Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Two

[Aeson]

Captured workers

I'm pretty sure captured workers retain their previous Civ's (Non)Industrious attributes. I know I've had American workers that finished jobs faster than ones I had built myself with the Iroquois (game played last night), though they might have been the purchased ones perhaps? I agree that it would be fitting if they did work at half their previous rate, but haven't noticed this to be the case. In any case, they are tremendously valuable, as they cost no support. I'd rather have 50 slow workers that were free than 25 that I had to pay. Also having a ton of extra workers during wartimes is invaluable. Given the choice between attacking an army, city, or an undefended worker, the AI will usually hit the worker. You just kill the attacker the next turn and get your worker back (same thing applies to bombardment units). Of course this is only viable in your own territory, as if they are captured on foreign soil, they most likely will be able to move the units into a city on their road networks.

An interesting thing that happened to me once (they should do it every time), I had a catapult advancing on my road network unescorted. A Zulu horseman captured it, and then the AI must have deleted the catapult! The rest of my army was adjacent to the square (20+ swordsmen, some catapults), so they must have figured the horseman couldn't defend the newly aquired catapult. I haven't had this happen in any other similar cases though, it was the only time I've ever thought to myself "The AI did something smart!" while playing Civ3. Usually they just try to move the captured worker/bombardment unit as close as they can to their own territory, leaving it undefended.

On the subject of bombardment units, does the AI ever build them? I think I have seen one AI catapult in a city once that I captured, but that might have been previously captured from me even. I haven't played many games past the middle ages, as one way or another the game is over by then seemingly, or turns are getting prohibitedly long to process, so I can't really comment on more modern bombardment units and whether or not the AI builds them. Their lack of catapults usually leaves me laughing if they attack a city of mine, as all their units can seem to do is destroy terrain improvements, or die throwing themselves against my walls.

[Aeson]

Re: Went back to the drawing board....

Originally posted by Velociryx
Considering the exceedingly agressive nature of the AI's expansion, I just don't see that there are gonna be too many other choices where that's concerned.

Thoughts? Ideas?

One alternative I've found to work on Deity is to use the Egyptians, and their War Chariots. A size 5 base, with 2 units for defense/policing, 1 luxury, and a temple (cheap for Egyptians) is the basic city plan. No granery is needed because at size 5 the city population should be halted anyways (6 if you can get a 2nd luxury, 7 for 3rd...) At size 5 I halt the growth by changing the workers to use as many forests or mines as necessary to keep even food production. Usually this allows a War Chariot to be produced every other turn, or at worst it seems, every 3 turns. This is approaching pop rush efficiency with horsemen, though there is a small build up phase.

The make or break part of the strategy is to have a source of horses, but with the wheel being one of the first advances you get, it should be possible to claim horses early on most games. Greeks are troublesome neighbors with their hoplites, but early on their defenses aren't as built up as most Civ's will be with Pikemen. Also, War Chariots hate Zulu Impi's and Chinese Riders (2 movement 2 defense = lots of dead War Chariots). The Zulu's are the worst of these, as I haven't noticed the Chinese to use Riders as defensive units in cities, where they would be just as deadly as Impi's.

I've played two very successful games starting out with 5 bases, letting the AI build up to me while I build up a large force of War Chariots (on average of 2 War Chariots per turn), and then swarm towards Iron deposits as fast as possible. Captured cities are all razed, as on Deity the chance of them reverting is very high. I try to have a settler there ready to build in its place, but if not, I just use my huge number of captured Workers to hem off all borders to friendly Civs. Both times I've had the Zulu's as neighbors, and have left them for swordsmen/catapult armies that follow later, except for 2 cities that I had to have for resourse and luxury purposes in one game (I lost close to 10 War Chariots against each city).

Trying to do this with Horsemen of any type seems to be counter productive though, as by the time I can obtain the necessary advancements, all the Civ's with Iron seem to have pikemen already on Deity (yikes). Also, the cities will take 3 to 4 turns to produce a horseman, making troop buildup slower. Still possible, especially as the Iroquois, but takes a much larger force to take a city defended by pikemen. The great thing about 2 movement troops is that I never lose any of them (except against the Zulu's and Chinese). I took 12 English cities in as many turns on one game, without a single lost War Chariot. I had well over 100 captured workers by the AD's, which allowed me to wall off any territory that wasn't yet settled by me from the AI's who weren't at war with me. The ones who were at war would constantly send more settlers with their guard to try to resettle the areas, giving me more captured workers.

One thing about this strategy is it isn't going to work well with large expanses of land. Both games I played were on continent, high ocean maps, one Huge with 16 civs, one Large with 12. Larger landmass to Civ maps do let you have more cities that will be productive, but at the same time allow the AI that much more room to expand.

It shouldn't take too long before a core of 5 - 10 cities can build up an almost unbeatable force of War Chariots. I like to set research to 0% after I get the wheel (hopefully traded for, but if not, 32 turns into the game), as War Chariots cost a bit more than Horsemen to upgrade to Knights, and on Deity I almost never research a tech that I couldn't have taken by force or traded for much earlier.

I'm not going to suggest that this can be a more efficient way than pop rushing, but it is a way to compete on an even playing feild on Deity without using pop rushing of any sort. Now if I could just figure out a way to be competetive without using warfare as well... Anyone figure that out yet?

[Tzar Petr]

Vel -

Absolutly Fascinating, you're a Diety in my book.

As far as 'fixing' the unbalanced benefits of ICS or Temporary ICS (perhaps FCP? Finite City Pairing?) Do you think changing the rules to where no city can be founded within the maximum radius of any other city would work, or would that not really effect 'the sprawl' that much?

I know from a logic standpoint it may be a little weak, but you can't build cities in your opponents territory, right? That doesn't make sense logically either, but its a good game-play decison.

Just a thought, interested in your take on it.

[Kaesar]

Vel

Not much to say here except that I've been building cities 3 apart regardless of terrain right from the start and have been quite succesful up to monarch. The thing is I'm not sure if it will be successful when we push up to emperor and deity. I would like to try but finals are coming So I would like to know how succesful you are with this build method at the higher diff levels.

[inca911]

Skortcut for Select All?

Quick question:
Is there a way to select all units in a stack for movement? When laying track it is extremely nanoying to move stacks of Workers individually. Anyone?

[LarryM]

Re: Went back to the drawing board....

Originally posted by Velociryx

Bases three apart....or in this case, Cities three apart.

I think over the long run spacing cities this close will become the preferred choice for almost any strategy. Why? You can't build cities beyond size 12 till relatively late in the game; its even later before you can do so without ruinous pollution (i.e., when you research ecology and can build mass transit). By then its hardly worth building the needed improvements - hospital & mass transit.

And the cost of building cities beyond 12 is not just the hospital & mass transit improvements - there is the opportunity cost of not utilizing the terrain squares that you are "saving" for your 12 plus cities. To put it another way, spacing cities 4 or 5 squares apart (in order to EVENTUALLY grow beyond 12 population) is wasteful.

I almost never build cities beyond 12 anyway. By that time, I'm well on my way to winning the game (or hopelessly behind) and the only advantage of bigger cities is a higher score.

A final note - I'm sure this isn't news to Vel, or most of you - but spacing 3 apart should (under most circumstances) allow every city to hit 12 population.

[Gamer at heart]

I know of no way to move many units at once, the best way I've found so far is the G (go to) command, but that doesn't work too well when another civ's forces are wandering around in your territory.

For workers there are several commands that can be used, such as the Ctrl-Shift-R (build railroad to...) command. Someone posted a very handy reference sheet compiling every known keyboard commands on another tread. I did not make it, but since I'm pretty sure its author would like to see as many people as possible use it, here it is.

GaH

[DaveV]

Ah, the slippery slope to ICS. What's the point in building libraries or markets when most of your cities won't be producing more than one commerce? What's the point in building aqueducts when the extra workers will most likely have their efforts lost to corruption? Why not just give in to the dark side and pack those cities in as close as possible? Connect up to a couple luxuries and your tiny cities will be insanely happy no matter how much you abuse them. Since there's very little difference between the production of a size three city and a size one city once you've built past the corruption threshold, the opportunity cost of a settler is pretty low. And each new city seems to produce a guaranteed minimum of one shield and one commerce. So what's a better investment: 80 shields (and one maintenance) for a library, or a couple settlers and two new cities?

[Arrian]

Monarch

OK, last night was rather humbling for me. I started 3 Monarch games. I probably will not continue any of them.

1st game was as the Iroquois. Start position was ok (some floodplain, a hill, gems outside the radius to the west, river) but not great. I got a settler from the 2nd hut I popped w/my scout, which was, of course, nice. I used it to grab 5 furs. Anyway, I expanded as fast as I could, and I actually managed to grab a lot of nice spots. I then built a barracks in Salamanca and Niagra Falls and proceeded to start building MW's. I knew I wasn't gonna get any Wonders. North of me, fairly boxed in were the Americans, whom I immediately designated as my target. South were the Egyptians, SE were the Aztecs. I provoked the war by telling Abe to get out of my land (he had 2 settler/spearmen teams walking through my territory). This netted me 4 workers. I soon took three border cities. I kinda bogged down (combat just SEEMS harder, right? There isn't really any difference based on level?) but eventually took New York (razed and rebuilt) & Washington (had colossus, so I kept it), and got all his tech, gold, and his 2nd to last city for peace. Then I took stock of my "empire." It sucked. My army, though it stomped the Americans, was small (maybe 12 MW, some of them "regular", 2 catapults, 2 swordsmen). Ack. 1 wonder, the captured colossus, which wouldn't do me any good for a while b/c of corruption. The Egyptians looked pretty darn strong, and I bet the Aztecs were too (and I did NOT want to fight a civ with a 2-move UU that could kill my MW's!). So I saved that one for later tinkering and quit, and figured I'd start again.

#2 was again the Iroquois, Americans north, Aztecs south. That was it. This time I hit the Aztecs (they attacked America, and I hit them while they were on their way through me to kill Abe... who was "gracious" after that). I knocked them down to 1 city and took all their gold & tech (sound familiar), but at the end of it all... I still sucked. I think I saved it... I MAY go back and kill Abe off... I dunno. I did capture the Pyramids, yipee.

I shouldn't have even played #3 as far as I did. I went running back to the Babs, my trusty civ. Babylon was, in fact, a really nice place. 4 wine (built on 1, 2more on grassland next to river, 1 on hill) and a whale. However, it was kinda in a corner, thus, after my 3rd or 4th city, my cities had total corruption. I shared a small/medium continent with the Persians. No horses. Again, I was rather proud of my expansion... I grabbed the best sites (all of the gems, all but 1 of the wines - 1 by persopolis I couldn't help). Yet, despite my best efforts, I ended up with 13 cities and he had 17. One of mine was a culture capture, so it was really 12 to 18.

Tech advancement with only 1 civ contact is awful, so I built the colossus in Babylon and started the G. Lighthouse in the hopes that I could get to Theology and nab the Sistine. I was 1 turn away from Theology and 2 turns from completing the Lighthouse when I was informed that the French had built it. I got a colosseum. I ran a valiant galley across the ocean (he actually survived one turn in an ocean square) and met the Aztecs, who were awfully strong. I got contact w/the Germans out of them, and having decided to quit, I paid Bismarck all I had for his world map. Oh man, Oh God, ohmanohgod. I never had a chance. The main continent had the Aztecs, Germans, French, English and Russians. The only civs worse off than I were the Zulu (small island) and Persians (though they could have and SHOULD have wasted me with their immortals... still trying to figure out why they didn't). People were building the Sistine, Sun Tzu and Bach. I was toast, and I knew it. Technically, according to the "scoreboard" I think I was 4th - largely due to culture, I'm sure.

So went my first forays into Monarch. My pride is definitely bruised. But I REFUSE to build crappy little cities 2 or 3 tiles apart (for now, at least). I have little doubt that attacking one neighbor early on is crucial, if for no other reason than to catch up in tech. It just seems to take me too long. Maybe, instead of attempting to expand with the AI, I should build only my core and then start pumping out units. Hmm... might work. Then again, the AI will have even MORE cities if I do that!

-Arrian

p.s. About combat seeming harder, I think it's a combo of 2 things. 1) I'm used to having a larger force, and 2) due to the fact that I felt the need to hit early, I did build a number of "regulars." Regular troops suck. I hate them. Regular MW's take 2 hits and have to run away. This happened A LOT. So, I will not try that again - barracks are a must.

[ChrisShaffer]

Re: Monarch

Originally posted by Arrian
I have little doubt that attacking one neighbor early on is crucial, if for no other reason than to catch up in tech. It just seems to take me too long. Maybe, instead of attempting to expand with the AI, I should build only my core and then start pumping out units. Hmm... might work. Then again, the AI will have even MORE cities if I do that!

I'm not sure why you think that attacking a neighbor early is the best strategy, especially since you've had such bad luck with it. Your early neighbors are usually in your culture group, and thus are more likely to be friendly and make good trades. I've had success staying peaceful and friendly with nations in my culture group. If you stay friendly, you'd be surprised how much technology you can buy for not much money.

Save the war for later next time and see what happens.

[Velociryx]

Aeson: Much as I hate to admit it, I don’t think there’s gonna be a way to beat the game on Deity level with absolutely zero warfare. It’d be a wonderful thing, but after beating my head against that particular wall, I just don’t see how.

Tzar: Deity? Me? ::as he pretends he’s not blushing:; Nahhh….they don’t let rednecks in deity school….

I’d have no problems with using the solution. Essentially, that’s saying no city can be built any closer than three tiles apart (just outside the radius of the existing city…can’t count the city you’re founding, since before you hit “b” it has no radius). Now…I understand that for a clean “look” to the map, some folks don’t like having their cities that close together. ::shrug:: Personal preference and sometimes necessary (ie – even if it’s not your first choice, if you’re settler has only moved three tiles from your next nearest city and the barbarians are bearing down on him, I’d rather just build it where he is than lose the settler). But yes, I’d have no problem with doing that!

Kaesar: Gonna bump it up to Emperor with the 3-apart spacing scheme and see how she goes. Will be reporting back here with the results!

Inca: No dice, as far as I know man….which BLOWS, especially after fighting a couple of ancient wars and winding up with scads of free workers….::sigh::

Larry: I think you’re right for a couple of reasons. As I understand it, part of the corruption equation is distance from the capitol. Well, close packing solves (or at least limits) this part of the equation. Then, of course, there’s ease of defense, less need for roads (since the city tile is “auto roaded” when you build the city), automatic growth cap, and the fact that the AI’s standard expansion will leave you only “so much” turf to work with….might as well get as much out of it as you can!

Dave: Hmmm….I kinna agree, and kinna disagree with you. I mean, taken to the extreme, why build any cities at all? Even your second city will begin to feel the effects of corruption, diminishing the value of its return. And again, following the logic line to its other extreme, why attack any other empire….ever? And if you were to find yourself in a (purely defensive of course) war, why bother keeping any of their cities? Just raze them and….let the AI resettle the area later?

On the other hand, you’re absolutely right. There’s not much difference at all between bases three apart and full-on ICS two-apart spacing.

However, I’d argue in defense of it this way: One of the coolest sides of this game, IMO, is the cultural/diplomatic/trade end of the spectrum. That’s where I want to spend my time. Building wonders, haggling over trade agreements, making a Civ that the other Civs in the game just drool over.

Unfortunately, that has some nasty side effects. On the higher levels of play, if you do that, then you do it at the detriment of your military. Big no no, as the AI will gleefully not-so-gently remind you. So….in the interest of being able to play the cultural game, I’ll do what I can to ensure that the AI’s military doesn’t come piss in my cornflakes. If that means building my cities a little closer together than the norm, I can live with that….but corruption or no, it won’t keep me from building those libraries en mass, even if I run deficits for an extended period….

I guess where I make the ultimate distinction is this: Some folks play the game with the intention of rushing the AI, smashing them with whatever units are available, and winning via conquest with all possible speed.

That’s their thing, and that’s cool, but personally, I can’t stand the thought of it. So….I make use of their basic strategy in order to see to my own defense (and participate in some Ancient Era warring to bring me up to speed technologically on Monarch+, and then, I settle back and do what I enjoy most!

Arrian: Hmmm….sounds like you had some tough goings with it last evening. IIRC, Soren said that the AI gets no combat bonuses on any level, but I DO agree that it sure feels that way. I thought the same thing repeatedly during battles when my MW’s were attacking Jaguars and would often get taken to one hp before winning (those are some TOUGH little buggers!).

A suggestion, if I may though. Try one of your previous games (go back to the 4000bc autosave) and run your game with cities three apart after you box in rival civs. Just try it once and make notes about the differences you encounter. You’ll be patently amazed at the difference moving cities one tile closer together will make (and at consistently three apart, it doesn’t look all THAT bad! )

Like you, on my first run through at Monarch, I was using the same strats that worked for me on Regent….and the same basic city layout plan. I won the game, but it was nip and tuck the whole time, until I decided to get a little radical on them…after that, things began sorting themselves out in my favor.

Combat-wise: ChrisShaffer makes a good point re: neighboring civs of the same culture group being good trading partners….I think though, some early warfare to “prune” them and stunt their growth to guarantee that you’ll be dealing with them from the superior position in future eras is probably a good thing. Don’t weaken them to the point where they’re no longer viable, but definitely grow at their expense and then spend some time repairing your relations with them. Also, I’d definitely say grow a larger military before going off to attack. In my game last night, I took on the Americans and Aztecs with a force of 11 Mounted Warriors and 9 Swordsmen. I designed that force with just the Americans in mind, and I did wind up rushing in two swordsmen and an additional Mounted Warrior for defense (and in the case of the MW, “aggressive defense”) on the Aztec front while I wrapped up beating on the Americans.

I’d recommend against picking on the weaker civ first….it might seem counter-intuitive, but trust me, go for the jugular of the strongest civ on the continent with you, enlisting the aid of the weaker against them (to keep you out of a two-front war). The stronger civ prolly has more cities and in better locations (which is why he’s stronger), so you’ll wind up gaining more.

Also…as I’ve discovered….it’s generally good to take at least one more city than you mean to keep…that way, during the peace talks, you can offer it back to the civ you’re at war with, and grab TONS more stuff from him.

-=Vel=-

[Gamer at heart]

Re: Monarch

I agree with ChrisShaffer. I try to avoid early wars except if i find the presence of one particular civ to be a real handicap for my early expansion. Also, you HAVE to be really succesful, because such a war will ensure you long time inimity from your target. you seem to have THAT part working correctly from what I see, tho .

Later on, say at the middle or beginning of the Middle Ages, when everyone is using a lot of mobile units, I try and get a few allies to fight any war someone imposes on me as well as those I might start myself. Since the AI doesn't use mobile units as effectively as is possible for the human player (in protecting the wounded for example), they will suffer much heavier losses, thus helping you gain an advantage. The trick is to get most of the cities for yourself and not leave too many to your "allies", which I consider temporary at best.

I do agree with you that combat gets harder on the most difficult levels, but I think it is because the AI gets smarter. I admit finding this hard to explain, so it might be more of an impression than a true fact...

good luck on your next games !

[eMarkM]

Ah, the slippery slope to ICS....Why not just give in to the dark side and pack those cities in as close as possible?

Yeah, this fine thread is starting to degenerate into the standard cheap exploits. I just don't care for any of it, I don't care how dominating it is. If you just want to "beat" Deity, just rush from the start and get it over with. Call me the "romantic" type, I guess.

I played Civ2 for years and never used rushing or ICS. Hell, I didn't even know about those strategies since I wasn't into the online communities at the time. Just worked my way up from lower levels playing a "normal" game and after many, many months was finally able to win on Deity playing the way it's meant to be played--a standard empire building game with no "tricks", basically just rapid expansion with normal, asethetically pleasing, spaced apart cities. Now I've mastered my particular technique on Civ2/Deity where I win almost every game w/o exploits. I plan on doing the same w/ this release working my way to Monarch, and have been able to win most of my Monarch games. Getting ready to try Emp after my current game.

The game's only been out a month, so I'm sure (hope) non-exploitative ways of winning at Deity are to be had, but no one's had it long enough to figure it out. Geez, we all just got the game. Now we're resorting to rushing and ICSing already--zzzzzzz. For MP, ok, you have to do stuff like this, but I just can't bring myself to it for SP.

I'm sure a lot fo Emp/Deity "normal" wins will involve quite a bit of geographic luck. For example, in my current Monarch game I'm dominating like it's Chieftan, where before it's been very challenging for me at this level. It's been a lot of luck, I admit.

I'm Eygpt on a continent that takes about 2/3 the world. There's four other civs, English, Romans, Russias, Greeks. I only have borders w/ England and Rome. Kept pace w/ goodie huts and trading and some selective pop rushing, maybe twice in each city. Early BC I happened to have a couple of warriors scouting and ran across a Roman town far from its base. I "rushed" it w/ my 2 warriors and took it. That was the extent of my despot rushing. I think there is a place for this sort of strategy in the early game w/o degenerating into an ugly game. Limited strikes that set the other civ back w/o you having to just non-stop crank out units. It set the Romans back, just taking that one city, that's for sure.

The Greeks are the only ones who can keep pace with me, tech wise, and they're on the opposite side of the land mass. I am king of resouces! I have over half the world's iron--I rushed a settler in as soon as I saw a spot--nearer to my foes than me--where I could build a mountain/hills city of 4 irons. I claimed all of the large desert terrain, so I ended up with 6 of the world's 8 saltpeters! Game, set, match. There's only one other on my continent that has it and they're the far off Greeks. So the Romans and English near me have none, so have no chance in Calavry vs Pikemen wars. Needless to say they are now my vassals and I'm currently working on taking all the Roman wonders. I have 4 different lux resources, 2 taken from the vassals.

When I discovered the other continents I was shocked at how backward they were. Again, geography. French had a very tiny island continent to themselves. Americans & Iroquois shared the other smallish one. They were all out of our large continent tech loop, so they were all very backwards. They were 5-6 techs behind me and virtually no resources! So I peddled some of my lesser techs to them all. Now every single civ is flat broke. I'm draining them all selling my resource hoard and tech! Meanwhile I have 1000+ gold, w/ over 100 rolling in each turn. This should be an easy win, probably go for domination.

Ok, Monarch isn't the true test, but using a little pop rush, a little despot rush, creating vassals, tech trading, and some definite luck w/ resources, I think the higher levels can see competitive games w/o resorting to Despot Rush/ICS. At least I hope so.

e

[Arrian]

I think part of my problem last night was that the geography was pretty bad in all 3 games (particularly #3). That being said, I should still have done better. I will try again tonight, an no (with all due respect, Vel) I will not space my cities 3 squares apart. I rarely accept any overlap. This isn't Diety, it's Monarch, and thus I shouldn't have to ICS (or pseudo ICS, or 3-space, or whatever) to compete. I'm smarter than the AI, damnit, and the bonuses it gets at that level should not counter that. I just have to adapt. I mean, I was probably "winning" games 1 and 2 (2 in particular)... I just didn't feel they were up to my standards.

I have to decide between the Babs and the Iroquois. The Babs usually mean not fighting early (but give you some NICE advantages), whereas the Iroquois really should, due to the advantage the UU gives (otherwise, play a different religious civ...Japanese, perhaps?). Early wars are tough, though, because they strain your resources. Without it, however, keeping up in the tech race becomes more difficult. So there is a trade-off. If you intend to crush a neighbor and get all his tech, you can set science as low as possible and build up cash. Buy only techs essential to your planned war (iron working/horseback riding).

What bothers me most about the AI bonuses is Wonder building. I'm never gonna beat them to the early Wonders (which is ok), and I worry about the mid-game Wonders (which are crucial).

-Arrian

[eMarkM]

What bothers me most about the AI bonuses is Wonder building.

Yeah, get used to it. In all of my Monarch games up until the one I just mentioned, the first wonder I've been able to build is, like, Hoover Dam. No Sistene/Bach, forget the Pyramids, it's just impossible. In this current game that I'm dominating I was able to get Bach, that's it so far (just ending middle ages).

But not getting wonders hasn't prevented from winning a lot of Monarch games. They're so much toned down in this game and I don't consider any "essential". The "must have" happiness wonders, like Sistene/Bach can be compensated for w/ resources and luxury slider. At least on Monarch for me.

And what I can't build, I end up taking. I captured Oracle from English and Pyramids/Leo from Romans in my current game. That's about the only way to get wonders, by force. On one hand, it sucks not being able to build wonders. OTOH, those shields freed up not building wonders are shields used on units to take by force what wonders the AI builds .

While I said I was a "romantic" player, I too, feel that early war is essential to success. Too many advantages to it: space, resources, vassals, slaves, leaders, etc. I just don't want to build nothing but military and rush the world. I like a balance.

e