The Virtues of being Industrious....

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Txurce
Si Ralph, Egypt seems to fit you ultra-early warring strategy, since they're only one tech from their fast-moving UU. But more to the point, how about the Aztecs? No fast roads, but nobody creates problems more quickly!

I made good experience in my tournament game with Egypt what concerns warfare. But I did attack with archers and swordsmen, because the puny English weren't worth to fire my GA and there was nobody else at my island. And attacking with slowmovers RULES if you are industrious! But I made BAD experiences what concerns leader generation.

The Aztecs are the Civ3 terrorists, no doubt. Jags and Archers from the beginning, plus cheap barracks. And religious! But they are not industrious and therefor not a matter of this thread.

[Txurce]

Sure they are: they argue against the need of industriousness' virtues!

[Velociryx]

I would contend that the Aztecs make a strong case FOR industriousness...can you imagine anyone wanting to play any other faction if they could keep their UU AND have industrious workers?

I can't....

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Txurce,

I have experienced bad runs of luck with swordsmen (which put me off them, and convinced me horsemen are far superior) which decimated my attacking force, but Immortals are another thing entirely. Immortals eat anything short of legions or hoplites for lunch. My first Monarch win was as Persia. I attacked the Babs with Immortals. I took three cities before losing a HIT POINT. 4 versus 2, vets versus regulars... you're not gonna lose many while attacking. Counterattacks are another thing, though. Bring some spearmen.

For those who view ancient warfare primarily as a way of gaining room to grow, plus resources, Industrious rocks, for the aforementioned reasons which I will not repeat. However, if you see ancient warfare primarily as a method of generating Great Leaders, with the territory/luxuries/etc. as secondary objectives... well, then you're me, and you play Japan.

Ok, "secondary objectives" might be an exaggeration. Clearly, I fight to grab my neighbor's cities and all that comes with them (territory, luxuries, resources, any wonders they have built). But I view those conquests are hollow without Great Leaders. The effort required to build up overwhelming force in ancient times (yes, I know it's easier if you go with an ancient UU) prevents you from building wonders (*disclaimer - I often take a shot at the Colossus, but that's a comparatively low-shield wonder*). As a "builder" I would build one ancient Wonder of the 400 shield variety, so I want that back. That's 1 leader. I also want an optimally placed forbidden palace... that's 2 leaders. Also sacrificed during my Mongle Horde buildup and the subsequent rampage is the development of my core cities (by this I mean construction of a library, marketplace, cathedral or colosseum over time... instead of acquiring the tech for all of them at once and immediately being catapulted in the middle ages). I need the marketplace at the very least to properly pursue the medieval wonders (need to keep people happy as a republic - despot/monarchy only until war over, then want tech lead... must be republic). Accordingly, I need another leader to rush the Sistine while my core cities catch up in their development. That's three leaders. After that, they're all gravy.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Better yet, Vel, imagine industrious Iroquois. Yeah, a little long to get them going, but OMG, the PpppppoOoooOooowwWWwweeer!

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Good point...either way, the combination of Religious, a strong UU and Ind would make the civ an absolute wrecking ball....nobody would ever play much besides the iroquois or aztec if they were Ind on top of their other advantages...OUCH!

WRT to your points on the GL-generation....very true re: the conquest being somewhat hollow if you don't generate a goodish sum of GL's from it. It's been a while, so this may not be exact, but is not the difference between militaristic chances of generating GL's something like 4% (12% for non-mil vs. 16% for mil?) Or, as you have been playing the Militaristic Civs more often, has it been your experience that the percentage is a good deal higher than that?

If it's just a 4% increase in chances of getting a GL, then cheaper barracks aside, I think I'd still throw in with some other trait, but if it turns out to be a pretty significant jump, then I would have to agree....given the power of GL's and their "insta-build" function, that would put Militaristic right up there at the top of the charts as traits go!

-=Vel=-

[alexman]

Vel, the chances of generating a GL are the same for militaristic and non-militaristic. The militaristic trait helps generate elites more often. That's the trait's only advantage in combat.

Edit (to make this post a bit more constructive): This IMHO by no means makes militaristic civs useless. I still think it's up there with industrious. To get a leader with 95% certainty, you need to win something like 50 elite battles. That's quite difficult to do in ancient times with a non-militaristic civ.

As a statistically significant example, consider the first two CivFanatics veteran tournaments. Playing the Romans, the norm seemed to be to get a conquest victory with 5-6 leaders along the way. Playing the Russians, people were lucky to get 3-4 on the way to a domination victory.

[Harovan]

A small illustration about ultra-early industrious warfare. Both Gandhi and me have 2 cities... well, a few turns later I have 3 and he 1 . It's 2230BC, about time for some trouble .

[King of Rasslin]

Early warfare with industrious rushes is suicide in the higher difficulties. All of the comps will hate you for the rest of history, so I try to stay peaceful when there is a civ bigger than me. He could be a potential enemy if an alliance is formed, and that usually happens in my (very unlucky) experiences.

On the other hand, crushing the only other civ on an island would be useful for industrious. But it's easy enough to win a 1v1 fight anyway, so I wouldn't see it as such a big deal. I avoid war until I get to use my UU for a republic golden age. Those stupid Eygptians get their golden age so early it is wasted. Now, the Chinese are a much better civ...

I like India a lot on small maps. Even though industrious is most useful on small maps, I find that the elephant's advantage of not requiring strategic resources is worth the world if I don't get iron.

The only worthless trait is expansionist. Unless you turn off the barbarians, half of the scouts are ambushed by a horseman that just *happens* to be 2 spaces away. Yep, that happens with my workers too. And when they outnumber you 3 to 1, you can't always rely on warriors. I wish Firaxis made barbarians easier to kill! Ahh!

Sorry... I have had too many bad experiences with barbs killing my first worker. Vel, do those barbarian ships have unlimited settlers in them? The barb villages appear too quickly to be destroyed.

[Jaybe]

.... Unless you turn off the barbarians, half of the scouts are ambushed by a horseman that just *happens* to be 2 spaces away. Yep, that happens with my workers too. And when they outnumber you 3 to 1, you can't always rely on warriors. I wish Firaxis made barbarians easier to kill! Ahh!

Sorry... I have had too many bad experiences with barbs killing my first worker. Vel, do those barbarian ships have unlimited settlers in them? The barb villages appear too quickly to be destroyed.

Perhaps it is because you are playing on a small map, but I have not had your bad luck with barbs and being Expansionist. Can make for having to rebuild Scouts on occasion, though. As far as that goes, I play Raging Hordes and I turn off all combat advantages against them (as if you are playing Diety) on all levels.
I prefer Large/Huge maps, lots of land, Regent. Very long games.

JB

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph, I have one question: what have the Indians been up to while you built two size-3 cities and an army of archers?

Maybe they're at war with someone else. I don't know how to otherwise explain their only having two cities, with the second one being a size-1. Presumably they don't have a huge army, since you soon took their capital.

That said, great image!

[Harovan]

I haven't seen any battles around the indian cities, although I spotted Americans, English and Germans nearby. I think, the Indians built very slowly, because the terrain around Delhi is quite poor. Floodplains give no shields, maybe Gandhi needed full or nearly 30 turns for the first settler? We all know the AI preferences, when it comes to the placement of citizens. It's btw only a short test game on Monarch, my first try with the Chinese. I rushed Delhi and soon after took Washington too, with the same army. Delhi made me 3 workers (I captured the next settler), so the road towards America was instantly ready.

[Arrian]

I gave China another shot last night, due to this thread. And whattya know, things worked out rather well.

I did my usual hunting for a good starting spot, and got one (river, two cows). The surrounding terrain was ok overall, and I almost quit thinking I was alone on a smallish island... until I noticed that little sliver of land leading away to the southwest. Anyway, I built up in my normal fashion (ala my Japanese games), and started my attack with 22 horsemen and 11 swordsmen. I had four neighboring civs. Babylon was first. They were reduced to 1 city in short order, no leaders. Persia was second. They were reduced to 1 city fairly quickly, 2 leaders (forbidden, Great Library - damned Iroquois beat me to the Pyramids). India was third - destroyed, 2 leaders (Sun Tzu, Sistine). I then polished off Persia and Japan, 2 more leaders (army, leo's). Japan and Babylon managed to make it onto a couple of islands up north, and I couldn't get to them in time to prevent contact with the other civs, so I have let them live.

A couple of things regarding religious vs. industrious:

-60 shields for a temple is brutal. Especially when you want to rush temples in captured cities. Yikes.
-Anarchy sucks. I endured a despotic golden age in the early middle ages rather than switch to republic (I probably would have had mass riots once I got to rep) or to monarchy, only to switch to republic soon after.
-160 shield cathedrals suck.
-Fast workers rock. You can set up a number of high production cities really, really quickly.
-Overall.... I still prefer religious. The workers set you up nice and quick for the bare essentials, but paying full price for temples/cathedrals/libraries/universities... it adds up.

Other, random thoughts: my God, do you know what a 3-rider army does to cities defended by spearmen?

I planted my forbidden palace in the dead center of a really, really big continent in this game. The immediate surroundings decent, not great (though there is a lot of gold... mmm). But the number of cities within its radius... wow. 1.21 definitely toned down corruption. My economy is insane now that I have courthouses everywhere.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph, those flood plains proably do explain what The Indians were fiddling while you prepared to burn them.

I tried a non-religious, industrious game myself (Persia) only to discover that the bug I wonce mentioned (horsemen don't upgrade to samurai) applies to Persia (warriors don't upgrade to immortals). Maybe now I can get the bug fixed... but in the meantime, I'm sticking by default with my usual civs.

Arrian, building expensive temples would seem to be much more of a problem than cathedrals, because it can directly impinge on your primary goals. Did building temples hinder your rush?

[Arrian]

Building temples in the core cities wasn't too much of an issue, though my rush did get off to a late start (300bc, as opposed to the more optimal 500bc). The temples weren't really the reason, though. I just took my time about things, and made sure I had enough troops. Plus, I built the Colossus in my capitol just prior to launching my attack on Babylon.

EDIT: I should add that I was aided by the fact that Babylon and India were fighting each other (to an apparent draw) when I hit the Babs.

That upgrade bug sounds like an earlier version of the game (was it pre-1.17 that you couldn't upgrade to UU's?). Wierd.

Here's another issue... with 1.21, can you still upgrade war chariots to horsemen? Or do they now go directly to knights? I liked using the upgrade to prevent an ancient, despotic golden age. If I can still do that, I may well give Egypt another chance.

VEL,

About militaristic leader generation: alexman is correct. The GL generation rate is constant (unless you build the HE), but the promotion rate is jacked up. In my experience, however, that translates into many more GLs for militaristic civs. I had that run of 3 games as Egypt where I destroyed 2 AI civs per game (6 total) without a leader. I counted something like 8 promotions. Now that was probably some bad luck, but still...

-Arrian