peace with England, Russia and France.

Russia - Gracious
England - Polite
France - Furious

Hmm, perhaps taking and razing that city was not really necessary...and ill-advised. Joan will apparently be holding a grudge. "Phony" wars don't seem to hurt relations in the long term. Real wars do, particularly if you have a penchant for wiping cities off the face of the earth.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Gruedragon: Yep...'bout the only way to know for sure is if you see a Civ start on a wonder or if you call them constantly....fortunately they don't seem to mind. I ballpark their rate of discovery at about 2 turns faster than my best rate (science at 100%), and that's how often I tend to contact them. (that is to say, if I set my science slider to 100% and see that I'll get a new tech in seven turns, I assume the AI will get their next bit of research done in five turns, and more often than not, that's on the money).

I DO agree with you that some of the UU's come damnably close to being broken (Mounted Warrior, *maybe* the Immortal, and definitely the Jaguar), but....I've so far resisted the urge to turn them off. I think that a human player simply shying away from those civs with heinous UU's (and making sure you're playing against them) would give the AI another important advantage, but you're right....it IS unbalancing. Fortunately, the AI doesn't seem to know the best uses for those Jags, else every game would be a short one....



Fitz! Good lowdown on the pairing/pop-rush thingy...and I'd have to agree with you....used in concert, it's just overwhelming.

Army thing and others....take everything I said yesterday with a grain of salt! LOL....My eyes could have easily been deceiving me, since I was running on almost no sleep after civing all weekend. Actually, I hope I AM incorrect about the army thing! That'd certainly make them more useful, especially if it turns out to be true about cities having a much less, if not nil chance of reverting with an army garrisoned there.

-=Vel=-
PS: I'll prolly not be around too much today....gotta hit those civ articles HARD today, free time permitting! I'd like to get them all done for when we have to move to "part three" of this thread, if not before! (that way, you guys don't have to wait till spring!)

-V.

[Arrian]

DFHNY-

1) I don't, but I sure as hell build the UN asap, so I don't lose.

2) I think you experienced some random bad luck, because I WASTED the Babylonians, bowmen and all, with immortals in my present game.

3) Leaders are tough to get. I usually try to use my elite units in battles I'm pretty sure they will win, thus increasing their chances of survival and eventually popping a leader. This is not to say that my strategy works that well... in my present game I have gotten no leaders despite numerous elite unit victories. In a recent game as the Babylonians, I got FOUR. Fighting was about equal in the two games.

4) Bombardment weapons are only effective in relatively large numbers. First off, catapults are pretty useless. Cannon aren't much better. But artillery... in large numbers you can utter BREAK a city with them. Bring 10 or so to a siege. A size 20 city will be reduced to a size 5 w/o most of its improvements in a couple of turns.

-Arrian

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Arrian
4) Bombardment weapons are only effective in relatively large numbers. First off, catapults are pretty useless. Cannon aren't much better. But artillery... in large numbers you can utter BREAK a city with them. Bring 10 or so to a siege. A size 20 city will be reduced to a size 5 w/o most of its improvements in a couple of turns.
-Arrian

I submit that even catapults in large numbers are useful. My army of 10 catapults did fine at reducing all city defenders to 1 hp over 1-2 turns, destroying walls, etc. Not that you really need to do that when their backed by 20 swordsmen, but if you start leaving those swordsmen behind as garrisons ...

I played around last night with tech trading, since I bought all the contacts that I didn't have of the remaining 13 civs in the game, and I agree that the AI is just stupid. Armed with a pot of gold, I obtainined 3 techs I didn't have from one civ, one I didn't have from another, then turned around and sold to every civ all my techs that they would buy for 8/turn & 25 gold (or more). Within 20 turns I had the tech lead, and at least 10 of 13 civs had no real income and no cash reserve.

On the other hand, switching to Republican forced me to sign an early peace with Japan. I hadn't realized how severe war weariness was. I can empathize with people who have complained about civil disorder from war weariness now, especially those who are fighting defensive battles. Considering how hard it is for most civs to change governments, I would hope a defensive war (ie they declared war on you) would have a much reduced war weariness effect, but I get the fealing that isn't the case.

Thanks Vel. I was enamoured of the base-pairing idea when I first read it, but now start to feel that it is excessive. Probably liked it since in my SMACing days I was a fanatic about getting all base improvements, and this method seemed to allow that in Civ3.