The Breath of God: Only the Penitent Man shall pass

[badams52]

Originally posted by Catt
Much to comment on, but not much time to post. I'd just leave for now this inflamatory commentary: if the goal is simply the most efficient method to win the game, consistently, while accepting the least risk of losing, then neither temples (early or late) nor any other city improvement other than (perhaps) barracks are required. Units, and conquest, win the game. The further you move up the difficulty tree, the more true this becomes. Imagine playing a "Super Deity" level where the AI builds at a 40% (or 30% or 20%) human cost. Units, units, and more units are the prescription for that ailment, IMHO, until at some point the game becomes "unbeatable."

Hmmm. This makes me wonder just how little infrastructure you need to win at Civ 3. Of course, with the patches, this has changed much from the beginnings when Vel created his infamous vassal strategy. But I wonder if one could win at all levels without building a single improvement in his cities, only units.

I can just see it now, first there was OCC, now there's a new kid on the block: NIC.

With such constraints, the only victories available would be domination, conquest, diplomatic, and histograph with diplomatic and histograph the more difficult to attain.

Trading for techs would be a must just so that you could keep up with the techs. This part is feasible and I've often kept myself at 0 science while wheeling and dealing to get the techs needed to stay close to the AI.

Your cities wouldn't be able to grow above 12, and many would be stuck at size 6, which would help stop the unhappiness going on. And corruption would run rampant without an FP or courthouses.

I don't think NIC would be as difficult as OCC, but then again, I've never tried OCC - not my idea of fun.

[Arrian]

It might work, but MAN that would be ugly.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

With NIC, how would you keep your civvies happy? How would you enhance your research, gold, or production.

You would probably be limited to towns, or cities at most. Then what would you do if you found yourself stuck on a bleepin' small continent with only ONE lux??
Quit? (not allowed)

[Mazarin]

well... just some comments on the strength of temples: on emperor I really enjoy playing as the egyptians with cult. link on...not that I like attacking geece or carthage with their 3-defence. Culture makes it more unlikely to be attacked early -thats why the first thing I build are temples (no barbs). Place some cities between two or three enemy cities..pop-rush a temple ASAP and you'll soon have several flips that will really damage your opponent. The Romans are my favourite victim as they don't seem to build anything but military in the ancient era. With 20times the culture they have it is easy to reduce them to about 5 cities while you have 15. IMHO this is the most usefull bonus of religious: anarchy/ cheap cathedrals wouldn't be worth taking it. That works exellent on emperor and below...deity is completely different for me: I don't build temples early that's why I only take industrious civs on that level (egypt/china and persians are my favorites)...but I've read several threads where early temples were extremely usefull at that level.

[badams52]

Originally posted by Jaybe
With NIC, how would you keep your civvies happy? How would you enhance your research, gold, or production.

Luxuries, units, entertainers and the luxury slider. Though luxuries wouldn't be as great without marketplaces.

And only the capital civ could use 21 tiles, all the others would be stuck at 9 unless you overlap your cities. So they wouldn't be able to grow into large metros without many, many luxuries.

Going back on a saved game (though I know it's not the best way to test this) I took out the improvements for many cities (but couldn't take back the culture) narrowed their workable tiles to the 9 square radius and I could get cities up to size of 9 with 10 per turn, but using a tiny map, the city next to it had production of 6 + 3 waste. The capital would get much more production since it has the full use of the 21 radius.

:Hmmm: Now I'm curious. I may just have to try NIC out standard map 8 civs.

[Meldor]

I played in an SG at CFC that was pretty close, no building of any culture building at all. All of the cities were built with three spaces between them to lock borders. We ended with a conquest win after a long time. The shear number of cities was amazing. The game was won by shear numbers. Even with corruption rampent, you can still get an income that allows you to cash build all the units you need even in one shield towns. This game was run at monarch level on a large map. Not something I would do again, if I had the choice.

If I had to choose between industrious and religous, I go for industrious. The shield advantage is to me the trump card. I can still build those early temple, I just chop a little forest to boost it along.

There are four times when industrious workers are out pacing the others.

Early game - get shields into cities sooner, more money sooner, road network up and running sooner. More shields = more everything. More money = more tech,happiness. I can place a temple (happiness only) in every city I have by notching the lux slider up one while needed. Early on, this means more settlers, workers, military, and then temples. I don't build early temples and I still don't have culture flips.

After foresting - A big boost to building that infrastructure is the ability to plant and chop forests to get those critical buildings in sooner. When you can do it at twice the rate....sweet. Yes, you can only polant and chop once per square, but why pass it up? Except for critical squares you need to get things going, all squares that can be forested should get the treatment.

Between Knights and Cav - I just lve using the "sappers" to get me that extra movement point to reach that extra city or two. When rails hit it is almost criminal! Rail to a towns border, hit it with Cav, rail to the city, move the cav back to heal and move in defenders, move to the next city. Can't say enough about "sappers". They are even better than combat settlers when you have a movement of three attacker.

After rails and demo - Being able to lay the rails faster than anyone else is just like taking candy from a baby. GDP goes up at twice the rate, improvements are so fast you wonder if you slept a turn.

After Modern Armour - If your game gets this far, the ability to use "sappers" in the manner above is a bonus. Not as important as most AI jby this time have a rail net. However, a lot of us love to pillage, and who better to get those goodies back on-line than your faster workers.

I like religious as well, don't get me wrong, but I can get around most of the disadvantages of not using the trait a lot faster than I can without industrious. I time my production so that I can get passed the anarchy (if needed) during the middle of the war. I can pretty well judge when the war is about over, and can revolt before the end of the war, so I am up and running just as peace comes through.
As far as happiness goes, the early temples effect only one town, and I can do a cheaper more effective job using the lux slider early in the game. After things settle down and the first age is about over, then I start building those temples.

Of course, this is all just MHO.

[High_Lord]

Religious is an awesome trait...combined with MILITARISTIC!! I have to admit I am an Ancient Times war mongler ....when I send out my first attack wave of archers then I start on my temple so it will be done by the time my closest enemy is!!

also, what is up with "culture-link", is that a new PTW tab? does it refer to whom you start the game next to?

[Mazarin]

I don't like the rel./mil. combination...I either build temples or baraks/units in the ancient era...so for both of these traits industrious is the ideal match. Why building temples if you're going to conquer your nearest enemies with archers anyway?
cult. link is a part of default rules, it means that civs from the same cult. background start next to each other (e.g. chinese/indians) this option allows you many strategies that would be more difficult without cult. link: conquest by culture is really difficult if all your neighbours are religious

[High_Lord]

Originally posted by Mazarin
I don't like the rel./mil. combination...I either build temples or baraks/units in the ancient era...so for both of these traits industrious is the ideal match. Why building temples if you're going to conquer your nearest enemies with archers anyway?

Man, cause those damn foreigners from way up north, across the sea, to the east and west cant wait to set up little cities on my borders, or in spots where I razed Babylon,etc...for me its not enough usually to just kick the butt of my neighbor I need a cultural investment so later on , throughout the middle ages those little corrupt gems around my country and far from thier own liege start a-flippin' ana-floppin'

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by High_Lord
...
also, what is up with "culture-link", is that a new PTW tab? does it refer to whom you start the game next to?

No, it's been there for quite some time;
and yes, it does refer to who you are likely to start next to.
Examples: Rome, Greece & Egypt; or Americans, Iroquois & Aztecs.

BTW, they are also friendlier to you also.

[badams52]

Bump.

This thread has the relevant background info regarding the NIC proposal I recently made and think it would benefit those taking the challenge themselves.

[realpolitic]

High early culture is great. Build a temple early, and your first wars can end near you enmies capitals, leaving their civs asymetrical, and therefore more corrupt. Then attack to the next civ, do the same thing etc.

[fanes7]

the AI builds at a 60% human cost, and population grown is same. I don't thinks its a problem, more enemy units means more upgrading.