Picking the right Civ!

[Harovan]

Originally posted by God
Those scouts can also be used to deny others civs iron, for knight conquest by the player.

Not anymore. With 1.21f the scouts are forced to leave after a while. As soon as the AI builds up some culture, the scout can't make it back to the iron till a worker is there.

[Theseus]

Sir Ralph, Given the settings (namely, huge maps with less than max civs), I could see Exp/Ind being great attributes. As this also leans towards builder strats, the UU is irrelevant. What triggers teh GA, and how well can it be timed?

Catt, in some much older threads, I also focused on the interplay of civ attributes, UU timing / relative strength, and the timing of the GA. My thoughts several months ago were that an early Industrial GA was so invaluable that it would override all other considerations... I posited the same strat for the very early UUs, that it would be better just to save ONE and use it for precise GA timing. I am now, however, thinking of changing my tune... if in your early development you stick to only GREAT city sites, and you build / improve accordingly for 6 or so high productivity cities, and focus on an early military to let slip the dogs of war, triggering an early GA may be a game winner. Food / shields / gold for thought.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
My thoughts several months ago were that an early Industrial GA was so invaluable that it would override all other considerations... I posited the same strat for the very early UUs, that it would be better just to save ONE and use it for precise GA timing. I am now, however, thinking of changing my tune... if in your early development you stick to only GREAT city sites, and you build / improve accordingly for 6 or so high productivity cities, and focus on an early military to let slip the dogs of war, triggering an early GA may be a game winner.

Didn't see your earlier posts on the GA timing issue, but was pretty certain I wasn't the first to really bemoan getting my GA too early.

And I agree wholeheartedly that a very successful ancient age GA at the precise time can virtually guarantee a win. I've just found in my limited sample of games (work, marriage, three kids) that I can (to some degree ) keep up in the ancient age through careful warfare followed by extortion, tech buying, etc., and, by triggering GA in the middle ages or early industrial ages with a real empire humming and most AI opponents having burned through their GAs, open up a commanding lead. (BTW, all this comes from someone who is playing on Monarch -- could be hugely different on lower / higher levels.)

Originally posted by Theseus
Food / shields / gold for thought.

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph,

Thanks a lot for the MapStat tool. I'll report back on how it works for the Mac. As to those panzers, yeah, that's what I figured. They're not quite on a par with the advent of cavalry, but they're up there. Those Americans sure seem to have a lot going for them on your prefered settings. And are you saying that all of your research past horseback riding can come from huts?

Catt,

Your ratings make a lot of sense (like God's), but my own experience leads me to disagree about properly timed GA's being seriously outcome-altering. I say this because I never time mine - I almost always use early UUs (like the WC), and my GA starts at the onset of my first war of expansion. This gives me a production boost that I may or may not need, but regardless, I try to be on the cusp of control of the game by chivalry, based on that initial series of wars. (This is similar to what Theseus is talking about trying.)

Ironically, I've used the WC not just to create a builder civ that wins the space race, but two very early domination victories. Basically they're cheap horsemen, and they move to the front on roads built by industrious workers. That's a surprisingly lethal combination, if you build enough of them, which is easy to do if you're in a GA. (This works particularly well to overcome the AI's edge on Emperor; on Monarch, I could survive longer without necessarily being aggressive right off the bat. This probably mirrors what you're saying.)

Arrian,

6-8 cities is probably about what I end up with before starting a war. I rarely have the room to expand beyond that, even if I wanted to. It might be a different story if I wised up and spaced my cities more closely, but I'm still hung up on classic spacing. It's a bad habit - particularly playing domination - and I'm going to try to break it.

I've had a bad couple of games as well, playing the Japanese. In my first ones, the Chinese attacked with their warriors and archers right away, and it was all over: the game told me I was humiliated. In my next one I was on an island with the Chinese, which means I couldn't extort enough tech, and now I'm behind the leaders, with no way to catch up except to sail my samurai toward the enemy. Unfortunately, my galleys don't handle deep water as well as the AI's.

[Theseus]

Txurce and all,

That last post triggered a couple of thoughts... I'm just from an evening out so forgive me if I'm a little random.

[Note: I'm working down from Catt's post at 21:06]

- Work marriage and three kids. I got engaged several months ago, and live in mortal fear of what family life will be like... LOVE kids, but I can;t yet imagine the time demands.

- Catt, I've mostly played Monarch, and have just started living at Emperor... to date, I've played a sort of Ancient war, Middle Age build but stay at war kind of strat. Same thesis: save the GA for for when you've got your core / prime cities humming, and use it for the "builder" benefits. I'll test this weekend, but I am starting to believe that the strongest overall application of the GA is NOT in the build phase, but rather in the late early war phase... applied properly, to a core group of early high production cities, this is (potentially) a game winning strat. Random thoughts: Not true on huge maps with less than max civs; not true on less than continents; not true next to Greeks; preferable in the center of a magor continent; very true next to late GA civs... etc, etc, etc... NOT the night to think this through in depth!

Txurce, you used an interesting phrase: "cusp of control." I like it, as it expresses a concept I've been pushing, that it is not necessary to destroy AI civs, just to control the "metagame (nods to Vel).

Lastly, also to Txurce, just as we've been discussing ignoring the landgrab, I suggest ignoring a) spacing, and b) "Civ2-think" as to city sites (i.e., cities on hills are dramatically more important now).

Arrian has gotten me playing on standard maps now, and early war is SO much more of an issue. "Early War" to me means Warriors, and maybe Chariots / Horsemen... terrain is a huge factor in that case. Haven't played a game this way yet, but my latest thinking is that 4-5 cities, built on hills, but next to rivers with wheat or cattle, is a winning configuration. Everything else - land, pop, techs, gold, etc. - will come from this start.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Txurce
And are you saying that all of your research past horseback riding can come from huts?

It can, although you probably won't rely on it. I had huts that gave me The Republic, for instance. But I can not remember to have found a hut with Currency. But at this point, you should have enough money to buy the last few techs. As soon as you see an AI leader with a new fancy hat , you're there. Don't forget, if there are scientific civs, to ask for Monotheism, as it's one of the prerequisites for Chivalry, what we probably all strive for .

[Harovan]

A few more thoughts about this: With a substandard number of civs on large/huge maps, you'll have lots of goody hut for you. And I mean LOTS. The other expansionist civs explore with their initial scouts and don't seem to build more. At least I've never seen more than 1 AI scout at a time. So most of the huts are for you, which gives you a big advantage. Build 20 cheap scouts, that does about the same like the Great Library, and you have it early on and not only on the dawn of the medieval age. By the way, one of the most important jobs for scouts is not only to explore and open huts, but mainly to make contact. Contacts make techs cheaper.

To the other expansionists out there: Have you ever seen an expansionist AI civ with more than 1 scout?

[Arrian]

Arrian,

6-8 cities is probably about what I end up with before starting a war. I rarely have the room to expand beyond that, even if I wanted to. It might be a different story if I wised up and spaced my cities more closely, but I'm still hung up on classic spacing. It's a bad habit - particularly playing domination - and I'm going to try to break it.

Txurce,

Yeah, I'm still using wide city spacing too. I have no plans to change that anytime soon. I recognize that packing my cities in close to each other offers a number of benifits, but I just don't like doing it. And I can be subborn about such things.

Theseus,

Cities on hills are nice for the defensive bonus and all, but I only do it if the hill is in the "right" spot. In many cases, I don't want to waste the hill, which will produce three shields with a mine and a non-despotic government, on the fixed 2 food 1 shield city square. As for rivers with wheat & cattle, I couldn't agree more.

I would just like to mention that I HATE JUNGLE! I HATE it. It slows my golden horde to a crawl. ()*&#%)@(@! Jungle. Ok, I'm better now.

I started a new game last night because I was eager to test out the 1 leader per elite thingy, and despite having a pretty good start, I bogged down and ended up quitting. My #2 city was built on a gold hill, on a river, with floodplains, another gold hill and a gold mountain. Rock on. Anyway, I was rolling in cash, and I built up my normal strike force. I went on my rampage. But after the near-total destruction of two civs, I had captured maybe 6 cities. SIX! My continent was too damn big. There was still empty space, so the AI was still in expansion mode and had all these size 1 or 2 cities with no culture. I roll up to attack, they poprush it down to 1, I raze the city. Over and over again. Arg. And, due to the aforementioned )(*#@%&@ING JUNGLE and quick contact with the other continent, I still had two untouched AI's on my continent when I hit the middle ages. My 1 and only leader became the forbidden in Beijing, which had way too much empty land around it. I actually built the Pyramids, since I was beaten to the Colossus by 1 turn by the wench named Elizabeth. Anyway, another "winning ugly" game. I would have won, but I fell far short of ultimate power.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by Txurce
Catt,

Your ratings make a lot of sense (like God's), but my own experience leads me to disagree about properly timed GA's being seriously outcome-altering. I say this because I never time mine - I almost always use early UUs (like the WC), and my GA starts at the onset of my first war of expansion. This gives me a production boost that I may or may not need, but regardless, I try to be on the cusp of control of the game by chivalry, based on that initial series of wars. (This is similar to what Theseus is talking about trying.)

Ironically, I've used the WC not just to create a builder civ that wins the space race, but two very early domination victories. Basically they're cheap horsemen, and they move to the front on roads built by industrious workers. That's a surprisingly lethal combination, if you build enough of them, which is easy to do if you're in a GA. (This works particularly well to overcome the AI's edge on Emperor; on Monarch, I could survive longer without necessarily being aggressive right off the bat. This probably mirrors what you're saying.)

WRT Monarch vs. Emperor, I suspect you're right (need to be more aggressive early at higher levels). On my Monarch games, when employing GA timing, I tend to avoid the early wars if possible. Try to shoot for Chivalry, and go to war with Knights (many upgraded horseman / chariots), and trigger a GA during the war. Provides military production boost, but also allows the opening of a tech lead or the complete elimination of the tech gap. Also helps tremendously to be in GA around the time of Sistine Chapel, JS Bach's etc., which I would expect to also be true on higher levels (can't always count on having a leader at the right time). However, I generally have not been on the cusp of control by Chivalry -- that's my catch-up point. Will have to get better at opening an earlier lead on Monarch before I jump to Emperor .

I say they can be seriously game-outcome-altering (at least to a much greater degree than other aspects of the game), because, if you can catch up to the AI, i.e., be about even / a little behind / a little ahead, and then trigger your GA, I find that you have a much better chance to put the game away or secure a very comfortable advantage (which you sdhould lose only through negligence!) during those twenty turns of GA -- but for this to work, you need to know where all the other AI stand in terms of power, tech tree, territory, etc. For me, the risk of an early GA is always that you pull away from the AI(s) closest to you, or those on the same continent, but later learn through a wonder completion pop-up that a civ you haven't contacted yet is clearly 4 or 5 techs ahead of you.

Haven't tried for the early domination wins, but I can see how the very early WC rush could be very effective, especially with, as you point out, industrious workers building roads to the frontlines (so I exagerrated a bit when I called my WCs worthless!). I think my personal game preferences tend too strongly towards the builder approach -- I just love to see an incredibly efficient, prosperous empire full of cities with nuclear plants, factories, offshore platforms, research labs, etc. If I'm forced to go to war early, either by an aggressive AI or the greater challenges of Emperor, I will certainly remember your success with the WC.

Great posts, guys!

Catt

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'll test this weekend, but I am starting to believe that the strongest overall application of the GA is NOT in the build phase, but rather in the late early war phase... applied properly, to a core group of early high production cities, this is (potentially) a game winning strat.

Largely agree, if you mean that you need the GA timed to bring unbeatable advantages to the war effort, i.e., overwhelm your enemy with units churned out from the high procution, GA-enhanced cities. But, what I really like about it during the "late stage of an ancient / medieval war" is the freedom to pump military units from some cities but ALSO to continue the build of science / culture in other cities -- when the AI is at war, it ternds to build only units (and Wonders!).

Originally posted by Theseus
Random thoughts: Not true on huge maps with less than max civs; not true on less than continents; not true next to Greeks; preferable in the center of a magor continent; very true next to late GA civs... etc, etc, etc... NOT the night to think this through in depth!

Agree with all, confused by one. Why not next to the Greeks?

Originally posted by Theseus
Work marriage and three kids. I got engaged several months ago, and live in mortal fear of what family life will be like... LOVE kids, but I can;t yet imagine the time demands.

Yeah, my wife is not thrilled to see me open the laptop at home -- I am essentially forbidden from going to (hiding in) our home office (converted attic) to play on our home PC.

Kids - something to look forward to! Have twin (not identical) 4 month old girls -- for the first two months was going to sleep at 8:00 pm, letting my wife stay up until 2:00 am, getting up at 3:30 am and letting my wife sleep until late morning. Needless to say, when not feeding between 3:30 am and 9:00 am (feeding doesn't take a lot of time during the 6 hour block), playing Civ 3 -- now back at work with kids sleeping through the night, game time seriously constricted .

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
A few more thoughts about this: With a substandard number of civs on large/huge maps, you'll have lots of goody hut for you. And I mean LOTS. The other expansionist civs explore with their initial scouts and don't seem to build more. At least I've never seen more than 1 AI scout at a time. So most of the huts are for you, which gives you a big advantage. Build 20 cheap scouts, that does about the same like the Great Library, and you have it early on and not only on the dawn of the medieval age. By the way, one of the most important jobs for scouts is not only to explore and open huts, but mainly to make contact. Contacts make techs cheaper.

To the other expansionists out there: Have you ever seen an expansionist AI civ with more than 1 scout?

I don't usually play expansionist, but if playing on larger maps with less than normal number of civs, it would seem that your strategy would almost be a must! Fantastic early lead.

I haven't seen expansionist AI building multiple scouts (but OTOH, if they did so, would presumably send them off in other directions?).

Again, great thread, guys.

Catt

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
But I can not remember to have found a hut with Currency.

Hosianna!

PS: The Americans rock!

[Theseus]

Catt, I was not clear that I was thinking specifically of Egypt; GWs against fortified Hoplites is not my idea of fun; Rome would be a problem too, for that matter.

Regarding kids, here's what I imagine:

Baby cries.

(Just one more turn...)

Baby cries louder.

(Just one more turn... 'bout to attack Rome.)

Baby screams.

"Don't worry, I'll get it honey" (I got a GL!!! Gotta get back home!)

Baby comes in: "Look Dad, I believe in very early war too. I demand a bottle, all of your gold, 5 gpt, and the Pottery, I mean potty, tech. If you do not agree to my demands, I will use my UU, the Poopooman (3-3-4), to wreak havoc on your pitiful civilization."

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
Catt, I was not clear that I was thinking specifically of Egypt; GWs against fortified Hoplites is not my idea of fun; Rome would be a problem too, for that matter.

Regarding kids, here's what I imagine:

Baby cries.

(Just one more turn...)

Baby cries louder.

(Just one more turn... 'bout to attack Rome.)

Baby screams.

"Don't worry, I'll get it honey" (I got a GL!!! Gotta get back home!)

Baby comes in: "Look Dad, I believe in very early war too. I demand a bottle, all of your gold, 5 gpt, and the Pottery, I mean potty, tech. If you do not agree to my demands, I will use my UU, the Poopooman (3-3-4), to wreak havoc on your pitiful civilization."

[Txurce]

I would have to be traveling when this thread heats up again!

Theseus cites starting on the center of the map as being advantageous to early war, and it certainly is... although it's also a dangerous area; picking up writing to make alliances seems essential in this situation. It reminded me of something that seems pretty obvious: starting position (which is pure luck) is the single most important aspect of the game, followed by GL generation (which has significant elements of luck).

The Greeks are a ***** to encounter in early war, but to echo Catt, I don't think they actually screw up the early war/GA approach; there's usually not much downside to skipping them (as the Egyptians, for sure!) and kneecapping every other civ on the block. Even if the Greeks prosper as a result, they're not going to prosper as much as you did, which means that you can flatten them later with cavalry (or knights, if conditions are right). Again, this is not the ideal for early war-with-GA, but it doesn't make the strategy not viable.

Classically spaced cities still make a certain amount of sense in a space race game, since they eventually pay off in extra gold for science. But I will try more closely spaced cities in my next domination game, as I shouldn't reach sanitation in an ideal effort. The tricky part of Theseus' "selective city location" approach is that you don't know what you're going to find, and may waste critical time looking for those more ideal settings. (I realize that I tend toward strategies that minimize chance, mainly because it leaves me on familiar ground. I could argue against myself that, just as I eschew defenders because I'm striving to win asap, I should play a riskier starting-grid approach, if I'm shooting for a high score/early finish.)

Catt raises a good point about mid-game GAs helping you get the key happiness wonders. I miss building these in about half my winning games... although I conquer them soon enough. Again, this makes a lot of sense from a builder perspective, which works better on Monarch (although someone posted that early research is viable again on Emperor in 1.21). Have you guys confirmed this?

[Catt]

Txurce, no time right now to respond to all points, but excellent post.

Originally posted by Txurce
Again, this makes a lot of sense from a builder perspective, which works better on Monarch (although someone posted that early research is viable again on Emperor in 1.21). Have you guys confirmed this?

I've seen these posts here and there as well. My experience, on Monarch in 1.21, early research is improved but not necessarily viable (i.e., you can actually make headway up the tech tree, so if you're isolated and unable to war / trade / extort techs, you won't fall ridiculously far behind) -- but I haven't come close to keeping up with the AI through an early research approach. I'm still playing the ancient era with tech at 0%.

Catt