Civ choice for early warmongering

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DrSpike
No matter what level you play on with a builder focus you want 15-20 cities Unless you are lucky this probably implies some early conquering to get those cities up asap (no point in hanging around ). IMO opinion the only difference by difficulty level is the optimal timing of the rush.

Depending on map size, of course

I play on Normal maps (continents), Monarch, and usually end up with about 10-12 cities after peaceful expansion. If I plan to warmonger, I build a few less, and spend more energy on barracks and units.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

I'm relieved to hear that others playing non-militaristic civs have trouble generating GL's. I average slightly less than one a game, and have never had more than two, even though I basically war my way to Dr. Spike's optimal city range, thought I had a reasonable number of elite units, and use them almost exclusively as finishers.

Does being militaristic increase the odds of generating elite units by a whole lot?

[DrSpike]

It's funny this should come up, cos thinking back over my games I can't remember that much difference. In my most recent game (Egyptians, deity) I fought an early war against the Germans with my war chariots. It wasn't a protracted war (completely over by 600BC), but I got a bunch of elites (some even from the early barbs) and 2 leaders! I could have just been jammy I suppose. The game I fought most was the tournament 4 (my favourite game of all) game, where I was the Germans and got no leaders from 20 times as many battles. I guess this too experieces might not be indicative of the overall picture, but I don't remember too large a difference. IIRC the militaristic trait only gets you more promotions though, and thus only indirectly more leaders.

[Arrian]

Yeah, leader generation is very random. I've played Germany and fought a bunch, gaining no leaders, and I've had 8 leaders as the Egyptians once (true, 3 of those were in "garbage time" at the end). Yet, when deliberately picking fights early on as Egypt, I've failed miserably in the great leader department.

I have an Egyptian game going now, but it's at least 1/2 builder, maybe more. I've fought a lot, though, and have gotten leaders. It's a little bit tainted, though, since I got an army from a hut (I have been unsure whether I got the "good" or "bad" 1.17f since I downloaded it, but I finally, after countless games, encountered in-game proof that I have the "bad" one) and used it.

I may just forget about my Egyptian horseman rush theory. It just doesn't work the way I figured it would. The Japanese, on the other hand...

-Arrian

[DrSpike]

The Japanese UU is great, but for a builder game with early conquering (most of my games follow this pattern) you don't need the militaristic trait as much as some of the others. One leader is nice for the FP quickly, but it's only 200 shields now and start it in an early conquered city and it'll be fine. You don't need leaders on Monarch to get Sistine's, which is the first wonder I want.

I see your point about the golden ages, and on monarch I would feel the same. If your point in mentioning the Japanese was that you can warmonger early with Japanese horses then save the samurai for a more aptly timed golden age (whereas with Egypt you use the chariot and waste the GA, or hold off on the GA and waste the UU), this seems consistent with your other posts. IMO The traits are still wrong for your preference though.

From your posts I'd say try the Babs and use horses early on to conquer territory. If you don't get a leader don't lose any sleep, you can probably get it in a 100 turns, and most of those the conquered cities will not have enough pop to be productive anyway. You can hold the bowman back and use it to start a golden age when you like, as long as it's not too late.

[Arrian]

DrSpike,

Ahh, the Babylonians. My old favorite. They're fantastic, but I find the 2x worker bonus sets up a quick conqest much better... well, it sets up everything better. True, libraries and universities take a while to build as Egypt, but that early boost from the workers is beautiful. Maybe I will try warmongering with Babylon, just for a change of pace, but I still think Egypt is (potentially) the best for an early rush/settle down and build game.

Good point about the FP. I normally like it a LONG way from my palace, getting the maximum number of totally corrupt cities within its radius. This optimal placement usually means building it in a 1 shield town. 200 turns. Ugh. The point here is to double your productivity early on. I've seen the power of this, as Japan. It's incredible. Maybe that's why it's hard to pull off

The main problem with my perfect game strategy is that it depends on luck. Getting a leader is a matter of luck, and if you don't get one, my strategy fails. The game is still winnable, but I'm going for ultimate power

-Arrian

[DrSpike]

I think the simultaneous ownership and consumption of one's cake is hard, even in civ3.

Originally posted by Arrian
DrSpike,

I still think Egypt is (potentially) the best for an early rush/settle down and build game.

The main problem with my perfect game strategy is that it depends on luck. Getting a leader is a matter of luck, and if you don't get one, my strategy fails. The game is still winnable, but I'm going for ultimate power

-Arrian

The point is you can't have a good early UU and a later golden age and profit from both. You may as well pick the best builder traits. If you feel they are industrious and religious then Egyptians all the way. You can always trigger the golden age with wonders.

I don't actually think industrious is that critical to early conquering, or even the subsequent building. You're going to have a load of workers anyway. IMO the babs really seem the choice for the preferences you have indicated.

As for the leader thing, I think you should never plan on getting a leader. You have to play the percentages so you can benefit but are not unduly upset by missing out.

[DrSpike]

Anyway I should apologise Arrian. You have this thread about warmongering, and another I just noticed about builders. From my first post (where I advocated the babs and the egyptians) I was inadvertently pushing the discussion towards what's good for early warring then settling down to build, because this is how I play.

For what it's worth my thoughts on civs for early warmongering followed by more warmongering:

Definitely militaristic is the first trait. A good early UU you plan to use and trigger the GA is best, because it helps with production and you don't care as much about forgoing the later GA. My top 3:

1) Japan. Mentioned a few times in the thread. Militaristic for promotions, religious for cheap temples etc. Start with the wheel, and you can use horses and upgrade later.

2) Rome. I'll let notyoueither make this case. Summary: they are good.

3) Zulu. Impi/horseman pairs, nice. I wont comment further, Aeson has made this case above (he'll probably track me down and give me a good kickin' for putting them 3rd though)

[Arrian]

DrSpike,

No apology necessary. The thread is about "early warmongering" and I definitely had a "kick butt early, then settle down for a bit" mindset when I started it. This was basically what I did in my Japanese game recently, and wow did it work well.

I guess that I am still looking for the "game of ultimate power" just like I used to in Civ II. It was easier in Civ II, because the AI was worse, there were no tech caps or "ages" to break up the tech tree. Plus, Diety gave you two settlers (I always thought CivII Diety was easier than Emperor for that very reason). Anyway, I am definitely trying to have my cake and eat it too. I know that, and I accept that it shouldn't be easy.

Essentially, I'm trying to gain the success of an early warmonger, with a builder civ. I've just been unlucky with leaders, that's all. I don't care about the war chariot/golden age problem, because it's easily remedied. WC's upgrade to horsemen for 20 gold each, and one often has a bunch of gold as a despot.

If one's goal is to fight to expand territory early on, to secure some more resources/land/etc. and deny those things to the AI, and then build, then Egypt is a great choice. My goal is the total destruction of 1 civ, and the crippling (1-2 cities left) of a second, and a shiny new forbidden palace. It seems Egypt is not the best choice for that.

-Arrian

[DrSpike]

Personally I would rather play the babs on Monarch for the type of game we are discussing, with the Egyptians as my 2nd choice. Egyptians will always be my first choice on deity, because of the different ranking of the early golden age in that case. But that is by the by, and already discussed. The point I wish to emphasise is that as a builder you shouldn't _plan_ for a leader. I empathise with your wish to build the FP in faraway places with 1 shield no matter what, but it isn't the percentage strategy if you aren't willing to wait 200 turns. IMO the strategy that hedges best is space cities slightly closer and build the FP as far away as you can subject to the constraint that you still need to get 2 shields at say pop 4 or so with a courthouse. Also, IMO playing a militaristic civ in hopes of generating the leader in the type of game discussed just isn't worth it.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Arrian
DrSpike,

No apology necessary. The thread is about "early warmongering" and I definitely had a "kick butt early, then settle down for a bit" mindset when I started it.

-Arrian

Really? I didn't get that, since you rated all the civs like Egypt and Babylonians badly. Which lead to my first post pointing out that if you want to conquer early then build..................

[Arrian]

Well, keep in mind that the ratings were done with the assumption that culture linkings was on, which means Egypt will most likely face Greece and Rome, while Babylon must face Zululand and Persia. I concede, however, that I may have rated them too low. Perhaps Egypt merits a B- and Babylon a C or C+... I also gave out better grades to civs powerful early/mid-game UU's, such as Rome, Persia, the Iroquois, Japan and China. The war chariot is a quick build, and I may have undervalued it a tad bit, but it's still a 2.1.2. The bowman sucks, any way you cut it.

My new goal, early conquest with Egypt or Babylon which results in a great leader for the forbidden, came about during the course of my two threads. I may be getting a little carried away with it, and it seems to be a low-percentage strategy, like you said. But if I could just get it to work... man, that would be awesome.

I disagree that playing a militaristic civ in order to do this isn't worth it. To me, the whole point of being militaristic is the better unit upgrades, and the whole point of that is leader generation. The Japanese worked great for this when I tried them.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

New thoughts

Interesting dialogue you guys are having.

So here's how I would summarize the building consensus:
- Early warfare is desirable for GL creation, punishment / denial, and expansion.
- Balanced players still want to pursue a builder strategy, so religious or scientific can be helpful.
- The right UUs can help with relative strength.
- Militaristic helps with unit promotions, but GL creation is still a crapshoot.
- The thinking on GA timing is still open... some prefer as early as possible for faster early unit building, some prefer later for greater results in the build phase.

Previously, I've voiced a preference for being religious with a fast mover... Egypt, Japan, China, etc., with a leaning toward militaristic.

I have discovered, however, the power of the Immortals.

A four attack!!!!! At Iron Working!! (starting with Bronze Working, no less, so only one tech away). From a relative strength perspective, there is nothing like it. And unit promotions are not a problem... a bunch of warriors go out, some fight barbs, most survive and get promoted. Putting up barracks is easy, so by the time you are ready for war, most if not all of your Immortals are veterans. AND THEY NEVER LOSE!!! (almost). Last night I had 10 elites by 1000 BC. In order: Pyramids, Army, FP. All by 500 BC. A two-Immortal Army is UNSTOPPABLE until Rifleman, for God's sake. Then I added a Pikeman!! 9-5-1...I felt like the Incredible Hulk!!

The only civ that has a CHANCE of standing up to you are the Romans... everyone else is TOAST. I mean really, you'll go 2000 years faced by attackers and defenders at 1 or 2 values (think about it: Warrior, Archer, Bowman, Chariot, War Chariot, Horseman, Jaguar Warrior, Impi). Hoplites don't do it, and the Iroqouis are too weak defenseively.

And they maintain value... by the time you build Knights, they are ALL elites.

Persia is Industrious, which I like as both a builder and warmonger, and Scientific, so at least some building is cheap. The timing of the GA is OK; although a bit later would be better as a builder, it works great for a committed warmonger.

Try it... you'll like it.

R

[rpodos]

Oops... correct stats on my Army of Death: 9-7-1!!!

R

[DrSpike]

Persia are admittedly awesome but I hate the fact that swordsmen based units don't upgrade. If you can do your early conquering with them great, but on deity where I've played the last few games you're pushing it.