Civ choice for the "builder"

[rpodos]

Great idea on how use the WCs.

I'm doing a horse rush right now... The Egyptians got stuck without access to horses, so they are no problem. The Romans are a real problem however. 10 turns till my Samurai come though!!

R

[Dominae]

Arrian, to tell you the truth, I haven't been able to out-produce the AI on Monarch level myself; I usually come out about even (depending on the map), so I guess Monarch is the difficulty for me to be at if I want to play Builder. The question is: is pure Builder on Emperor a viable strategy?

I would be inclined to say no, regardless of civ, unless you get really lucky in the early-game (i.e. seal off a huge chunk of land by fortifying a few choke points). At some point you're going to have to grab some more cities, because, all other things being equal, the AI out-produces and out-researches you hands down. I just finished a Emperor game where I had about three times as many cities as any one civ, and still they were beating me in the space race (I was Japan, but I was basically playing a builder game...Samurai rock!).

So, if anyone has any tips on how to beat Emperor as a Builder, fill me in! Most of the tips I've heard of mostly involve AI exploits and effective combat. Can you beat Emperor by being clean and nice?

Dominae

[Aeson]

I can expand faster than the AI at Emperor level, on larger landmasses. Expansionist and Industrial are the most important traits in keeping your number of cities high. Expansionist is almost always worth a Settler or two on a Huge/Emperor game. One Settler from a hut will keep you about even with the largest AI Civ if used right. It also gives you a large early tech lead. Industrial just means you can get your cities connected and your mines built faster.

I am playing a Monarch game as the Americans. It's 270 BC and I have 90 cities that I aquired through "peaceful" means. I did fight a short 4 turn war with France, taking 3 more cities. That was very recently though, and those cities haven't helped at all with building the other 90. The next largest civ is the Zulu, with 17 cities. The Zulu had about the exact same starting location as me, and I haven't hampered their expansion in any way.

I was building Scout, Warrior, Settler in most of my cities. A few cities had high food sources and just produced Settlers. Other cities had lower food sources and built Warriors almost exclusively. On turn 8 I got a Settler from a hut, but no others. I built in an ICS type style, just to get my Settlers building more Settlers faster. It sped up expansion a bit, but could easily be done without.

When I made contact with the other Civs, I had more cities than any of them, about a 2:1 ratio. I was able to demand cities for renegotiated peace treaties from all but the French and Zulu. About a third of my city count is from these demands that I make every 20 turns. So far the Japanese (Smallest Civ) have given the most, with 7 cities.

My Scouts also got me every Ancient Era tech, along with about 10 warriors and 300 gold. I'm currently on my 2nd Middle Ages tech. I have withheld contacts and haven't traded any techs at all, to keep the tech rate as slow as possible. Also I sold my map every single turn one of the AI's had cash, to keep their ability to trade among themselves as low as possible. I bought every worker I saw, usually for the price of my world map. My Scouts are also "holding" every single Iron source on the map, I just felt like being a complete bastard to the AI. My HOF submission for last month over at CivFanatics was deemed "not applicable" because I intentionally lost with 37k+ points. Kind of got me in a bad mood.

I haven't done much "building" other than on the city front. I probably have more city improvements than in most builder games, just they are spread out between so many cities. I plan on eventually wiping everyone else out and building up to the domination limit, but not until I've claimed as much land as possible through peaceful means.

I am going to jump my Palace to the newly captured Paris very shortly, have to build up my own population there first though. I just finished my Forbidden Palace about 8 tiles away from Washington. My overall production should just about double once I have that done, along with my expansion rate.

This was extremely easy to do on Monarch, I could have done it even without the Settler. I can do this on Emperor almost every "Huge" game, and even did it once on Deity. The Deity game was a fluke though, 3 Settlers in my first 5 huts, plus a couple of the AI that I used for power "stepping" had been geographically limited in their expansion. The key is to limit AI expansion through demanding their cities for peace treaties. These cities will be completely corrupt, but can build up a worker force and claim far flung resources and build Settlers of their own every 30 turns. This is the one use for the Americans that I've found, and they do it extremely well.

[Arrian]

Ok, tried the Egypt horseman rush last night.

I didn't exactly work the way I had hoped.

First try:

Russia declares war on me before I've built a single horseman, because I wouldn't give them writing. I don't see a single unit, although there is just empty land in between us. I eventually muster up about 6 horsemen and ride down to Russia. That's all I needed. Russia destroyed, three cities gained, 4 furs gained, no promotions. Well, I did get one elite horseman by taking out a barbarian encampment.

I continue building my attack force, and hit India. Result: India knocked to 2 or 3 cities, I gain about 8, 2 furs & 4 spice gained, 1 unit promotion.

No leaders... falling behind in tech... world hates me...

Second try:

I build up maybe 10-12 horsemen and attack Japan. I knock them down to 1 city, gaining several cities and a bunch of furs. 2 promotions, but one of those gets killed.

I continue to build up, including several swordsmen, and attack Rome (had iron, but it wasn't hooked up to their core yet...which I find inexplicable ). I had destroyed half their empire, gaining 3 or 4 promotions, when I quit... due to the fact it was now well into the AD years and the AI's on the other continent had built the Great Library, Sun Tzu and the Sistine.

The key to this whole thing is getting at least one leader, so you can rush the Forbidden Palace and double your productivity. But Egypt, being non-militaristic, isn't very good at generating elite units, which in turn must generate leaders.

Man, last night was frustrating. I think I will keep trying... maybe I'm launching my attack too soon. Later = more units = more battles = more promotions?

Aeson,

First of all, that SUCKS about CivFanatics' Hall of Fame. That's ridiculous! I thought giving away all but one city on the final turn was hilarious. Morons.

Second... any tips for my Egyptian idea, or do you think I'm wasting my time with a non-militaristic civ?

Dominae,

Well, to be honest I haven't tried Emperor yet. I like Monarch, and want to pretty much master it before moving on up (and who knows what the next patch will do). I guess it could be viable - there are those that have played and won peacefully on Diety (I think it was Solo - SS victory without firing a shot).

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Aeson, your example game has definitely given me food for thought. One question though: How are you able to grab their cities every 20 turns in return for a Peace treaty? Most of the time the AI just laughs at any offer that involves one of their cities. I'm suspecting it's because of the size of your empire (you mentioned not having a decent military), but you'll have to confirm this.

Arrian, sorry to hear you had a bad night yesterday with the Egyptians...I haven't tried your idea of upgrading War Chariots to Horsemen, but I would think it's a tad too slow. I try to capitalize on the AI's trust by rushing ASAP (basically be a Warmonger). Typically I manage to disrupt my closest neighbor enough to set myself up nicely for a pure Builder Middle Ages.

By disruption I mean grabbing Workers, pillaging roads (this is especially important around their big production centers) and denying Resources. After this its usually child's play to mop up their few units left in the open and finally attacking the cities. Most of this needs to be done within 15-20 turns or the AI will mount a defense and slow you down considerably. I try to end my offensive toward the end of the ancient era (Construction, Currency, Monarchy).

If you 've every played Age of Empires 1, I play the early-game Egyptians in Civ3 just like the Assyrians from AoE. A quick Chariot Archer blitz (coincidence that the units are the same in both games...?) with sole purpose to kill off a few workers was usually enough to put you well ahead of your neighbour.

Good luck in your next games!


Dominae

[Aeson]

Arrian -

It sounds like you did everything right, sometimes those promotions just don't come, Militaristic or not. If you are playing with higher barbarian levels you can train up your Horsemen to elites on the barbs, then go invading. Otherwise you could just have a large stack moving around enemy territory, killing units in the open. This way the AI keeps producing more military for you to train on. Maybe take a few spearmen and set up a "base" on a hill or mountain just outside the AI's territory. Keep the AI without Iron though, Swordsmen are too much of a hassle to let the AI keep throwing at you. Even with a non-Militaristic civ the leader should come sooner or later.

Dominae -

First of all you have to make sure that you aren't offering anything in exchange for the AI's cities. Because of earlier city trading exploits, the AI has been programmed to automatically reject any compensation for it's cities other than peace treaties.

The AI will almost never give up a city which is size 2+ or has expanded borders, at least not until you are much (~5 times on the histograph) more powerful than they are. Even then it's rare unless you have actually been waring with them. The AI can see resources without the required techs too. Those "worthless" size 1 jungle and desert cities that they won't part with have unseen resources. The top 2 AI civs on the powergraph will almost never deal. The least powerful ones will often part with 2 or even 3 cities at a time.

I usually don't demand cities exactly every 20 turns. I try to wait until the AI has just built a city or two. If their only size 1 cities are jungle, it's usually better to just wait until a nice grassland city is available. Grassland doesn't have resources naturally, so the more grassland in the city radius, the better the chances that the AI will part with it. Take note of which cities are size 1 without expanded borders before negotiating. If they "would be insulted by such a deal" for those cities that means there is a hidden resource there. If its "I don't know if they would accept such a deal" you are just not powerful enough, or the AI is one of the top 2 in power.

I'm going to include a sav from my game. It is 70BC, time to renegotiate with the Indians and the Persians this turn. The Persians are the 2nd most powerful AI, they won't deal (even though their powergraph rating is about 1/5th of mine). The Indians on the other hand are willing to part with 2 cities. I think it is an interesting .sav because it shows how the AI is willing to part with a very nice, mostly grassland, size 1 city (Dacca), but not with a size 1 jungle city (Kolhapur), or a mostly desert/jungle city (Hyderabad). The other size 1 Indian cities both have visable resources near, and can't be demanded. I'm willing to bet that both Kolhapur and Hyderabad end up with resources, while Dacca doesn't. I'd check with the multi.sav "feature" but I'm playing this for a HOF submission and that would be cheating. I don't need to check anyways, I've used the multi.sav "feature" to check several other games where this has happened, and the cities always have a resource. It's pretty nice of the AI to tell me where to find it, even if they are a bit vague about what "it" is!

[Arrian]

barbarian setting

Aeson,

Hmm, since I normally play builder I normally play with "roaming" barbarians. But if I'm playing warmonger anyway... perhaps a higher setting is in order. That might help train up the lazy louts that call themselves my army. I'll give it a shot.

You're absolutely right about the AI knowing if a city of theirs has a hidden resource or not. I'm not sure it knows until the city is built, as the AI generally expands in a fairly standard pattern, but once the city is in place, they will not part with it unless you have thrashed them in war.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Aeson, thanks very much for your detailed explanation; you've certainly figured out some of the inner workings of the AI. I'll check your game later, but I'm sure everything is correct.

Another question: are you demanding these cities "peacefully" (re-negotiating treaties), or are you suing for peace after war? I usually can't mention the idea of trading cities unless I beat a civ into submission (at which point, I'm pretty powerful...at least to them). I you can do it peacefully, I guess you could just perpetually grab a city or two every 20, keeping their empire nice and small compared to yours, without ever going to war again. Obviously this would be a great Builder strategy.


Dominae

[Txurce]

Dominae, your "reformed warmonger" approach pretty much mirrors my philosophy. But then I read about Aeson's 90 cities by 270 BC and somehow suspect that there just might be other ways to skin this cat. My God.

Arrian, do you think that you could have won that Egyptian game as a builder, even though you had already fallen behind in techs and lost those GW's? I ask because I get few GL's, and so wind up with few GW's, but manage to parlay a mid-game builder strategy into the tech lead by game's end. I think this is due not so much to ingenuity as single-mindedness of purpose, wheras the AI is too much of a generalist to excel in any one area.

[Aeson]

Almost all of the cities I demanded were for re-negotiation of peace treaties. The French were the 2nd most powerful when I went to war with them, I was hoping to just knock down their power a bit so they would start giving up the cities as well. I ended up getting 1 city (size 4) for an end to the war. From that time onward the French were small enough to give up cities peacefully, but the Persians (the new #2) stopped parting with theirs.

If I wanted to switch to a pure builder strategy now I could. Just disband about half the cities by building Settlers and add them to the remaining cities. Right now I have 221 cities in 340AD, with another 30 settlers in transit.

ps. Does the mini-map look sorta like woody woodpecker to you? Or am I just seeing things after looking at it so long?

[Arrian]

Aeson,

"This is Woody Woodpecker... this is Woody Woodpecker on drugs!" That is hideous. Impressive, but ugly as hell. Talk about suburban sprawl! You're doing a decent job of recreating the USA.

Txurce,

I'm sure I would have won... but I don't know how much fun it would have been. My empire was a mess. I'm still a builder at heart, and a disjointed sprawl of crappy cities just upsets me. Plus, more than half were totally corrupt because no leader = no forbidden palace.


I continued to try the Egyptian rush and continued to fail. I destroyed empire after empire... getting almost no promotions and no leaders. I even caved in and used war chariots in one game (yeah, ok, that's a pretty powerful rush if you're willing to blow the golden age). I destroyed Japan and England, to no avail. I was left with a bunch of useless cities.

It seems I may have undervalued the militaristic trait. If you're gonna warmonger, it definitely helps. Funny, I've gotten as many as 8 leaders in one game as Egypt, playing "builder." Now, I deliberately pick fights and get none (4 games played, 8 AI civs destroyed, no leaders).

I think I'll switch back to Japan and see if my first experience with them was a lucky fluke, or if militaristic really does help *that much*

-Arrian

p.s. Woohoo! They're lettin' us out of work early b/c of the snow. I would've killed for snow in February, when I wanted to go skiing, but nooooo, we get it in March. Bizarre winter.

[Dominae]

Arrian, I think you and I may be disagreeing on the best way to play an early Egyptian rush because we have different goals. I'm trying to harass my nearest neighbour in order to gain more territory and more cities (hopefully faster that I could build them myself). You're looking to eliminate your neighbours, gaining military supremacy and (hopefully) a Great Leader.

My approach is more of a surgical strike in order to gain tempo (I know I'm being vague here). I'll end the war ASAP if things aren't going well. Even though I may not have obliterated the nearest civ, I'm ahead enough that I'll be in a good position to switch to Builder. The earlier you rush, the earlier you can start building, which is where the Egyptians really shine.

That's why I think "reformed Warmonger" is the perfect term for this strategy (I don't know who named it first); you're a Builder at heart, but you have to be a Warmonger early to give yourself some elbow room.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Aeson, your sample game is a good example of when and why the AI is willing to trade cities, but is a better example of how ICS is still the best strategy in Civ. No matter how hard I try, I don't think I'll ever be able to be quite as powerful by 300AD without resorting to ICS...It's kind of annoying because I think ICS looks pretty bad, and the AI has no way to cope; at the same time, I would like to get better and it *is* a great strategy. I might just settle on Vel's "training camp" idea...it looks to be a good hybrid.

Your game is still very interesting; thanks for posting it. Here's another question (I'm a student, you see): do you think ICS would work as well on smaller, non-Pangea maps on Emperor or Diety?


Dominae

[godinex]

France is the builder civ by nature

[Aeson]

ICS is very powerful. In the early game, a city only needs a few workable tiles to be productive and help with expansion. Once the corruption threshold has been passed, there really isn't any use for big cities. The size of a corrupt city doesn't matter, just the numbers of them. Even from a scoring standpoint it is easier to keep a size 6 city happy than a size 20. Plus you don't have to build the Aquaducts, Hospitals, or Mass Transits, which saves you cash.

On smaller Deity maps there really isn't much room to expand peacefully unless you get a very lucky starting position. ICS of some sort is almost required if you want to get 5-10 cities built before going to war. I like to build my initial cities with some spacing, and then fill in the gaps. The initial cities claim as much territory as possible, and later cities fill in any unused space to speed up military production. Once I've carved out some room with my military, the temporary cities are disbanded and relocated.

I think ICS can fit into a hybrid builder strategy in much the same way that an early military rush does. A bunch of tightly packed cities can really crank out the Settlers until enough land has been claimed. Then the "inbetween" cities can be disbanded and added to the main cities population. The radius of productive cities will expand as interior cities are disbanded, as will the populations of your main cities. On any difficulty other than Deity this could replace the need for a military rush.

The difficult part is the Forbidden Palace. In my game I was able to build the FP close to my Capitol (took 25 turns to build), then jump the Palace to a more corrupt location. I waited too long to do this though, and missed my target city by about 12 spaces, but it was still a huge improvement in overall production. The key is to do the Palace jump early, when all other cities are still building Settlers. Once the FP is built, starve down the FP city and time the disbanding of your capitol for a turn where only your target city is size 3+. I tried my jump when my target city was 9, but it jumped to a size 4.