Tame the Beast or Smack the Superpower?

[Carver]

Sometimes, to get the far flung cities without shiping troops all over the world, I demand the far cities in peace deals. I then redeclare war a few turns later to capture to close by cities.

[Carver]

Culture win in 1762ad with 4505 points.

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

Yes, well, that seems the most effective way to play the game. It would seem to make the Romans, French and Carthaginians the ideal civs for the huge world.

I hope I'm proved wrong as I move up difficulty levels though. Now, each civ, despite it's traits, is calling for the same pattern: REX, maximize production rather than food, conquer your neighbors, build stuff, win. It's fun at times, but at other times, just tedious.

I didn't have time to check your game this week-end, but you'll get a feedback from me asap.

As for the above, I would like to give a word of caution, and I hope I don't sound (too) patronizing.

I have the feeling that some players use the 'going to war' thing a bit too often, as a panacea for avoiding to make some (tough) decisions and/or to mask some strategic/tactical mistakes in their game. Examples:

1. Not enough cities? Conquer some from the neighbours (instead of fine-tuning your rexing, city placement andexploreing).
2. Not enough luxuries? Declare war and grab them (instead of trading them by diplomacy).
3. Behind in techs? Declare war and extort them (instead of better tuning your research and trade).
4. Too few city improvements? Conquer the neighbours first and build afterwards (instead of a more balanced approach).

I know perfectly well that this 'going to war' is extremely powerful, but winning on higher levels (already on Monarch, and certainly on Emperor) means using other strategies than just the warmonger one.

Therefore, my advice (for all it's worth) is: try to break your above pattern and explore some 'new' ways.
You know the warmonger path by heart now (you said yourself that it becomes boring), so try another one.
As I had to learn how to make an archer rush, when to use an elite, what's the best way to attack a sixe 6 city etc., you should use your remining time on Regent to hone all the other Civ 'skills', trade, diplomacy, research, city building etc.
Believe me, you will need all of them higher up and will make your game much more interesting.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

er, I don't know MS... I value your advice, but what I hear from the other upper-level players is sort of the reverse... as for my rexing, city placement, etc., yes, I do need to fine tune those, but I've spent the majority of my time on Regent being relatively peaceful... I'm only now learning to wage war effectively... it is dull, but I see no other way to become dominant when you're surrounded by so many neighbors.

As for the Aztecs, I could have been more peaceful, but that wouldn't make very good use of those Jaguar warriors.

I'm now playing as the English, and with the Russians, Germans, Scandanavians, Zulus, and Arabs nearby, with another 6 neighbors on my continent, I don't have much room left to build new cities... and those GLs are great for building wonders... I'd vastly prefer to be at peace and just build away, but as the Zulus already proved by attacking me out of the blue, that's not really an option.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage

4. Too few city improvements? Conquer the neighbours first and build afterwards (instead of a more balanced approach).

My inclination is definitely to build, or alternate city improvements with military units, especially when my empire is healthy, but I've been criticized (and I appreciate the criticism) for this approach. I'm actually fighting my builder impulses to achieve UP. Hopefully, necessity won't make every civ game "the same" as I move up into a (presumably) more hostile atmosphere on higher difficulty levels.

[Mountain Sage]

OK, I went thru your save. below is a screenshot of YS's game, my comments will be on the next post.

[Mountain Sage]

The screenshot:

[Mountain Sage]

My comments:

1. The game is over. Either you win by domination, or you should start a new one. All the combined civs don't have 1/3 of your cities. They will never be able to catch you on techs, units etc.

2. Military:
a) you have about 70 musketmen! Keep 1 in each coastal town, plus 1 on your inland border town and disband the rest. They are unnecessary.
b) Do you keep 112 cavalry for invading the Romans? Keep 2x10 cavs as a mobile reserve and disband the rest.
c) Also disband all your 'assorted junk': cannons, JW etc. useless and expensive.

3. Why are you still in Monarchy? Go to republic asap.

4. Finance: you have only 900+GP. On Regent, in AD 1250, you should have at least 3-4'000 GP. But you have an expensive military...

5. Wonders: you built everything in sight. Excellent.

6. Techs: you are 2 techs ahead and are researching at 5 turns/tech with a surplus of 70+ GP. With less military, you could have researched at 4 techs/turn since the beginning of the Middle Ages with a surplus of about 100-120 GP/turn. By now, you could have a 4-6 techs lead.

7. Palace moving: you moved your Palace to Salamanca (correct?). Your Palace and FP are well-situated, but your empire is so big that you still have corruption problems.

8. You have 110+ workers: disband yours, at least. Gold saved.

My last two pieces of advice:
1. Try to play this game differently. Conquer only half of your continent (the south part) and win by diplomacy and trading. Feel the difference.

2. Go up a level. NOW. Your're waisting your time. Really.
You're playing 1 level above my daughter's, and she started 3 months ago (after pestering me for another 6 months before). She doesn't speak (or understand) English (except for Civ3 English ) and she's ten years old. If she goes up a level, you'll become Apolyton's laughingstock

I am harsh? Yes, definitively. But I hate seeing talent wasted, especially yours.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Yow! That is pretty harsh. But I like to take things nice and sloooooooow. I still have to master my early-game invasions. Then I'll be fine. In the meantime, I'll gladly don the Apolyton Dunce Cap. Besides, there's still quite a few "basics" I think I'm missing out on that I need you guys to point out to me, with a big "tsk tsk tsk" if needs be.

In the meantime, I have taken the approach of always taking on the biggest, in my next game, and I find it works quite nicely. I'm always worried about my pesky neighbors, but as long as my power is ranked higher than theirs and I bring them along in my wars, they don't seem to get out of line...

...hopefully someone else will post another (higher-level) game here with this same sort of situation... or does this situation never occur once you play on a higher level?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Besides, there's still quite a few "basics" I think I'm missing out on that I need you guys to point out to me, with a big "tsk tsk tsk" if needs be.

You would need to post a 1000BC save, or 10AD at most. Most games are "decided" by then, so it's really what you do before that matters, not after. In the game you posted here, I'm sure it was nice to get advice, but it was largely wasted because the game was a foregone conclusion. Try posting a save from when things are "interesting", as in "close" between you and the AIs.

hopefully someone else will post another (higher-level) game here with this same sort of situation...or does this situation never occur once you play on a higher level?

I play Emperor/Deity and sometimes have a tough time deciding which civ to attack. Maybe I'll post a save if the situation comes up again sometime soon (I'm not playing much Civ3 anymore, other than with AU and PBEMs).


Dominae

[ktaek]

...hopefully someone else will post another (higher-level) game here with this same sort of situation... or does this situation never occur once you play on a higher level?

The only wrong answer is to not ally with either civ, because they will almost certainly ally vs. you on higher levels.

Pick either civ to ally with, then it becomes 2 v 1 and it shouldn't be difficult either way.

It's more of an end-game question, and civ3 is usually decided by its early game.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by ktaek
It's more of an end-game question, and civ3 is usually decided by its early game.

I suppose that's true, but it's still a valid question if you're aiming to achieve Ultimate Power. It was a breeze for me to trash the Iroquois and then wipe out the Carthaginians. But on a higher level, I'd want to know which war would be more time-consuming, and which would yield better results in terms of productivity, tech advancement, happiness, etc.

[vmxa1]

Not having all the factors to evaluate makes it hard to say.
Considerations for me are :

which one is closer, so I can annex cities with no pain
which one has the most useful tiles (lux/resources)
Do either have allies that could be a problem. They are not a problem if they are not on my land mass. They will just let me get promotions landing on my shores.
At this point if it is still a close call, which one can I get to join me the cheapest?
Only now do I want to look at the size of their forces and thier makeup. I am not real concerned about size as the AI will not imploy all they have anyway.
One other thing I check is standing. I may want to pick the one that is doing the best, to hurt there ranking.
Since it will be at least 2 against one, they are going to suffer.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

In recently pursuing whoever's biggest, in the early-mid game, I've been quite pleased. As the English, I took on the Arabs, whose empire was about the same size as mine, with slightly under 20 knights. I conquered about 70% of their empire, including 3 sources of iron and 3 horsies. Not one Ansar was employed in defense, even though the Arabs had chivalry.

Earlier, I had done the Vikings, who were the largest at the time. Their resistance was feeble at best, and it netted me 2 wonders.

Lesson learned? Smack the superpower! Bring down the biggies before they're too big to deal with. Of course, vmxa1, your points are all well taken, and certainly the most prominent of considerations. But say things are roughly "even"... I take, take down whoever might be too big later.