Effects of 1.21f changes?

[Txurce]

Excellent strategy, Ralph. I've never bothered to do the palace jump, mainly because it seemed like a bother and I have a romantic attachment to my original city. But the way you did it - racking up workers who made up for the pop loss - is probably enough to make me do the pragmatic thing in my next game.

Theseus, the different views on tech trading is why I keep asking questions - it never occurred to me that we may actually have some options again. I can't wait to actually consider researching in the ancient era again. My early game had become extremely rigid strategically, so I've been screwing around the last few games with pacifism, but it seems hopeless on Emperor. I then tried to go back to warmongering, but building temples first. No dice - by the time my bowmen were ready, the other guys had plenty of swords. So much for creative experimentation. It's back to warriors and settlers until I run into borders, then barracks and UUs until I'm ready to attack. (At least until they make 1.21 available for Macs.)

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Txurce
...
My early game had become extremely rigid strategically, so I've been screwing around the last few games with pacifism, but it seems hopeless on Emperor. I then tried to go back to warmongering, but building temples first. No dice - by the time my bowmen were ready, the other guys had plenty of swords. So much for creative experimentation. It's back to warriors and settlers until I run into borders, then barracks and UUs until I'm ready to attack. (At least until they make 1.21 available for Macs.)

You're not completely right here, IMO.

Two weeks ago I had stated on a thread that deity would be easier on a large map (compared to standard). I had never won (or seriously started) deity games before. Three times I had to quit early on, but the fourth time it was bingo:

on deity I hadn't fought a single war until one stupid (and very distant) civ (the Egyptian) landed one cavalry on my continent and declared war. But before that: never experienced such a long peace time in any of my games before.

The AI civs just left me alone, I was playing the Japs in a Macchiavellistic way (setting them up against each other and paying for it) and never used any military before infantry!

As to building temples: I'll usually wage war early on too, but my first priorities are settlers and temples. When my land grab phase has finished, temples are number 1 on my building list.

I've always succeeded in warmongering and building culture improvements first (temples).

AJ

[Arrian]

Yeah, build city, build temple, build workers or settler, build barracks, built units. That's what I do as Japan. Temples first, always. Early culture is great for locking up your borders and preventing cultural reversion. The AI's culture is pathetic early on, so having a few temples blows their culture away. Besides, they keep my people happy while I go off conquering.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

AJ, with regard to a straight builder approach, I play on a standard map, and agree that this may make much of the difference. It sounds as if you were able to build a large enough civ on a large map to research decently before you encountered hostilities. My experience on standard maps is that the six or seven cities I tend to build before usually running into borders... handicapped by the 20% Emperor production penalty... aren't enough to give me a chance to compete on tech. Hence, early warmongering.

Arrian and AJ, I build temples when my cities reach a certain size, but not as a matter of course in the early stages. For example, the size-two soldier factories never get a temple until after the warmongering era is over. On Emperor, I feel I need every shield dedicated to building settlers at first. I am very weak at this point, but require this sort of extreme approach to stay within range of the AI in number of cities. I then switch to barracks as a priority, since my UU is usually early enough that I can't risk (for example) the Persians building a bunch of Immortals before I'm ready to attack. Sometimes I have the option to wait and build temples before invading, but often the clock is ticking on my UU.* I have had the occasional city flip as a result, but if it happens, it's usually as I'm about to go on the offensive, and I get it right back.

* This is obviously a point in favor of a UU with more longevity, but I still can't get around my sense that the human player is never at a bigger disadvantage than at the start. An early UU helps to mitigate this, and by the time it's obsolete, I'm powerful enough to defend myself with standard units.

All that said, I can see an argument within my own for using a civ like Persia, given that the UU isn't ready until I'm ready, and the option of upgrading warriors at that time with the gold I save on research. Starting a relatively late offensive with a civ like Persia will at least rip away some of my cobwebs. I'll try it.

[Arrian]

It appears that Emperor and Diety kinda limit your options, due to the huge AI bonuses. This would have been true in CivII as well, if only the AI had the faintest idea of how to use the bonuses.

I think that Txurce is right in choosing an ancient era UU to gain parity. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, the ancient units have the longest heyday: from the time you get your UU online until feudalism (and even then certain UU's are still useful... MW's and Immortals come to mind).

If you wait for a Chivalry-based UU, the AI will have gunpowder in the blink of an eye - especially on Emp. or Diety. Same goes for Cavalry. The AI will have nationalism in no time, and start drafting those g-damned conscript riflemen whose purpose in life is to kill Cavalry. No, if you're going to fight, the ancient era is the time to do it on the higher levels. As much as I hate blowing a golden age in despotism, it makes sense.

Regarding temples... well, I understand scratching and clawing for shields on the higher levels might cause one to leave the temples for later. I just can't stand those size1 borders, though, and have been building temples first since I was playing down on warlord level. Getting those temples down early not only locks up your borders, but allows you to blow the AI away in culture early on, making keeping AI cities a piece of cake. The only city I don't immediately build a temple in is my capitol (usually I get 2-3 settlers out before plunking down a temple). I always play religious civs, which means temples are 30 shields. That's 10 turns and a poprush for a corrupt town.

One of the reasons I love playing as Japan is that I can build temple & barracks for 50 shields, and then start building my army. That's speed. Religious saves 30 shields, militaristic saves another 20. Persia, for example, would need 100 shields to do the same, and would need to research of buy ceremonial burial.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Arrian,

Playing as Japan, do you bother with Warriors at all?

[Arrian]

Yes. Build orders in capitol: warrior, warrior, warrior, settler, warrior, settler (if enough food, otherwise maybe temple here), temple, barracks, settler, spearman, settler, chariot, chariot, chariot, chariot... or something like that.

My cities are garrisoned by warriors - one to start, two units later. Sometimes two warriors, sometimes a spear and warrior combo. The warriors are regulars, never meant to fight. They are there for early exploration and crowd control.

Later, during the buildup, I may build a few veteran warriors so I can upgrade them to swords. Can't afford many, but I find having a few is useful.

-Arrian

[jshelr]

Suppose you take a city you want to raze but you don't have your settler ready yet. Now, you can hold the city a few turns and then abandon it when your settler finally shows up!!

[Txurce]

I started a game with the Persians, in between Germany and England. Babylon got a nice corner all to itself. By the time our borders touched, I had temples, barracks, and a few Immortals. They had a lot of bowmen, as well as swords, and started pushing me back. When the Germans piled on, I bailed out. What could I have done differently? Built more warriors early - vets, right? - to upgrade to Immortals with the gold I was hoarding. My honor demands that I try it again... but that Japanese ancient-essentials shield advantage sure sounds tempting. They're on deck.

Arrian, I usually try to build settlers every other build at first - every build if the food supply allows it. This is in all cities. It's a risky strategy that rarely leads to disaster, and gets me up and running as soon as possible. I can see taking a less extreme approach... but you effectively build settlers on your fourth, sixth and ninth builds? How many cities does this leave you with in your initial peaceful expansion?

[civman2000]

my city order:
1. defensive unit (if not brought with settler)
2. temple or library if I'm scientific
3. early in the game, settler. Later when ICS isnt very important, I skip this one.
4. depends-sometimes courthouse, sometimes library, barracks, but usually an improvement. Once I get to here I stop really having a system

[civman2000]

Originally poster by Sir Ralph
I use a printed out form with columns of 20 turns each. See attachment, it's quite comfortable if you choose a small font and print it on A4/Letter.

WHat is this about??? I downloaded the attachment and it seems to be meaningless...

[Harovan]

If you don't figure it on the first view, I will probably fail to explain it. Just delete it and never mind.

My build order (although a bit off topic) is settler, settler, settler, if the city has a good food supply (like an irrigated bonus tile), and the same with warriors and/or scouts mixed it, if it has only a normal (+2) food surplus. I almost never build any improvements till the landgrab phase is over. Since I build my cities 3-apart now (instead of formerly 4..5-apart), there are seldom gaps to close, so no primary needs for a temple. Building settlers keeps the number of citizens low, so happiness is not an issue. In one-shield cities with a +2 food surplus I may build a few workers (10 turns each), and then switch to settlers too. As soon as the landgrab phase is gone and I built my FP in a core city, I switch all but one city to workers to reduce their size and perform my palace jump. The workers quickly build my tile improvements and are re-added to the cities later. Then I fire up the culture, building (or poprushing) a temple, marketplace (for happiness) and cathedral in every city at once. Since I have twice or thrice as much cities at this point like the next AI has, my culture jumps from the least to the highest in just a few turns. Usually, nobody beats me in culture from this point on.

[Arrian]

Txurce,

It all depends on the food situation, of course, but I generally want 3 warriors off the bat - 2 for exploring and 1 to garrison the capitol. Then I'll punch out a settler. Then, if there is enough food, I'll build another. Otherwise a quick build like another warrior, then back to settler. Usually there is a lull in there when I can't build a settler right away, and that's when I build a temple.

My initial land-grap is truncated when I play the Japanese. I'm just not that concerned about staking my claim - my horsemen will do that. The AI is building cities for me. I will often halt at 6-8 cities on a normal map. Small, huh? Well, the key is that a city that can't at the very least muster up 2 shields of production is worthless to me. At least a 2 shield city can put out a spearman in 10 turns.

The idea is to build a relatively efficient core, connect up the vital resources (horses/iron), build large numbers of chariots, upgrade & kick ass. Thus, the land-grab is unecessary, because when the dust settles, my civ will be the only one standing on the continent.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

You completely switched to warmonger, didn't you, Arrian?

Well, if I get boxed in, I also switch from settlers to horsemen and go for a raid. Thing is, the AI often has no culture and poprushes defenders till size 1, so I don't capture but destroy a lot of cities. That's not a big deal though, because I build cities more dense than the AI does. Which means, I have to switch to settlers again after the raid and fill up the captured territory, while my surviving horsemen block the other AI's settlers. Settle, raid, settle, raid, till all land is settled. At this point I decide, whether I will continue my snake style raids, or settle down and be a peaceful builder.

As I am in my current game. I killed the Aztecs and Americans early on and settled the whole continent. 49 cities + 1 at a distant island. A 1495AD savegame is in the 1.21 bugs thread. The wars I fought while none of the other AI's had discovered us yet, so nobody knows of my atrocities anymore. I'm strong but peaceful now, everyone's buddy, #1 in approval rating (just like in land area, productivity etc.), have a solid lead of about 4 techs (discovering Flight in 1510AD), am allied (MPP) with the 2nd best civ (peaceful France) since many turns and going to build the spaceship this evening. That's good, cos tomorrow starts the new tournament over there at CivFanatics.

[Arrian]

Yeah, though I call it "warmongering builder" since the warmongering is simply a means to an end (building). Kinda like the game you described - kill off your neighbors, and settle down to build. I probably will try out a Babylonian or Egyptian builder game with the new patch... but I fear I'm now addicted to the power of the dark side.

I don't generally have a problem with AI cities getting autorazed because my attack actually starts fairly late. I need time to build my attack troops and accumulate the money needed to upgrade them. I could destroy a civ or two earlier than I do, but instead I hold off for a massed attack that can take down everyone on the continent, one after the other. Therefore, most of the AI cities are either size 2+ or have expanded culture borders. Sure, I end up having to fill in a few gaps, but for the most part, the continent is settled for me.

-Arrian