The Best Civilization

[joncnunn]

On Emperor level, I've had the most success beating the AI to the following ancient era techs:

1. Writing when starting as a Commerical Civ. 100% succesful. When Non-commerical: 0% successful.

2. Polytheism. 33% successful.

3. Monarchy. So far allways successful if and only if #2 is succesful.

In the Middle Ages, pre FP I've had the most success reserach Printing Press first. 80% successful.
Next most successful without the FP is Chivary: 20% successful.

Post FP, I very quickly acquire a branch lead, and two times have left the AI in the dust in the Industrial era. (Defined as getting a 1/4th era or more lead.) My smallest tech lead at the end of the game was parity with 1 modern era main branch, and a 1 tech lead in each of the other branches.

[badman]

I personally think that self-given restrictions help you to become a better player because you understand the game in more and better ways and you simply are more flexible.
And it's more fun (that's what Civ is all about )

[SorvinoBackhand]

We are going over old territory, but it is enjoyable discussion when you restrain the unnecessary personal commentary.

1. You haven't refuted the utility of early military expansion. So ultimately its unclear if you aren't just arguing for variety. Fair enough, but not especially useful in one given game when playing to win. Further, warfare needn't dictate your later gameplay, and if you do it right with Aztecs, you should be able to finish it rather quickly. So its unclear why you are so anxious to read my arguement for early war as inflexible or formulaic. There's lots of room to fool around after you have some breadth - you just have to have it, as well as that GL for the FP. I agree that is fun and fruitful to try other ways. Like you, I too try other civs and wild tactics like suicide galleys (which rarely seems to work btw) in an effort to find holes and other possibilities. I agree. However, if you are playing *any one given game to win, not to experiment,* I have not yet found a tactic as realiable as a solid early expansion at the upper levels. That's all I'm saying here...

2. I have played lots of different ways and find that routinely military expansion is most cost effective. The only really competitive strat I can think of is a highly focused and narrow (you wouldn't approve) industrious/scientific drive for a spaceship win. I stated this earlier. But is dangerous because you have so little extra for defense, and to me, spaceship victories feel cheap.

3. The game against the AI is all about the math. You seem to recognize this but dislike it. Many of the ideas you have are possible. I especially like the (probably apocryphal) story of the German winning on Diety without building a single unit. Such anecdotes are pleasant but not realistic, proven 'paths to glory.' Because ultimately, any one game will most likely break according to the *probabilities*, not toward the far-wider realm of all possibilities. Hence *in any one game* it is ultimately rational to pursue strategies that recognize statistics. (That doesn't mean I don't save and then replay multiple options to see what happens with each. But we are speaking of 'Iron Man' winning strats without the benefit of replay.) Since you seem to know what opportuinty costs are, why not think like that in game ? Why the resistance to the dismal science? The AI is the ultimate rational-choice-driven actor. Outthink it. That is your HUGE, human advantage, and it shows up nowhere more reliably than on the battlefield.

3. You seem to be waffling on the efficiency of early warfare. In your second post you ceded a lot of ground to me by saying it was probably the most efficient manner to get into a winning position. In your third post, you write, "most logical way (war) may not be the best." If it isn't the best, then its not the most logical, as the player's strategic logic is dictated by game victory. So what is your more reliable alternative? My efforts to find a better one has not turned one up, although I have won with a variety of other civs (used to play a lot of Greeks for the great UU and commercial reduction of corruption).

4. I am trying to 'help' you as much as you are trying to help me, although you should avoid such condescending language IMO on the fora. How I enjoy the game is irrelevant to our discussion, as is your opinion that it is 'good' that I try other strategies. Are you trying to provoke me again? If not, then can't just give me your (otherwise interesting) feedback without all the trappings... Didn't we go over this before ?

5. Is there an aggression trip wire? Good question. I will cede that one of the largest hurdles of my arguement is that when you do make it to late game, you have to put in a lot of effort to calm down the remaining civs, irked at your earlier behavior. But I'd rather have that problem than being an also-ran on a planet of heavyweights.

5. What is AU: 204 ?

[Catt]

Re: Aztecs

Originally posted by SorvinoBackhand
You can't outrace (outbuild, 'out-science,' 'out-culture,' etc.) the AI at the higher levels because of its productive advantages. You must therefore overrun some of your neighbors quickly to acquire a breadth of your own cities in order to counterbalance the quality of the AIs' cities. Hence a militaristic civ is a requirement.

[. . .]

Who cares about civ traits that are strong in late game. You have to survive and be big enough to even be competitive in late game, so choose traits based on early game advantages at the higher levels of difficulty. Its the only way to even get to late game with a real chance.

[. . .]

you can NEVER outrace the AI at Monarch-Deity in a randomly selected game. It is mathematically impossible due to the AI's built in productive advantages. Further, these adavantages expand geometrically, as they compound every turn. This is the whole point of upper level play. The human player's superior capability for strategic thought is to compensate this productive handicap. But by definition, a random AI city will be superior to a random city of yours.

[. . .]

You may intervene against that challenging logic in only two ways. a) You can try to outgrow the AI by REX-ing better than it does. You may block chokepoints, expand overseas, place cities better, whatever. But this is difficult as the AI can crank out settlers faster than. And the possibilities for such expansion run out once all the map's land is filled in by mid-Ancient. b) The only other course is warfare. By removing cities from AI control and placing them under your own, you improve the balance of power in your favor through a direct transfer of assets.

[. . .]

As a result war is INEVITABLE if you wish to acquire a large imperial space and be competitive in late game. With the the exception of a highly risky (because you won't be able to spend much on defense) scientific/industrious run straight for a spaceship win, there is simply no way you will have the imperial scale to compete for a military, domination, histographic, cultural or even diplomatic victory without at least one major expansionst, acquisitive military campaign in the game.

[. . .]

I highly doubt that any advanced player will seriously tell you otherwise. My recommendation for an early war may be disputable, but war you must make nonetheless . . .

[. . .]

Early war is therefore not 'narrow' (you have a real penchant for ostentation), but rather a practical necessity.

[. . .]

Poppycock.

And quite easily answered. Have a look at the following spoiler threads:

AU 106 - Isolation In this game, the human player was consigned to an island and isolated until Astronomy (with galleys moved back to that tech so that the human couldn't chance the high seas and make contact). The AI civs enjoyed equal or better terrain, plus the ability to contact each other -- contact, as you know results in much faster tech acquisition due to trading and tech devaluation. With the AI's production advantages, and the human's isolation, if your absolutist theories are correct, there should not be any mathemetical possibility of the human player enjoyning a lead over the AI's right? (let alone parity).

AU 103 -- Banana Island In this game, each of the 8 civs (human and AI) start on identical landmasses -- everyone has the same raw materials, but the development levels of the various civs varies considerably.

There are a wealth of other examples available right here in the strat forum -- we played a game with enforced peace at all times -- we weren't even allowed to build military units! (AU 102). Several players have posted examples of entirely peaceful wins on Deity (I haven't done that myself) - on Emperor its often quite easy to do (punkbass' Warless Deity Win thread).

Under your view, it must therefore be impossible to win a game in which you start an a smallish landmass and remain isolated (and therefore unable to fight) until the late game, right? And impossible to win an OCC or 5CC ("one city challenege" and "5 city challenge" in which the human player limits himself to either one or five cities only).

You're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, playing on Emperor means that my marketplaces cost 100 shields and the AI's marketplaces cost 80 shields. I need 20 bushels of food to grow - the AI needs only 16. But these absolutes do not operate in a vacuum and dictate that, absent warfare, the respective strengths and powers of human and AI civs must reflect the 80% - 100% difference. There are a variety of levers available to the player that shape the progress of the game. Human skill -- the ability to do more things more effectively, even with the burden of paying full price along the way -- is usually enough to overcome inherent production advantages of the higher levels.

I happen to believe that warfare, early and often, is the most efficient, tried-and-true, and reliable way to beat the game. And I certainly would never dispute that the key to higher scoring games (unless ICS - milking) is (1) rapid finishes, and (2) rapid territorial expansion.

But being a more optimal approach doesn't make it a necessity, as you insist it does.

Catt

[Catt]

I forgot to add a link - Theseus' Seven Pillars of Wisdom thread -- a very interesting discussion that, if I remember correctly, acknowledges the power of early warfare, but doesn't insist that it is a fundamental necessity, as you try to do.

Catt

[BRC]

AU 204. Look at these threads.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76476

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76478

So ultimately its unclear if you aren't just arguing for variety.

I am not arguing just for the sake of it. To be honest with you, I saw a little bit of uneducated bias in your initial post and felt that I would lend a helping hand. Clearly, you do not want it, at least from me. I will be the first to admit that I do not have as much in-game experience as the others here.

Further, warfare needn't dictate your later gameplay, and if you do it right with Aztecs, you should be able to finish it rather quickly.

What if the conditions dictate that you can't war?? (archipelago comes to mind) Do you give up?? It's fine if you do, but I am under the assumption that most of us won't.

The only really competitive strat I can think of is a highly focused and narrow (you wouldn't approve) industrious/scientific drive for a spaceship win. I stated this earlier. But is dangerous because you have so little extra for defense, and to me, spaceship victories feel cheap.

What makes you think that I wouldn't approve? If the conditions dictate that type of game, then so be it. While the AI behaves erratically with declarations of war, I do believe that the danger can be minimized quite a bit through smart play. I feel that U.N. wins are cheap. Just a difference of style.

Many of the ideas you have are possible. I especially like the (probably apocryphal) story of the German winning on Diety without building a single unit. Such anecdotes are pleasant but not realistic, proven 'paths to glory.' Because ultimately, any one game will most likely break according to the *probabilities*, not toward the far-wider realm of all possibilities.

It may never happen again, but don't you think that he knew some things that the rest of us didn't about AI behavior and the like. He knew how to deal with that type of game and will know how to deal with it again, if a similiar game comes across him (don't ask me how this would happen.)

You seem to be waffling on the efficiency of early warfare. In your second post you ceded a lot of ground to me by saying it was probably the most efficient manner to get into a winning position. In your third post, you write, "most logical way (war) may not be the best."

You need to understand that I incorporate early war in 95% of my games as well. I am not ignorant to the fact that early war is powerful. However, in certain games, it is unfeasible. Most likely due to map settings and the RNG.

I am trying to 'help' you as much as you are trying to help me, although you should avoid such condescending language IMO on the fora.

I appreciate the "help" and am in no way saying that I don't need it, but I have already been through the Early War Strat that you outlined. You have shown me nothing new. As for the remarks, I'm sorry that you feel they are condescending. I think others here will agree that it is not my character to be that way. Maybe my wording wasn't great, but my intentions have nothing to do with belittlement.

Is there an aggression trip wire? Good question. I will cede that one of the largest hurdles of my arguement is that when you do make it to late game, you have to put in a lot of effort to calm down the remaining civs, irked at your earlier behavior.

Catt and others (Nor Me??) have done some tests on how AI attitude affects the game. It really doesn't have as much impact as first thought. Your reputation, however, could cost you the game.

I am just trying to tell you that a formula will screw you over. As long as you realize this, then we have nothing further to discuss.

As a side note, if you play this game a lot, you should really look at the AU threads. Many posters here have worked extremely hard at sharing their knowledge. I'm just trying to pass it along.

[Dominae]

SorvinoBackhand, most people are addressing the discussion points better than I, so I will not butt in (just yet!). But you really should try the game posted here:

AU204

You'll find that many of your favorite strategies will actually make the game more difficult. Try it on Emperor and you'll see what I mean. Then go to the spoiler thread, and see how some players managed to win. I'm not saying you're not a good player; I'm saying that I know that there are things you can learn. You just have to want to.


By the way, the AU games are "shared" in a sense, so yes it is possible to compare games and strategies, down to the minutest detail.

BRC, there is no need to hear rumors about games without any military units: one of the first AU scenarios was based on this exact premise (the 'Hippy Americans' one).


Dominae

[BRC]

BRC, there is no need to hear rumors about games without any military units: one of the first AU scenarios was based on this exact premise (the 'Hippy Americans' one).

I do not believe that I was present for that game. I will read up.

[Arrian]

I think it was AU 102... "Give Peace a Chance." I really enjoyed that game, despite being crushed by an Egyptian Cavalry attack a few turns from victory (something like 6 turns away from the UN).

-Arrian

[Underseer]

Funny that no one is mentioning civs in terms of those critical mid-game expansions when playing a builder game on a Huge map. This is far from the most important consideration, but it's definitely worth thinking about IMO. You want a unit that lets you both explore a new landmass and simultaneously defend your settlers and workers from barbarians.

For that, there are:

• Indians
  The UU requires no resources and has a movement of 2. This means regardless of the circumstances of your expansion, your underdeveloped cities can crank these out for exploration and defense. All you need is ready cash for the rush builds. This also means you don't have to take up ship space with defender/explorer units. You can devote all the space in your cargo holds to settlers and/or workers. The commercial trait of Indians means that mid game expansion is a little less painful.
  
• Aztecs
  Same as above (UU requires no resources and has a movement of 2), but in addition, the UU requires far less tech to get. In fact, it requires zero tech to get, which makes Aztecs great for expanding into your starting land mass as well as additional land masses later in the game.
  
• Spanish
  The UU requires resources (horses), but having a movement of 6 and the ability to attack makes them great for expanding into new land masses. They are more than fast enough to explore and still race back in time to defend from roving barbarians. As with the Indians, the Spanish commercial trait makes mid game expansion less painful.

That's not to say that any of the above 3 are at the top of my list of favorite civs for builder games, but it definitely puts them higher on the list than most builder players give them credit for.

[Theseus]

I've been catching up on Strat threads, and just came across this doozy.

Let me chime in a bit regarding the discussion of early war... I know a little about it.

Actually, no, let me start with a discussion on etiquette.

APOLYTON CIV3 ETIQUETTE

For a long time, there were some pretty heated discussions around here, mostly having to do with Firaxis and the various releases of the game and patches.

It took awhile, but things calmed down, mostly because there was a strong cultural emphasis on cordiality and constructive thought.

One of the next things I noticed was that as some players here and, err, elsewhere, developed greater and greater expertise in playing Civ3 and in game mechanics, there was a tendency to berate those with lesser knowledge. That really, really bugged me, and consequently I stopped hanging out very much at, err, elsewhere, and started my own personal practice of trying to be extra helpful, especially to newer players / posters. I like to think that I've had a part, with some notable others, in developing a very positive and learning environment here at 'poly, and that said environment is one of the things that makes our little community really shine.

We took that a couple of big steps further with Apolyton University. And, funnily, I've noticed that even at, errr, elsewhere, the same kind of open-minded and collaborative discussion is taking place.

So that's all well and good. I think a lot of people have gotten to really like it around here, with our unwritten etiquette being one of the reasons.

But there's another kind of behavior, not always so obvious, that also breaches our culture and etiquette, and it REALLY P-SSES ME OFF.

And that's arrogance... especially unfounded arrogance.

Two previous examples come to mind, and they actually both really relate, in *content* as well as in attitude, to why I am writing this diatribe.

I don;t really remember the order, but the examples I'm talking about are two posters named HappySunShine / Eyes of Night and some punk named I-iz-1337.

Happy is a Civ2 MPer who has, um, communication issues, but is evidently a top player at certain styles of MP play. He showed up in the Civ3 forums talking trash about how he would kick every-SP-body's butts in MP. Well, number one, no one appreciated the attitude. Number two, I haven't seen him around in the MP fora. But most importantly, number three, his content was weak... it turned out his whole claim to fame was being the master of the horsemen rush. Big whup, and buh-bye.

Next, we had this guy show up writing in that weird 1337 language, claiming to be the best Civ3 player on the planet. Wellll, in our very nice way, we asked him to post a save or two... and proceeded to rip him to shreds for all of his (many) mistakes. He showed up again with a "1337" challenge game, and a number of us opened a can of whup-ss on him, completing trouncing his performance. And, oh yeah, his whole thing was playing a one-dimensional military game (which he sucked at anyway). As Joe Pesci would say, "I got no use for this guy."

Actually, it's pretty funny to go back and read the thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58464&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

Enough talk about yesteryear. So flash forward to the recent discussion on this thread...

The reason I'm going off here?

Well, beyond the arrogance, you can dress a pig up and take it to the dance, but it's still a pig.

I found Sorvino Blackhand' replies to BRC to be arrogant bordering on the virtue of insulting to just about everyone who posts here. And dressing it up with fancy language and econ-crap don't make it no better.

Kudos to you BRC, and others, for playing nice, but as I said back when to 1337, the arrogance irks the heck out of me.

You think you came up with early war, big guy? Uh, if I remember there was me, and Vel, and Sir Ralph, and bunch of others who kept pushing war earlier and earlier (Warrior bopping, anyone?).

You've never heard of AU, and you have the effing NERVE to write this:

"The only poster I KNOW is better than I am is Velociryx..."

How the hell do you know if you've never even compared games... or for that matter read about others doing so?

And you don;t know what an RNG is? How about a Civ combat calculator to go with your fries?

Opportunity costs... piff. How about the opportunity cost of REXing or some GWs versus devoting shields to warfare? Drivel.

When BRC kept on coming back at you with examples, such as the warless games, you just pretty much blew him off, almost calling him a liar.

Well, I call that just weak.

Here's the deal, my friend: We all figured out "your" strategy about, oh, a year ago. It's probably why Vel quit the game, and I still give him grief about it (he figured that he'd "broke the code"). Ultimately, just like our buddies HSS and 1337, you can, if you'd like, reduce the game to its barest bones, and just win by fighting.

Here, I'll give you a present... a killer strat which you can claim for your own (you can even name it):

Borg, barracks, and units.

Have fun with it.

But there's a reason Sid, and Brian, and the current Firaxis team designed in all that other stuff. And there's a reason a bunch of us, who MUST be wrong, huh, have spent over a year exploring it.

Early war is not required. Period. Bank on it.

You gotta problem with that, show up at AU, or post a game for us to compete on. I'll r0x0r your -ss too.

Here endeth the diatribe.

EARLY WAR

All of the above said, early war rocks, and yes, the Aztecs are very good at it.

Wow.

[Theseus]

And so are the Germans.

[Theseus]

And so are the Chinese.

[Theseus]

And so are the Zulu.

[Theseus]

Should I keep going?

Now, on-topic:

A lot of us Strat forum posters are in Gathering Storm.

And what civ did we pick?

Egypt.

Why?

Maximum flexibility. And that applies to both SP and MP. Sure, there are better civs for certain circumstances, but for the novice and expert alike, Egypt is just a great all around choice.

Oh, and yeah, I'm perfectly happy conducting early warfare with Egypt.

Or not.