Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Three

[Arrian]

Ok, kissass just kiddin', of course.

I generally pop-rush in the ancient era for temples, and occasionally libraries or granaries. It usually works out to 1 or 2 poprushes per city (more 1's than 2's). I beeline for republic, so it's only fairly early that I use it. For some reason, I just can't accept poprushing units. My mind can deal with working my people to death in order to complete a structure, but not a military unit. *Shrug* As for the strategy element... well, I always use it. Always. Even though my use of it is rather limited, I can honestly say I have never played a game totally without it. Then again, given the way corruption works (I do not have the patch yet, but I doubt they changed it THAT much) early on under despotism, how else are you going to get those outlying cities to build their temples?

-Arrian

[pchang]

unbalanced

Pop rushing is definitely unbalanced. However, it is one of the only ways to counter the huge head start the AI gets at emporer/deity. By using the paired base approach that Vel developed, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOWNSIDE to pop rushing. Using that strategy, you build designated pop rushing cities. Those cities pop rush units at EVERY opportunity. When you have the army you need, you just disband them. Since the city is disbanded, there is NO UNHAPPINESS penalty whatsoever.

[Sauron07]

Pop-Rushing

Thanks for the feedback...


Arrian, you and I seem to have similar playstyles, although I recently began testing out some militaristic strategy and have experienced the power of poprushing military units as Pchang describes.

Tell me what you think of two potential fixes or possible editor inclusions -

1) apply diminishing returns to poprushing from any one city - ie the first poprush in a city produces 40 shields and each thereafter produces less 30,20,10, ect until it is no longer advantageous to do so. This would limit the power of the so called "training camps" by allowing only a certain number of units to be rushed AND would force players to deal with the unhappiness effects once they couldnt constantly deplete pop via rushing. This seems to be consistent with the current practice of diminishing the value of rushing more than one pop. point in any given turn.

2) ( and my personal favorite) Make pop-rushed units start as conscripts without a barracks and as regulars with a barracks. This does several things, it decreases the value of pop-rushing units for an early offensive and creates a tactical decision for the rusher of pop-rushing or waiting a few turns to crank out veteran troops. I think this is also more realistic and consistent with the handling of conscription later in the game. As a side note this tweak would also increase the value of the militaristic trait(at least for rushing tactics) as barracks and field promotions will become even more important.

[Arrian]

oooohh... I like #2. I've also seen a suggestion for empire-wide unhappiness due to poprushing - something similar to the way war weariness works. I like that idea too.

Here's the thing. The main reason I only poprush 1-2 times per city is that I want my cities to prosper and produce (normally) afterwards. If you keep poprushing, those cities do get pretty angry. Vel's "base pairing" works so well because the cities never cross pop 2 and are disbanded later, so no unhappiness.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Two thumbs up! Taken as a pair, the ideas on pop-rushing would tame that beast sufficiently that it would no longer represent the "end-all" to the game! As it stands now, it is entirely possible (and some would argue, desirable) to remain Despotic until you can switch to Communism. Those ideas, working in concert, would take just enough of a ::::CRACK!:::: from the Despotic Whip to make the question of whether to rush or no a truly strategic one, and it would seriously limit the usefulness of pop-rushed units (though, what I see happening in response, is that players would allow 2-3 units to build normally, send EVERYTHING out, and then (if needs be) pop-rush a token defender).

Excellent ideas!

-=Vel=-

[pchang]

Actually

We would pop rush a unit or two and allow the city to grow a bit, then pop rush a settler which disbands the city, re-build, then start all over again.

[Velociryx]

Cure your end-game blues via puppet-mastering

More on this topic later, but I've been toying around with the Meta-Game some more via global politics in my MarlaMap French game....I think that the combination of puppeteering, mixed with cheaper spying options should be more than enough to make for a fascinating end game (I've heard a good number of people saying that the end game is a little draggy....this'll certainly cure it!)

Again, more later....I gotta digest the various things I've been learning and see what it all means....it's been a blast so far though, I can tell you that!

-=Vel=-
(and then I PROMISE I'll get back to those civ-analysis articles!)

[absimiliard]

Just jumping in to say that I don't pop-rushing is overpowered. It has it's place, but when you ask about when you would and would not pop-rush I'd have to say that pop-rushing is ALWAYS the right answer, right up until it's not.

Let me refine that since it's a little blurry.

In the early game I always pop-rush a Granary & Temple, still debating the correct order. I occasionally rush the odd unit, but not much. Thus my thought that pop-rushing is ALWAYS the answer.

Until it isn't. At some point you have to switch over from pop-rushing, Republic & Monarchy don't allow it. So you have to be thinking about that point. I've found unrepentant pop-rushing up to that point leaves me with two big problems, I'm incredibly poor and undeveloped since I'm low-pop and secondly I'm suddenly losing people to Entertainers because of pop-rush-unhappiness.

So I'm very cautious about rushing when I'm getting close to the point of changeover. If I think I'm getting a better form of government soon, then I stop rushing immediately because unless I'm at war I'm switching the moment I get the chance.

In most of my games the tech progression is such that I make that switch somewhere after rushing a Granary & Temple, and occasionally a Library but before any other buildings. For unit building I prefer high-pop cities to pop-rushing for the long-term benefits.

Since there are parts of the game where rushing is the answer and parts where it's not, for me, I have concluded it's not broken. Though it's certainly powerful when used appropriately it carries some powerful disadvantages if used too much. (I really hate only making 2 gold a turn with 0% Science in a Republic because my infrastructure is so built up that my pop can't support it.)

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by absimiliard
Until it isn't. At some point you have to switch over from pop-rushing, Republic & Monarchy don't allow it. So you have to be thinking about that point. I've found unrepentant pop-rushing up to that point leaves me with two big problems, I'm incredibly poor and undeveloped since I'm low-pop and secondly I'm suddenly losing people to Entertainers because of pop-rush-unhappiness.

I think you're missing the point, absimiliard. What we've been talking about is building a city, pop rushing units out of it, never letting it grow above size 3 (or 2), and then, in the end, disbanding the city. No unhappiness at all. And, as Vel has described, it's entirely possible to skip Monarchy and Republic altogether, and simply pop-rush the entire game from Despotism -> Communism.

[Arrian]

I guess you could stay in despotism until communism and just play the whole game that way... but, um... WHY? Would that be fun? That's a serious question. People have different definitions of fun, but that would be absolutely ZERO fun for me. There's no "building" involved there. If I build a city, I want to keep it and make something productive out of it. Now, if poprushing/disbanding cities is your cup of tea, ok, I understand, but I don't know (absent multiplayer capability) if the game needs to be changed to counter that extreme strategy.

-Arrian

[pchang]

End Game Blues

Another alternative for curing the end game blues is to go to Communism and just kill erveryone else.

[Cookie Monster]

I agree with the notion that pop rushing is extreme, however in light of the AI's stunning ability to outgrow you it is a necessary evil just to keep up!

Until one can develop build strategies for keeping up with the AI without having to resort to pop rushing this is the only way to survive. I've been dragged into countless wars for minor infractions with the AI (like asking them to leave my territory) when all I was doing was trying to play nice. In each of these situations I had a much weaker military than the AI did but pop rushing aided me in defending myself until I was strong enough to repel the invaders. Then I'd sue for peace.

Pop rushing can give you that boost you need just to stay alive until your industry is strong enough to compete on a more orthodox level with the AI.

Merry Civ3 to all and to all a sleepless night fighting the babylonians!

[Arrian]

Fighting the Babylonians? ACK! You're fighting me, then! Heh.

First off, I suppose my comments on the poprushing issue should always be prefaced by: I have not played above Monarch yet.

It took me a while to get to Diety in Civ II, and I'm following the same slow progression in Civ III. I've thrashed Monarch a few times, but it's no sure thing yet. Thus, more Monarch for me.

I understand that poprushing may become much more of a factor on Emperor and Diety. With the AI needing only 60% of what you need to build something, and 4 free units with each new city, you use everything available to you, right? So yeah, tone it down, but don't wreck poprushing that first temple in your border towns, please.

-Arrian

[absimiliard]

Hey Chris.

I totally get the idea of base-pairing. I could have sworn Sauron was just asking for general thoughts on pop-rushing. Thus my generalized response.

However now that I'm looking back through the thread I see the topic rapidly shifted to base-paired pop-rushing. That wasn't really what I was talking about though. So either I was a moron and missed the posts or I just cross-posted. Either way, no harm no foul.

But yeah, I totally get the base-pairing concept. The key is in the disband at the end. I just don't do it because I hate the way it looks, my playstyle is heavily influenced by aesthetics. (maybe too much since using base-pairing could make my military totally rock.)

[Skanky Burns]

Vel, i was wondering what your take on nuclear weapons was. Do you ever build them, or just totally ignore them, or perhaps just build a few for the "influence" they get you over other civs??

Mostly i find them near-useless. While they can seriously knock out another civ in a single turn, by the time you can prepare that many nukes to attack them with, you easily spend less shields just conquering them.