Winning as Rome on a Huge World

[vmxa1]

If you want some insiration, look at the thread by Aeson called So Cold....
This shows that being behind is not a problem, in and of itself.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I will look at this thread, when I can find it.

In the meantime, I'd like to share some observations from my numerous games that have not lived up to (my) expectations as Rome, particularly in the ancient game.

Once again, bear in mind that this is a HUGE world we're talking about, and cultural linking is ON.

a. The "drive to Monarchy" can be very fruitful if you find yourself surrounded by neighbors, and utterly fruitless if this is not the case. With fewer neighbors, I am tempted to think that horseback riding the correct goal.

The reason I say so is that your few neighbors will most likely be Egypt, Greece and Carthage... and all 3 you want to stop early on, especially Egypt. But you can only eliminate one by pursuing a perpetual war when most of the civilizations overseas are getting their act together. And you most certainly do not want to blow your GA using legionaries on these swine. You just want to screw them up, and "take them out" later.

b. Building one or two archers is more profitable than building two or three warriors early in the game, due to the warrior's propensity to release barbarians when exploring goody huts. These barbarians won't do much but spawn more barbarians, a not-insurmountable, but completely irritating, problem.

A wandering warrior cannot, most likely, take out a newly built mediterranean city. An archer, on the other hand, might. Numerous archers can take down more than one city, if used intelligently.

Your exploration won't be as hot, but then again, it's not so hot with those warriors anyways. Build warriors only in cities where you intend to immediately build a worker or settler.

c. Take down your neighbors if you find them early - but if you make peace, don't attack them again until you're truly prepared. I managed to take down the Carthaginians with just archers, but I managed to do only that. More often than not, I've taken Sparta or Utica, made peace, and then opportunistically pressed on to Athens or Carthage only to be defeated, and find myself in a war in which negotiating peace is much more difficult.

d. Don't overlook the GL. It's a wonderful wonder to have, and depending on your circumstances, I would head for literature before Monarchy - although I agree with Arrian that hawking the techs leading to Monarchy can be very profitable.

e. I wouldn't bother with granaries, at least until you have a few cities built, and can have Veii and Antium producing units or barracks while Rome catches up with a granary (this depends on your land and neighbors, of course).

...I'd like critiques of these points if y'all would be so kind. I'm still working on this game, I hate to say... I hate entering the medival era NOT the dominant power, and I hate having a close rival at ANY point in the game (close tech-wise, that is).

And one last word on the subject: simply put, it is DAMN HARD to prosper as the Romans on a huge map, due to their Hoplite and Num. Merc. weilding neighbors, plus numerous (potential) industrious neighbors (Egypt, Ottomans, Persia, France).

[Arrian]

Aeson's thread is listed in the "Must Read" threads that is topped on the Strategy forum. Its full name is: So Very Cold (of the map generator).

What he did in that game was nothing short of amazing.

And one last word on the subject: simply put, it is DAMN HARD to prosper as the Romans on a huge map, due to their Hoplite and Num. Merc. weilding neighbors, plus numerous (potential) industrious neighbors (Egypt, Ottomans, Persia, France).

True. Regarding point "e" though, I think you may be wrong about the power of the early granary.

First off, I don't know if you knew this, but your chances of getting a settler from a hut are ZERO if you either have an active settler, a settler in production, or more than the average number of cities (of all civs in the game). I often get settlers from huts as a non-expansionist civ if I open with either a military-heavy (see AU206 stories thread) or early granary strat. Thus, if you open with warrior, warrior, warrior, granary (using a barracks for a prebuild while racing for pottery), you have a decent chance of getting a settler from a hut.

But you clearly cannot count on that. Still, building a bunch of warriors for exploration, then a granary, and then a slew of settlers & workers will catch you up. On a huge map, it's just about guaranteed.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Well, once again Arrian, you bring up a rule that I just did not know about, that changes my whole perspective. Thank you. Keep up the good work.

I will try this strategy tonight, unless the GF drags me out to a nightclub somewhere, in which case, I'll just obsessively think about it instead.

[Arrian]

Go have a few drinks at the club... THEN try it.

Yeah, the rule about popping settlers from huts, when first disclosed in full by Firaxis, was quite a bombshell.

Now I always switch production in my city(ies) prior to opening huts. As a result, what used to be an "almost never" occurrence has become much more common.

By the way, pay attention to exactly how you set up your cities' food intake. For instance, let's say you have a cow on grassland and a wheat on plains. Irrigate them both, and your city will be at +5 food/turn so long as the other tiles you work all provide 2 food. At +5 food/turn, your city grows every 4 turns (until hitting size 7). With a granary, it's every 2 turns. You can build workers or settlers without interruption. That is the ultimate worker/settler pump.

If you instead mined both resources, your city would produce more shields, true, but only +3 food/turn, requiring 7 turns to grow and wasting 1 food per growth cycle (extra food does NOT carry over) without a granary, and 4 turns to grow wasting 2 food per cycle with the granary.

The 60 shield cost up-front can be daunting, I know, and I do not by any means always go with an early granary (in fact, when playing a militaristic civ I rarely do... but have with Rome before with spectacular results). But on a huge map it seems to make sense.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Interesante. The strategy above would seem to hinge on the proximity of your neighbors to you, especially if said neighbors are expansionist and likely getting a free city early on... but I will try it. I will try every damn strategy posted in this thread until I win.

But I thought, under despotism, you do not gain any additional food from irrigation on a tile already producing more than 2 food?

[vmxa1]

On a huge map I would be inclined to go with several warriors first as well. Not so much because it increases my chance to pop a settler (it does), but because I want to get to all of those huts before others do and met the other civs. I may end up with 6 warriors scouting as I get so many warriors fom the huts. When I am in a mean mood and have two warriors at vet level due to fights and encounter a town, I may try to take it down if it was just created. Vets or sometimes elites can do some damage. I may just do some pilaging.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Victory is mine!!!

Well, not yet. But it's within grasp. Tonight, perhaps, or tomorrow morning.

Thought I'd summarize the major points that led to my victory:

1. Started next to grapes and cattle, and a river. I had a good feeling that I was situated in rich terrain.

2. Researched Pottery right off the bat. Built warrior, warrior, warrior, barracks-switch-to-granary.

3. Didn't find any settlers (yes, I used the switch-your-settlers-before-you-pop-a-village trick), but got lucky with my huts in general: generally advances or gold, few barbs.

4. Met the nearby Egyptians, and destroyed one of their cities. They built another on the same spot later, but this one act, I feel, crippled their chances at making it.

5. I started with the Aztecs separating me from Greece and Carthage. I know I didn't choose this myself, but it made a major difference.

6. REXed, making sure I got HRB and Iron and then heading for Monarchy. Traded agressively, often spending all my gold. Switched to Monarchy, NOT Republic. Built HG.

7. Did NOT use any legionaries to attack. I built one.

8. The inevitable attack by 4 Carthaginian warriors against one border city with a warrior and temple was defeated by switching the library being built there to a spearman, and using a nearby horseman to drive them back. Immediately called the Americans, Babylonians, Aztecs, Greeks and Egyptians to my aid. They helped cut Carthage down to size.

9. Triggered my GA using the 1 Legionary to attack a wandering Carth archer at the perfect time: just when I was half way to feudalism.

10. Built all the important medival wonders, and then got Chivalry.

11. Built two groups of knights and used them to down pacifist Egypt in a few turns. NOTE: I had made sure to build worthless cities just to cut them off from iron. All they had was one source of horses.

12. Immediately moved against the Aztecs before they could connect their considerable resources to each other. At this time I was finally reaching culture parity; the aztecs were actually ahead! Still, by turning on the war machine, I took half of their empire, including their capital, which is in the center of the continent, almost.

Note: by this time the Babylonians had taken Greece and most of America, making them the other "Superpower". Overseas, Korea flourished.

13. Made peace with the Aztecs and Carthaginians, gaining an island city. Noticed about 30 Babylonians units moving en masse to a frontier town (some Aztec city) that I held with 2 musketeers and 17 knights. Wonder where they were going?

14. Lost 2 knights defending the frontier town. Pushed back with my knights, and got a GL which I used to rush the FP in Tenochtitlan. Got MT. Using cavalry and knights, took much of "America" from the poorly defended Babylon.

Around this time, made contact with the other continent and did a LOT of trading, spending all my money when needed be. Brought embargoes against the Babs and derived an income of over 200 per turn selling luxuries.

15. Switched to democracy. The Babs attack what was left of Carthage; I brought myself into an unpopular war against the Babs. It was a real meat-grinder, but I pushed Babylon back further, until now they can only attack via two ithmuses, both defended by 8 infantry in fortresses on hills. (Of course, Babylon could still attack from the sea, but c'mon). Also, crushed what was left of America by this time.

Now I'm at war with the Babs, which is dragging me down, but I'm not scared. Also, lost my trading privledges with the Koreans, who the Babs somehow got to declare war on me. I've gone ahead and armed the Aztecs and Carthaginians, who are fighting the Babs inside "my" continent for me.

Sure, I'll have a little more disorder, but when I make peace I'll keep it, and win a cultural victory.

Thank you all for your hints on this thread. They have helped end a month of misery.

[Arrian]

Sounds like things are going well. Good for you.

But I thought, under despotism, you do not gain any additional food from irrigation on a tile already producing more than 2 food?

Nope. Cows (grass or plains), wheat (plains, grass or floodplains), game (plains or grass), wines (plains for sure, never tried grass) can all be irrigated under despotism to provide more food.

It's normal grassland tiles that shouldn't be irrigated until you're out of despotism.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Just as I thought. Whoever posted to the contrary, bad, bad, leroy brown.

BTW, this is OT, but can someone point me in the direction of a good "How to Use Espionage Effectively" and "Defeating the Other Superpower" thread?