C3C: Is "Builder" still viable?

Hermann the Lombard · February 12, 2004, 13:27

By inclination, I'm a Builder and a Science Geek. So far in C3C I'm finding it much easier to be a Conqueror, or at least a Beat 'Em Up Early; Do What You Want Later (BEUEDWYWL...I don't think the acronym will catch on).

I was looking over the year-old thread "Civ choice for the "builder" and I'm wondering how the changes effect the strategy. I started a game as the Persians (on lowly Regent) and I feel like I'm floundering as I approach the Year One.

Continental map, and I started way down at the end of peninsula...but expanded fast enough to take over an adjacent (but waterless) peninsula. The nearest AI are a *long* way from my capital, well beyond the neck of the double peninsula. Once there, I found the Egyptians, the Russians, and the Greeks all cheek-by-jowl. I trotted a settler up to grab a grassland cow by a river as a suitable forward base and hoped-for border. [I *think* that was better than using that settler in close.] Of course that city is heavily corrupt, but I would hope to annex several cities from the AI (belated oscillating war, perhaps, with a late-Ancient Golden Age as I didn't need to fight early with my Immortals).

My tech is actually pretty good. I made it to Philosophy first, traded for many techs, basically I only need Currency and Construction to age. AI beat me to the Pyramids, but I switched to GL and got it (another reason my tech is good).

My economy is NOT. After my switch to Republic I noticed my cash flow was -41...so now I'm down to about 10% research, 20% lux to stay barely in the black. Thus I'm looking forward to Currency, and meanwhile I started to beat up the Egyptians in the hopes of extracting tribute and to build up a second group of cities up there. [I'm hoping to get an MGL to rush the FP, but I'm not that hopeful.]

I also tried to set up a Settler Pump, but since the cow was on plains and not grass, it won't be a 4-Turn Pump. Also no helpful high food/commerce tile...and I also keep going into disorder, sometimes not for reasons that I see.

I'd like someone to critique my strategy and position, if anyone is willing to look at it. I have the current position and the 3600 BC position.

-- HtL

Catt · February 12, 2004, 15:27

I can't critique your game at the moment, but I am sure someone will step up and give you feedback.

As to the thread title's question: Yes, being a builder is still quite viable, IMHO. There is a difference of opinion on whether the greater resource scarcity in the initial C3C releases unduly hamstrings a builder approach; my view is that it doesn't but others' view is that it does.

Catt

DrSpike · February 12, 2004, 15:48

I also think it hasn't really changed much from Vanilla/PTW.

If you mean can you build a nice empire with mostly peace, then of course yes, as was always the case. If you mean never warring then the answer (and it always was) is sometimes.

Some games you start too close to opponents. If the 'builder' player refuses to war then they can lose whether it's Vanilla/PTW or C3C. For me it's just about adapting.........if I am playing a spaceship game for instance I am quite happy to expand into space if I have it and not worry about war unless it becomes necessary. Equally start next to civ(s) and if you want land you'll have to take it at one point or another.

lethe · February 12, 2004, 17:27

I think you switched to republic too early. I used to do that alot too, but have learnt to hold off until core cities atleast have marketplaces up and running, or living dangerously and scrapping almost all military units...

vmxa1 · February 12, 2004, 17:37

Hermann the Lombard, it is hard to say much from the data posted.

I would say that a builder game is possible, certainly at Regent. depending on what you mean by that term. If it means total peace, not likey. If it means you don't start any wars and end them as soon as you can, then yes.

The catch is what the resource roulette wheel does. If you are missing a number of key resources, you will probably find it hard to aquire them without war.

Post some early saves, peferably the 4000bc and one about the time you switched governments.

lethe · February 12, 2004, 19:08

It's possible to do builder games on Emperor. I'd even say it's easier than it was in vanilla/ptw. Not because it's easier per se, but because you aren't constantly tempted to farm for leaders to hurry wonders.

But warmongering is off course much easier.

Strange, almost all changes made in Civ 3 compared to it's predecessors seems to favor the builder, yet it's (much) harder to play a builder at the higher levels than it was in Civ 2/SMAC.

Hermann the Lombard · February 13, 2004, 02:02

Well, I'm glad to hear a consensus that a Builder/Limited War strategy is still viable, at least on such a low level. That year-old thread implied that it was viable up to Monarch, but dicey above that (and hopeless at the highest levels). "Mostly peace" or "not starting any wars" sound OK, but I will tend to start limited wars for specific purposes, such as resource access or denial, lancing an AI boil, or even the occasional "Patience my _ss, I want to kill something!"

If I have extremely close neighbors at the start, I pick up my Vel Club and start oscillating.

It's likely that I did switch to Republic too soon, or at least with too many military units. If I was really itching to annex some Egyptian cities, it might have made sense to go for Monarchy...but I really wanted Republic for the Persians...and this way I got my Golden Age while in Republic.

I attach a zip file with two positions: 3600 BC and 370 BC (with 15 turns to go researching Republic). My next save was about 500 years later. Anyway, thanks to all for the advice!

-- HtL

Hermann the Lombard · February 13, 2004, 02:05

Hmm...no attachment. Let's try that again.

vmxa1 · February 13, 2004, 03:37

I am not sure if the what you discribe is a builder. More like opportunistic. Which is a common practice.

MrWhereItsAt · February 13, 2004, 04:49

A big yes to what vmxa just said.

As to the point of the thread, I think the resource scarcity issue may have been a big part of trying to make C3C more viable for builders than previous iterations were. Especially with extremely scarce later resources, there will be fewer civs with the ability to overwhelm another civ through sheer weapons technology, and thus you can defend yourself more effectively than before. With Riflemen coming in with no resource requirements and 6 defense, defense without resources is a more realistic option than attacking without them (Longbowmen attack 4

). Above Monarch may still be dicey - you will certainly need to start being quite nice to the AI, as they can be rather aggressive up there.

DrSpike · February 13, 2004, 07:11

Hmm, Catt posted that he thought the scarcity wasn't planned in the scarcity thread. Also I would add that even if this was not the case I don't think they were trying to make a builder game easier through the change.........if anything it makes it slightly harder overall for the builder, though I wouldn't go as far as SR does.

Hermann the Lombard · February 13, 2004, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I am not sure if the what you discribe is a builder. More like opportunistic. Which is a common practice.

Come to think of it, you're right...and the style was more or less new to me in Civ3. In Civ2 I did a bunch of OCC games, never building or taking a second city. I succeeded with cities as small as four pop (though never with only one). I also liked to set up civs with (say) four super cities, or with eight total cities, and it was perfectly viable to win that way. [Mind you, I've noticed occasional references here to OCC, so I gather it's still possible...but I'm not sure it would be on Deity as it was in Civ2.] I guess those games small civs with highly developed cities are what I *really* mean by "Builder." The opportunistic style I learned from Vel Part Two (and Three when it came out).

Resource Scarcity: I haven't had trouble with late-era scarcity because the game is usually over before that, and of course the Vel Doctrine includes wars for resource acquisition and denial. However, it sounds like it would be a good idea to make relative resource scarcity an option. Some of us really like the challenge of limited resources; others think it takes the fun out of the game. "It's not a problem, it's an opportunity."

-- HtL

Arrian · February 13, 2004, 12:32

The scarcity can make things difficult for the builder.

I've got an Emperor game going in which I started out builder (had my own island) and went warmonger (attacked Russia, which had 3 luxury types despite being one of the smallest civs around). I've been doing a lot of fighting in the industrial age, and have finally eeked out a lead in Land Area. I own roughly 1/4 of the world (with 40% of the pop). Yet I have the following:

2-3 horsies
2-3 sources of iron
1 source of saltpeter
2 sources of coal, one of which was *just* captured and is as yet unconnected
2 sources of rubber, one of which was *just* captured.
ZERO sources of oil.

The last one is a rather recent discovery. And it has sealed the fate of China. I was pondering hitting them anyway, but now I feel I must attack. They have 1 oil source, and of course a luxury. IIRC, the rest of the world's oil resides in Scandanavia and Mongolia, both of which HATE me and have repeatedly sneak attacked me.

Another vaguely irritating thing has been my inability to trade for 2 of the luxury types for almost the entire game (there was a window where I was able to get gems out of the Vikings, but since they sneak attacked me - twice - I haven't been able to get one for trade, even after peace was established). There just aren't enough to go around, and the AI will trade with itself before the human. I've never once seen furs available for trade (Mongols).

Continuing with the scarcity thing, the second biggest civ is Germany, behind me by a couple of percentage points in land area, and they have lacked saltpeter, coal and rubber for most of the time they have been aware of those resources. I believe the times they did not lack them, they were trading for them. It happens to have worked out nicely for me, because they would otherwise be a monstrous KAI. Instead, I've been able to use them as my ally against the evil Mongols and Vikings. Superior Mongol/Viking units versus superior German numbers, plus me. The result has been a blood-soaked stalemate with my civ gaining ground here and there. All but Scandy and China (island) are Fascists.

I could post it tonight if anyone feels it speaks to this issue...

-Arrian

lethe · February 13, 2004, 13:22

Ok, here goes:

1) You have too few workers. Way too few workers. Even with industrious you need atleast one worker per two cities. Eventually you reach a critical mass of workers, where you can get six tiles improved for a new city quickly, then you have enough workers.

2) Persepolis doesn't have a granary. Sinner! Unless my capital is somehow gimped I build a granary first. Yes, before any troops. On demi-god this requires some luxury slider loving to keep going, on regent it should be easy.

3) Aggresive expansion is good. But Antioch is too far up north. On a higher difficulty it would be culture flipped real fast, and even on Regent you stand a good chance of losing it. A better site for a forward base for the coming northward expansion would be the hill 889 from the volcano at the peninsula intersection.

I'll replay it and give a blow-by-blow report of when and why I did things.

vmxa1 · February 13, 2004, 14:14

You beat me to the punch. A quick look shows 3 workers. I would like one per city. You do have a few in the works, but that is another problem.

One city is making a worker and it is size 1 and will not grow in time to build the worker. This mean you are wasting the time. No sense in building a worker or a settler if it can not be complete on schedule, due to the towns size. IOW you can't make a worker in 3 turns if the town is not going to be size 2 at that time.
If it will not grow to size 2 for 7 turns, you are not going to get that worker.

I do not like to see workers spent on colonies ever, but surely not so early in the game. A town should be planet next to the resource instead. You can wait for it and use the worker to get something done.

I do not have a problem with a new town making a unit ealry in the game without a barracks. I do how ever not want to see units like immortals being build with out one. A warrior ok, UU no thanks.

The lack of workers cost you gold, which cost you research. You see Pasagradae with two tiles impoved and not being worked. A mined hill not being worked. The mining of the hill was expensive in terms of worker turns and should not be done with out a use.

I do not really see any camps or pumps. A layout for that would see the camps very close to the capitol. It is not a great location for camps and pumps, but you do what you can.

I see very few mines and a number of bonus grassland tiles not mined, this is the price of the lack of workers.

I would move to get towns to claim those luxs.

lethe · February 13, 2004, 15:38

Wait, I won't replay it. It's Friday, and unlike other people I have busy weekends and pretty free weekdays. Oh well.

Another thought: Don't build the Pyramids. Unless you are going for a One City Cultural win don't build early wonders at all. Let the AI build them for you. Hmm, this goes against the pure builder thought I guess. But you claimed to be an opportunist. It's pretty likely someone on your landmass will build em.

I'll disagree with vxma1, there is no reason to use camps with this start. You are forced into a 3-tile expansion scheme with the shape of the land, and so would be very cramped if you built camps. Especially with a nice river to allow core cities to grow to 12 very early. Reading up on camps is a good idea though.

Threads on REXing and Camps should be read.

vmxa1 · February 13, 2004, 17:40

I did not say camps should be used. He said he had some and I said I don't see them.
It matters not to me if they are used or not at Regent. Don't forget we have the advantage of seeing the map, so we know it is not very amendable to camps.

You will still need a place dedicated to making workers and troops. The difference between that and a camp is you disband a camp at some point (except at Sid).

lethe · February 13, 2004, 19:47

Ok, at the risk of totally derailing this thread, why don't you disband your camps at Sid level?

vmxa1 · February 13, 2004, 21:30

Because you will need to keep making units. Well I may have make a mistake, but that is what I did. The AI will have hundreds of units in the early industrial age at Sid. You had better be making replacement units and to stop them from making it to the limit (4096) and leaving you with too few to fight back. I keep 3 camps building non stop.

Hermann the Lombard · February 14, 2004, 00:35

Um...in passing on my way to (believe it or not) sleep, I don't think I said I had any camps. Just did a quick text search and the first mention of "camp" is in one of vmxa1's messages. Maybe I said it by another name. My usual is one worker per city, and I'm very surprised to hear I only have three total (*very* surprised). OTOH, I just lost a couple to a "massive barbarian uprising" (which I forget how to avert). Hey! Don't I have two workers hiding from chariots right now, up north?

I'm familiar with the REX threads, though I really wasn't going that route this game. I still tend to more perfectionistic wider spacing, though in AU501 I put my second city two away from my first. I've read a bunch about trying to set up 4-turn settler pumps (and am I mistaken in thinking this position will work for 5-turn, but not 4-turn?) OTOH, I'm not familiar with threads about camps. Link, please?

Have a nice weekend, at or away from the keyboard! Thanks again for continuing advice. "I am but an egg."

-- HtL

vmxa1 · February 14, 2004, 00:47

It was my fault, you used the term pump and I used camp. I treat them the same, but some consider it to be for settlers.

A pump cn be any number of turns in my book. You make them as short as you can. If it is 5 or 6, so be it.

Many use the term camp for troops production, but my camps often put out worker and settlers at times. It depends on how fast it is growing. I will use workers or settlers to keep the size in line to avoid too many unhappy citizens.

Sorry for any confusion.

vmxa1 · February 14, 2004, 03:40

Hermann the Lombard in your first post what was the year> You mentioned year one, so is that 1AD time frame?

vmxa1 · February 14, 2004, 17:36

Hermann the Lombard I ran it out to 330AD before anyone wanted to fight. Russia made a demand for gold, not likely.

They are slightly ahead in score due to making too many troops.
My culture will soon swamp them as it so much bigger.
Pyramids, GL, Colossus, and Mausoleum done. Great Lighthouse underway.

Stopped expanding for a time as the GL trigger a GA. Soon could start up again.

Both vulcanos blew, so took a hit in the capitol. So I would say it would not be hard to play with no starting wars.

Need to switch now to republic, but will only 23 units and 4 or 5 cities over size 6, it should not be an issue.

The GL will probably not net much now as three of us at least are in the Middle Ages. You would need to research hard enough to be first to techs now.

Need to get a city down for the grapes as no lux so far. The Russians dropped a city on the incense. That will be either flip or captured. You have to wait until it get a second pop or a culture bump.

I did the run with no camps and loose placement, no heavy micro managing. This was so to see if it could be claimed a builder play was valid.

Hermann the Lombard · February 14, 2004, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Hermann the Lombard in your first post what was the year> You mentioned year one, so is that 1AD time frame?

You're not confused, but I sometimes am! We were using different terms *and* different people use them differently. I'm just getting the hang of pumping in AU-501, and I'd still slip off the 4-turn cycle from time to time...but ran out of continent about that time.

Turned out to be 370 BC (as the last saved BC position). I have since played to about 260 AD. I probably remember having more workers from having played on.

Quote:

[SIZE=1]Hermann the Lombard I ran it out to 330AD before anyone wanted to fight. Russia made a demand for gold, not likely..

The only reason I fought earlier is because I picked the fight...to expand my northern holding for a hoped-for FP and figuring that more cities would help me resist cultural reversion. At Regent, *maybe*...

Quote:

[SIZE=1] My culture will soon swamp them as it so much bigger. Pyramids, GL, Colossus, and Mausoleum done. Great Lighthouse underway.

Some builder I am; I got only the one Wonder.

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Both vulcanos blew, so took a hit in the capitoL.

There goes the neighborhood!

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Need to switch now to republic, but will only 23 units and 4 or 5 cities over size 6, it should not be an issue.

Belligerent that I chose to be, I overbuilt units, so switching to Republic cost a bundle. If I was going to fight, I suppose I should have chosen Monarchy. If Religious, switching would be feasible.

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Need to get a city down for the grapes as no lux so far. The Russians dropped a city on the incense. That will be either flip or captured. You have to wait until it get a second pop or a culture bump.

Yeah, I put two cities down there (plus the one SE of the volcano), and plan to build more...in part so the area isn't a magnet for AI settler teams. At least the Egyptian teams are supplying me with workers.

Quote:

[SIZE=1] I did the run with no camps and loose placement, no heavy micro managing. This was so to see if it could be claimed a builder play was valid.

The capital can be a camp anyway, given ample food and shields. Yeah, I know, some builder if I don't make my capital a showpiece! Anyway, thanks so much for looking at my game. Right now I'm belatedly trying AU-501. Just got my first Dromon so I'm off to look at the second set of DARs. I'm learning a lot and having fun!

smellymummy · February 14, 2004, 18:06

builder is still possible. I did it recently on emperor as the babylonians, 9 squared cities and with a space race victory, although a lower than normal score

i think to win as builder, a religious/scientific/industrious/agri civ is a must.

vmxa1 · February 14, 2004, 19:25

Hermann the Lombard I will look forward to your AAR on AU501. It was a large map, coming at a time when I had just played a Huge and then Large. I started it at deity and realized it was a large and decided I did not want to play a large at that point, plus I am not fond of island maps.