Overcoming Parity in the Medival Age

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Jaybe

... until you at least have Economics tech and you have all the units you want; or some extreme financial crunch.

Cracker wrote a thread long ago on the inefficiency of Wealth, although long winded, He showed in detail that building a unit is always more efficient than wealth (esp when combined with cash rushing) Suffice to say, its simply better to build a unit and disband it to rush an improvement than to put a city on wealth

[badams52]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
One last point:
NEVER use Wealth.

Yes, it's true that building a unit then disbanding that unit in another city gets more production power than if you turn those productions into wealth, and you could be building more units for an impending war...enough for overkill, but personally, once a city has all the available city improvements I want it to build and my army isn't lacking or I'm waiting for tanks, I do turn it into wealth for 2 reasons.

#1 I hate micromanagement, and moving units for disbanding is certainly on my list of boring things I can do in civ III to improve my civ. and

#2 Having wealth can help you increase your science rate if you have enough highly productive cities building wealth (something building units won't do).

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by badams52


Yes, it's true that building a unit then disbanding that unit in another city gets more production power than if you turn those productions into wealth, and you could be building more units for an impending war...enough for overkill, but personally, once a city has all the available city improvements I want it to build and my army isn't lacking or I'm waiting for tanks, I do turn it into wealth for 2 reasons.

#1 I hate micromanagement, and moving units for disbanding is certainly on my list of boring things I can do in civ III to improve my civ. and

#2 Having wealth can help you increase your science rate if you have enough highly productive cities building wealth (something building units won't do).

#1) I'm not a big fan of MM either but if you have some cities that need improvements then disbanding is preferable to putting a city on wealth (and I often forget to take the city off of wealth when new improvements become available)
#2) The best way to add to your science is to rush projects in your corrupt cities (courthouses, factories, and Police Stations first, followed by Currency improvements, happiness improvements, then science improvements)
#3) I rarely have a big enough army I'm always looking to expand it (Then I disband obsolete units that don't upgrade)

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

One last point:
NEVER use Wealth.

I think you need at least one caveat to that statement.
Surely it makes sense to go to wealth on a city that has total corruption and is only getting one shield, late in the game. This is at a point here you do not need any workers or settlers.
I feel there are a few other occasions as well, but in the main it is a bad idea to be on wealth.
Never is hard to live up to for me.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Well, I do all those things in a typical game... in fact, sometimes I'll get so p.o.'d that I'll quit my game, even if I'm the leading power, if, say, the Korean's get Leo's Workshop... my game just won't be "perfect" enough. And I keep building during wartime, generally... so... I guess I still don't understand. I could be spending too much money on my army?

Wow that must be a lot of pressure. I guess you have not played much at deity. I often feel good at deity if I get two wonders in the ancient age as if I miss the seaport ones, I may only get one.
The point is the wonders are fun, but you can out play the Ai without them (well not in OCC).

[Master Zen]

Jaybe's right. Sometimes dignity comes up but it's better to sell something for a measly 20 gold than get nothing at all... plus, trading anything betters the AI's attitude towards you so even if it looks like a sorry deal, its actually a win-win situation.

[Mountain Sage]

YS,

I think I understand your frustration; you want gold for your military, happiness, city improvements, research, luxuries/resources, bribing, buying of Techs etc.
And the 'perfect' UP game
And you don't even play a Commercial Civ

For me, the 'perfect' game is the one for which I have set specific goals and managed to achieve them. So, set your goals and go for them.
Don't quit! UP also comes with experience. I think even Arrian did not get his 'perfect' UP game the first time (well, maybe I'm wrong, with Arrian everything is possible )

My ongoing game as an example: Huge map, Emperor, French, 16 Civ. My goals: no war if possible, diplomatic win.
Therefore:
1. Neglect the military (gold saved)
2. Get all gold-Wonders (missed the Colossus, though)
3. Forget all military Wonders
4. Culture-W and happiness-W optional, except for the G-Library
5. Tech/4 turns for the entire game
6. Skip all military and unnecessary Techs (incl. Democracy, Navigation etc.)
7. 1 per round trading, selling, bribing etc.
8. Skip unnecessary city improvements (my last ones were Hospital and Factory), then all cities on Wealth.

The 'NEVER use Wealth' is maybe a bit strong-worded. What do you do when you have all the city improvements you need, in all your cities?

I'll post my last save before the diplomatic win this week-end. Just compare it with my goals and let me know.

Message for all others: your input (specially your critics) will be appreciated, I am a VERY long way from my personal UP.

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

Please check it out, and post your comments and thoughts. I shall title it "Huge Map AU: Preliminary Thoughts."

Did you post it? Where is it? I did mine already

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

WHAT IN GOD'S NAME IS "UP"?!?

Sorry for that outburst. Sometimes these little acnonyms just drive me insane. And yes, I know there is a thread dedicated to just that subject.

I must be doing something wrong and not mentioning it. I do make what I consider to be a good deal of money come the late-medival/early-industrial age. But not enough that I'd feel good about spending 2400 gold on one war, at least until I've got infantry defending all my cities... then I've got gold to burn.

When I sell luxuries, I do sell them for upwards of 20 gpt. However, it reaches a point where most of the civs in the world are too poor or stressed out, or perhaps just "furious" with me for god-knows-what-reason, that they won't buy any luxury from me. Who knows. Perhaps if I played with fewer civs? (I play with the standard 16; no mods for me).

I do do better when I play as commercial civs.

I am right now playing my first real "colonization" game, as the Greeks: I am taking a few cities overseas just for the purpose of securing one luxury or another. It is a real challenge. I am currently communist (rare for me), but when I switch back to democracy, I expect to reap the rewards, if I can first beat off the Babylonians, who don't seem to take kindly to my efforts to civilize the third world.

[minke19104]

em... Ultimate Power (UP)

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by minke19104
em... Ultimate Power (UP)

aaaaahh, I see...

[Arrian]

Ultimate Power is a frustrating goal. If I've given the impression that I attain it easily, I did so by mistake.

Many games fail to pass muster and are discarded. It's not like I fire up the game, take any old starting spot I get, and play my way to UP every time. Not even close.

But I accept the low success rate in exchange for the fun I have when I do get a "good one" going.

Rest assured, Mountain Sage, that I did not achieve UP until I had been playing CivIII for months (though partly because I started playing CivIII as a nice peaceful builder type). And even with experience & skill, UP still requires a hefty dose of luck.

Yahweh,

I do believe your problems stem, in part, to the huge map/16 civs settings you're playing on. I think it's easier to become a dominant civ on smaller maps. On my settings (standard/8), if I knock out 3 other civs, I'm pretty much even with the rest of the world combined.

If you knock out 3 other civs on a huge/16 map, you're not 1/2 the world... you're 1/4 of it. You may only have 2 luxuries (instead of the 4 I'd have). Though I've never tried it (and don't intend to, honestly), I think UP on a Huge map is significantly more difficult than on a standard. Likewise, I dabbled a bit with small maps and found them easier.

-Arrian, who is rambling today

[Arrian]

Oh, regarding using "wealth" :

I only use it late in the game. I know it's inefficient. I don't care. No way am I going to build Tanks everywhere, ship 'em overseas, and then disband them for shields.

The earliest my cities will be using wealth is the industrial age. But that is usually on/off as I build the key improvements and then do a massive round of Tanks. Then back and forth between wealth and improvements (as they become available).

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yahweh,

I do believe your problems stem, in part, to the huge map/16 civs settings you're playing on. I think it's easier to become a dominant civ on smaller maps. On my settings (standard/8), if I knock out 3 other civs, I'm pretty much even with the rest of the world combined.

If you knock out 3 other civs on a huge/16 map, you're not 1/2 the world... you're 1/4 of it. You may only have 2 luxuries (instead of the 4 I'd have). Though I've never tried it (and don't intend to, honestly), I think UP on a Huge map is significantly more difficult than on a standard. Likewise, I dabbled a bit with small maps and found them easier.

Well, I know this is true. But I wouldn't feel good about myself if I didn't do the hardest thing possible. Neurotic, but true. You see, I used to think of myself as a big civ Pimp. Now that I've switched to playing always against 15 other civs, I find I'm behind pretty much everyone.

But once I put in the required YEARS of playing, I WILL BE THE MASTER OF APOLYTON!!!!!!!!!!

[Master Zen]

Arrian:

I agree in your late use of wealth. By the middle medieval age it is really not very useful to use disbanding or forest chopping for example to build up shields since most units and improvements tend to get expensive by then.

On a huge map, I am curiously playing a game remarkably similar to Mountain Sage's (french, huge, emperor). So far, I have knocked out 2 civs and own about 66% or more of my continent. Yet even though 2 out of 16 may not seem much, muy overall power after these wars has tremendously increased, I am in the late middle ages and my power graph says I'm about 1/3 of the world total. I also have much more than 10 luxuries but I think this is a statistical fluke rather than ordinary.

I think the only difference in huge maps is the burden. Sure, you're gonna have to take more cities, but you should also have more cities yourself to base your power on (I think that's what you were trying to say anyway ).