Strategy Notes From Vel - The Early Game....

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Kriton
4. Does the AI value techs based on their research cost only?

From what i remember, NO.

A militaristic civ would value techs different to a peaceful civ, so its not based only on their research cost alone. For example, the Zulus would see "Warrior Code" or such as a must-have tech, while for the Indians, it would just be a tech to further them along the tree, to get to the cultural advances.

Hope that was understandable

[vmxa1]

No I know you can not reload to change the out come, I mean in completely separate battles with different units. Even if I concede it to a toss up (and I do not), I said vets and even elites again regulars? I agree it is fine to lose in an other wise lopside battle, just not often. You mention things that do not exist in the game as an example such as weapons and tatics as the cause as the reason to lose in those instances, I say fine, but how often can I expect to get jammed by a super smart rebel? If I am to be in a maze of stone works for them to hide in and jump out all I ask is let me know before hand. Of all the battles I see it seems they do not come out as one would expect (immortal vets losing to warriors now (new game). All are in favor of the AI, I have never had such a victory? I barely won a battle with an elite immortal on a hill against a spearman regular just before coming here. I bet if the AI had the immortal, I would have done no damage. Maybe I am being premature to make this call as I have only played 7 games so far, but it is very suspicous. The AI is smart, though, they will send in someone to attack your unit if it is wonded. They will retreat if they can save their own and will come in force, well done.

[Ghengis Thom]

Stiel, I swear that I had this city all by itself that had horses. And when the road was severed this city could make Horseman, it was not my capital.
I believe only Luxuries have to get to the capitol. Strategic is on a city by city basis.

Ghengis Thom

[Dark Hawk]

First things first, this thread is the god of strategy.

Brilliant strategies from everyone posting, and best of all, everyone understands that losing is a part of every and any game. Like they say, "Whatever doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger."

On to what I wanted to say. I am totally new to the civilization genre of games meaning I have never played civ1 or civ2 but I have played many games of civ3 so that should account for something.

The AI doesn't use maps. They know where you are, what weaknesses you have, and where to strike, even on the easiest of difficulties.

In one of my games, I was playing as the persians and I was at war with the indians. I was in south africa, india to the north. Basically, I pushed all my military to the borders leaving my capital undefended because it was the farthest away from the battle.

Can you say backdoor-galley-horseman rush? I mean, they didn't even establish an embassy with me yet, let alone trade world maps with me. It really sucked to see that the AI knows everything about you without having to pay for it.

Oh well, at least I learned something from that game, keep all cities defended unless you want to lose it. Simple as that.

[vmxa1]

I don't know if they cheat or not, but even in Civ2, I only leave cities uncovered if they are inland and can not be reached in one turn (no RR access). They will definetly show up if you have a hole. I like to lure them with one or two worker or even a settler close to the border and when they come, jump out with mobile force (knights/calv whatever). Kill them and recover the workers. I finaly figured that unlike civ2, you must keep pumping out troops, even when this look good. No more one or two defenders in towns. When they come it will be with numbers until you cut down their numbers.

[Just My 2 Cents]

Can't wait for your strat guide Vel, you did a bang-up job with SMACX and are THE MAN.

IMHO I feel sacrificing a couple pop points to rush build a cultural city improvement while in Despotism is totally worth it from an accumulated culture score standpoint considering it's best to lose population on the lower end than the higher end... we all get to a point where your cities are maxed at size 12 and waiting for hospitals so instead of having those cities simply wait kill off some of your citizens and rush build improvements.

I played two games, both as the Americans (not a "cultural" civ per se esp. in the early game) on Monarch level. In the first game I didn't play my usual Civ/SMACX style (expand like a maniac) and instead concentrated on building cultural improvements as quickly as possible, even at the expense of population. The second I played my usual style and had the fortune of being on a fairly large continent alone.

Long story short, in the first game I "conquered" 7 cities due to my culture (rush built temples and libraries ASAP)... by the time I achieved the spaceship victory I was first in culture. In the second game, despite the fact I had a much larger civilization (with many many more culture producing improvements) I was always lagging behind in culture to the Egyptians, Greeks and Germans.

Point is get those improvements out as fast as you can because the accumulated points make a difference later in the game. For example if you can be the first civ to build a temple or a library and can ensure that these improvements are never destroyed you will reap huge rewards by the end game.

just my two cents...

[Kriton]

IMHO I feel sacrificing a couple pop points to rush build a cultural city improvement while in Despotism is totally worth it from an accumulated culture score standpoint considering it's best to lose population on the lower end than the higher end... we all get to a point where your cities are maxed at size 12 and waiting for hospitals so instead of having those cities simply wait kill off some of your citizens and rush build improvements.

Yes, I agree. Consider that each pop is worth 20 shields. In diety/emp you get unhappy quickly. Rushing temples is great, especially if you're not a religious civ. And like you said, you may end up stagnating at 6 or 12, but by 12 I should hope you're out of despotism.

Now, I just had an interesting game. I started on the very tip of a continent as the Chinese (my fav) with the Americans above me. Indians very far and Iroquios every further . So, I started building archers early and an extra city. I took a couple of american cities and then bargained for peace. I kept doing this over and over. I found nobody else -- and I was stuck in a corner -- so I had to keep building archers, taking US cities and getting their tech through peace.

When I finally met the Indians, I was producing horsemen and rush building them when necessary. Almost all were vets. I took the second last US city and got 5 techs and all their money out of them. Then when I had enough horsemen, I went after the Indians. The problem was, they had War Elephants by this time! But my great military skill proved more than a match. I was at their capital and one unit away from victory, but my horsemen couldn't heal in enemy territory, so they got killed eventually. I opted for peace and went Republic. I never got any iron and nobody had any extra for trade, so I couldn't build my UU or even a swordsman. So I'm screwed.

Now I want to know a few things from the experts here.

1. Is it hopeless if I'm stuck in a corner (where my palace is half unused)?

2. Should I attack with archers or wait for horsemen/swordsmen?

3. Which units should I use against spearmen?

4. If I have one spearman for defence in a city, should I build a warrior or a wall for better defence?

5. What is a better unit for attack, horseman or swordsman? I figure the fact that the horseman doesn't die offsets his lesser attack/defence.

6. I find that it is cheaper to buy tech from others when I'm behind and use the extra money to rush build in Republic. Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

7. Lastly, exactly what effect does WLT*D have? Can it be used as a strategy (like growing your pop as in Civ1)?

I really appreciate the feedback so far. Thanks!

4. Does the AI value techs based on their research cost only?

I should've been more clear about this question. Question 6 above is what I was really looking for. I know techs become cheaper to research if more civs already have it, but if you buy it from them, will it be cheaper if more civs already have it?

Time to conquer! Bye...

[Kriton]

Here's a savegame. I hope somebody will look at it and give me some pointers. Thanks

[quinalla]

Thanks Vel and everyone else for all the great strategy tips. I have never played a civ game until civ 3, so I was pretty clueless when I started, but this thread helped a lot! Oh, and I gotta say I love to hate the AI, you can't turn your back on them for a second, makes it quite a challenge.

-quinalla

[Lohrax]

Kriton - my answers to your quesitons, which reveals a little about my playing style:

1. I wouldn't consider a corner as being hopeless unless you had no resources. Corner + relocated palace + Forbidden Palace allows for a great deal of one-axis expansion. Based on my own experience, my empires tend to form ellipsoidal shapes with the palace and FP at the focal points. That being said, most of my empires expand along only one axis anyway (more than one kills you with corruption).

2. Attacking with archers against warriors is doable, but prepare to take some losses. Attacking with archers against spearmen is worse. Horsemen allow for retreat, which means it becomes a hit point battle. Against a non-militaristic civ, I would use horsemen to hit spearman. Against a militaristic civ (whose defenders are going to get promoted faster), I would wait and use catapults + horsemen to soften up, and then finish up with swordsmen. There are inherent advantages present in using combined arms strategies - use 'em!

3. Combined arms, or wait until cavalry come along...

4. Hmmm...build warrior or wall? Well, I would build another spearman. The wall will cost you one gold, but a military unit won't (unless you've got a large army). The wall will give your one unit a defense bonus, but it is still one unit - you lose it and you're in trouble. A second unit gives you additional defensive capability, as well as mobile defense for workers improving tiles and settlers going out to found new cities.

5. Horsemen to soften up defenses, swordsman to go in and finish the job.

6. Under despotism, I trade pop for production at every opportunity; and try to max out my happiness improvements while still a despot. I use gold for buying tech and trading luxuries/resources. Under Republic, I've hopefully built all the happiness improvements so I can afford to set my science rate higher.

7. Never heard of WLT*D?

Enjoy, and I'll be taking a look at your save game tonight!

Lohrax

"I love the smell of perfume in the morning....smells like...victory!"

[Gunther]

Kriton:

Ill try to answer your questions one by one.

1. No, its not hopeless. You can always move your palace, and you can build the forbidden palace. It would be a good idea to plan your future empire now and build your palace in the location that will fit your future situation (Meaning your situation after you do all the expansion / conquests your planning on). Look at Vel’s palace and FP placement chart, shoot to make your empire look like that if you can (But don’t give up resources just to have an empire with a pretty shape).

2. I tend to build up defense and production power before I war. But I have been playing in 16 civ games lately, and let me tell you the AI is bloodthirsty! If you feel you can win and hold on to the cities you capture then I say go for it. If not, then hold off and build power. What you don’t want to do is let the AI get too far ahead of you in the tech race or let it develop its infrastructure much beyond your own. War costs money and time, and if all you do is fight the other AI civs may get ahead of you.

3. You can use a horseman / swordsman combo on spearman, use the horseman to soften the spearman up then the swordsman to finish him off. Try not to let the spearman have a terrain advantage.

4. One spearman is not good enough in a city that may be attacked. If I’m involved in a big war I to try to get 2 or 3 (or more) spearmen in those cities on the front lines plus walls plus a counter attacker for cleaning up the wounded enemy attackers (Horseman or knights are great for this but any attack unit will do). But for me I would put in a second unit then walls.

5. In regards to your question horseman vs. swordsman I think, as with many things in this game there is no real best, it’s a matter of personal preference and style.

I have found that horseman / knights / war elephants are awesome, if you employ a strategy that uses their mobility to its full effect. The obvious is that they can retreat, so they rarely die if you protect them properly, and it costs nothing to fortify them till they regain health.
Secondly, they can counter attack weakened enemy units very effectively. I like to station one or to mobile attackers in every border city (And most other cities). When the enemy attacks me and retreats with one bar of health left, I send out the horseman / knight / elephant / Calvary to kill the weak unit, and due to their mobility they can return to the protection of the city in the same turn.
Thirdly, since I keep one or 2 mobile units in most cities, I can quickly mobilize them into a very formidable attacking force. As the pesky American’s and Zulu’s will tell you in my last game, they attacked, I defended, and within 5 turns I had 10 - 15 elephants attacking one of their cities. As the city fell I moved onto the next (Since the wounded elephants are smart enough to retreat, I lost none).

Swordsmen, archers and longbow men are a little different. They are cheaper / faster to build then their elephant / Calvary counterparts, they are slower and they cannot defend well (So they require a pikeman or musketman escort) but in some cases they attack better. I find these units to be good if you want to build a cheap army quickly. 10 swordsmen have a better chance of taking a city than 10 horsemen, but you might lose a few in the process.


6. I like to buy techs from one civ and then sell it to all others. You can make some good extra gold this way.
As the game goes on (In regent anyway) I tend to become the tech leader, then I usually don’t sell military techs.


7. Not sure what you’re asking.


Hope this helps.


Gunther.

[hoyatables]

Okay, so I had two interesting games this weekend.
I did a tiny map, four civs, and we were all on one continent. Well, I immediately got hemmed in on the east side by the British, and only had about four cities, which soon expanded to six as i settled a mountain for iron and desert for potential saltpeter.
I decided to go for diplomacy, and had a gracious rating with the Brits, Japanese, and Indians. The Japanese tried to settle in my area once or twice, but I would pretty quickly capture their cities by culture.
The only problem? I had kinda neglected defense, because I had such a great rating. Well, just as I got gunpowder, wouldn't you know it? The Brits sweep in and attack - a GRACIOUS rating and they attack? UN&*^*^BELIEVABLE! I had no response. I held my own for a while by rushing some musketmen, but when I retaliated and attacked a weakened cavalry unit, the Indians jumped in.
I did make things more interesting by getting the Japanese on my side and giving them one of my cities. eventually I gave them all and lost the rest because I didn't feel like giving in to the Brits ridiculous demands.
Moral: Diplomacy sucks. Sword is mightier than the pen.

Onto strategy lesson from game two. Went back, finally, to the French I know and love. It's just easier that way. Did panagea because I was sick of getting stuck on an isolated island, and of course I get stuck on the tip of a peninsula. But I was lucky: three of my core five cities had either Spices, Dyes, or Wine. Big groups, too. SO here's a thought - when you are exploring and find a nice trove, send out a settler right away and build a city. If nothing else, that city will have immediate access to the resources to help with happiness until you link them up to the rest of the empire. It should help.

**Got stuck with no iron or horses. No chance of an early army. I have now explored the DEPTHS of early combat with a civ other than Persians or Aztecs. NOT worth it unless you are a) Militaristic, b) sitting on top of iron and horses AND c) have at least twice what you think you need to win a battle. The costs are too high and you will stunt early growth otherwise. What I've found works best is sending out a couple of early units to explore, and when you get those cheesy warriors, bring them back to the cities for reinforcements. And If you find a trove of barbarians, send out your swordsmen/horsemen troops for some on the job training. They'll easily jump up to veteran/elite status. Building barracks also, obviously, helps out.

If you are missing these things, you'll have a devil of a time. The AI seems to have at least three units per city, defying all explanations. Very frustrating for most of my repeated efforts. From now on I will stick to fighting wars when i know I have the advantage - tanks rolling over knights is much more enjoyable.

[Velociryx]

'afternoon all! I'm chiming in late, I know....LOL...been caught up in the Thanksgiving-preparations rush 'round here, and have had only limited time to Civ....

But! I wanted to say a quick thank you for the kind words and compliments, and also mention that it does indeed appear that there will be a Vel's Civ Guide....seems like the interest in such a project is certainly there, so how can I refuse!?

I'm neck deep in writing a LONG article re: all the civs, and here's the first part of that in-depth analysis....just wanted to get SOMETHING finished today to put up here to get your opinion on!

-=Vel=-


The Factions – A closer analysis (Part One)

Before we can begin picking apart the factions (and that’s in the works as I type this….it’s just that the article wound up taking far longer to type than I had originally anticipated, and I wanted to get something out today), it would be insightful to take a close look at one of the key aspects that define Civs. Their tendencies, and the advantages of those tendencies. With that in mind, here’s a quick survey of the strengths and weaknesses of the various tendencies that define Civs:

Expansionist:
Starting Tech = Pottery (Grainery)
Free Scout at game Start (2 Move/ 0 Attack Exploration Unit)
Goody Huts = More good stuff & no barbarians

The usefulness of this trait is directly tied to world size and the amount of water you have selected for your planet. Small worlds, or worlds without much land will GREATLY disadvantage this trait’s strongest points. Conversely, the larger the planet/more land to be had, the stronger this trait becomes.

Keep in mind too, that this is an almost entirely early game trait. It’s only useful as long as there are huts to be “popped,” and land to be explored. After that, it becomes largely useless (save for the fact that you start with the tech for graineries, which essentially allows you to double your growth rates in cities, thus expand even faster!). The lesson here: Expansionist Civs live and die by their early game! A strong opener will set you up for an even stronger mid-game. Falter once during the Ancient era though, and you’ll spend the bulk of your time playing catch-up.

Militaristic:
Starting Tech = Warrior Code
Military units gain morale faster, higher chance of generating a leader, barracks are half price.

A good trait, but not a great one. Even with a militaristic civ, it’s frustratingly hard to generate leaders, and with even moderately active barbarians milling about, most civs will not have any great difficulty in training elite warriors of various stripes, thus limiting the impact of two of the strongest selling points of this trait.

Armies too, are a good bit weaker than they should be, further limiting the power of the Militaristic trait.

Still, it does have its advantages. Long-term, you WILL gain more Great Leaders than your non-militaristic rivals, which is essentially a free pass at wonder-building (and don’t bother to build a small wonder with a GL….save them for major wonder-building to steal a juicy wonder out from under a Civ that has been hard at work on it for half a century or more!). And Armies, while not the powerhouses we initially envisioned them to be, are still useful in certain situations, and the creation of your first army (actually, the army’s first victory) leads to minor wonders that cannot be created otherwise.

To a lesser degree than Expansionist Civs, Militarism’s usefulness is tied to world size in reverse. Cheaper barracks means faster barracks, and on Tiny maps, the several turns faster barracks construction can make or break your game. As world size increases, and with it, the distances between Civs, this ability begins to diminish in impact, though not nearly to the extent that Expansionistic Civs suffer under tiny maps.

In all, the Militaristic trait is a collection of decent abilities, none of which truly stand out, but when combined, make a sturdy-enough Civ Trait.

Commercial:
Starting Tech: Alphabet
Less Corruption in cities
1 Extra Gold in each 7+ City

A powerful trait by any definition, for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, with Corruption such a killer to city productivity, ANY means of combating it is a good thing, and Civs with this trait come with a built-in advantage. Thus, you can expect to see Commercial Civs with larger, more productive empires on the whole. Larger Empires = More production centers. More production centers = more territory controlled, more access to resources, and more places that units can be built in a reasonable amount of time.

As you might expect then, the Commercial trait doesn’t really come into its own until the mid-game.

After all, when you’ve only got two or three cities, and they’re all pretty close together, corruption isn’t an issue at all! But, as your Empire matures and grows….as you expand and begin to flex your muscles a bit, you’ll find this trait moves from “helpful,” to “invaluable” in its overall value.

As an added benefit, the Commercial Civ starts with a VERY attractive tech, along the path toward Republic and the Great Library!! This fact simply cannot be overstated, and is hugely important in planning your Civ’s future!

Scientific:
Starting Tech: Bronze Working
Free Tech advance as you enter each new age, lab-enhancing infrastructure is half price.

By itself, the free tech is a NICE boon for this ability to have, but when added to the fact that everything that enhances your labs (libraries, universities, research centers, etc) is half price for you, and you’ve got yourself an EXTREMELY attractive Civ trait! (mostly because there are actually quite a number of lab-enhancing facilities!).

No matter how you look at it, “Scientific” is a tough act to follow, but they have yet one more ability that the casual player may not have thought of, and it relates to their starting tech.

No…the ability to build Spearmen from the get-go isn’t it! LOL…true, that’s a nice boon, but even MORE important is the fact that the Scientific Civs are exactly one tech out from Iron Working.

He who discovers where the iron deposits are first can play a resource denial type of game with regards to city placement and find himself in an absolutely unbeatable ancient-era position very quickly! (How hard do you suppose it would be to defeat your opponent KNOWING that you had a monopoly on your continent’s iron supply, or at the very least knowing that your opponent had no iron at all for the foreseeable future?).

The proximity to Iron Working is what makes the Scientific trait a true gem….the free tech and cheaper facilities are just a wonderful bonus!

Industrious:
Starting Tech: Masonry
Double-speed Workers
Extra production shields in large cities (1 in ea. 7+ City)

The production bonus is minor, and though it’s impact will be felt for the better part of the game, it is not this trait’s strongest selling point by any means.

First and foremost is the double-speed worker ability. This simply cannot be overstated! And the first time you have to clear out jungle tiles, you’ll be eternally grateful for your industrious workers! In the early game, those workers can really be a godsend, allowing for lighting quick road construction to speed your settlers on their way, and bulking up your mineral counts at selected bases faster than you’d ever have believed possible! Worker speed alone would be reason enough to favor this Civ trait, but that’s not all you get!

Have a look at your starting tech, and the GREAT early game wonder that comes with it! (and with rapid expansion, your Civ can be working on this project well before the others even THINK about starting it!) No matter how you look at it, Industrious is one of the strongest traits in the game!

Religious:
Starting Tech: Ceremonial Burial
Happiness-producing builds are half price, anarchy only lasts one turn.

This trait is all about control of your citizens. You get a LOT of city improvements for half off, and they ALL help keep the masses content. When you want to switch from one form of government to another, forget decades of turmoil. One measly turn, and you’re back in charge and churning along like nobody’s business.

Considering that most Civ’s will make 3-4 government switches during the course of a game, and that a city totally shuts down when unhappy citizens riot, and the advantages of this trait become clear.

It’s all about turn advantage here. Your cities will be among the happiest in the world, and switching government types is a piece of cake, enabling you to take advantage of mid-game political situations, declare war (switching to communism and using population to rush….well, anything you want), then switching back when your objectives have been reached, and reaping the benefits of instant Democracy!

And, considering how many happiness-enhancing buildings there are, you can all but guarantee that you’ll be one of the leading contenders in the Culture war!

Your starting tech is on a direct path to Monarchy, which is good….the more government types you have to choose from when you go to make a switch, the better for you, and playing to your natural strength in starting tech, you’re fairly well-suited to go ahead and beeline for Monarchy in any case.

The next installment of this piece will take a look at the various factions in the game, in terms of their Civ-Traits and Special Units, and offer up specific in-game strats for getting the most out of each.

-V.

[Gunther]

I thought I would add in one of my early game strategies…

I am playing as India, and I’m having a lot of success with them because of their religious trait. It is simply awesome to have God with you in the early years during the REX phase. The ever-expanding cultural influence is a divine blessing. In a well-located city (one with good food squares) I will build warrior, warrior, settler, temple, settler… with the temple taking between 10 – 15 turns (assuming I have built a mine or the city is placed in a good spot).
By the time I get into mid REX where the AI civs are beginning to compete with me for land, all my border cities have temples, which seals the holes in the border and gives me the chance for a cultural conversion of their cities.
By the time we get into the end of REX just about all of my cities have made their first cultural border expansion, and a lot of them have made their second. So all the little unclaimed holes that are often left in the middle of a young empire, the ones that the AI loves to settle in, are safely filled. And since I can count on all this border expansion keeping the enemies out, I can safely keep my cities at an optimal distance apart. This becomes a huge plus later in the game when population gets into the 20s.
Also if I choose to take over AI controlled cities I can zip in a fast temple to help prevent cultural takeover and to fill in the borders quickly.


Benefits of Religious:
*Cheap temples. Most effective if used to build lots of temples in the very early game.
*If used to build early temples then HUGE border expansions.
*If used to build early temples them you can safely spread your cities out to optimal distance (Since your borders will expand to fill the holes).
*If used to build early temples then you end up with a HUGE culture lead.
*Happy people. In regent you only get 2 free content people, so having a temple in every city early on helps big.
*Cheap cathedrals. Again, most useful if you build them early to get a cultural lead on the AI.
*Short anarchy. I typically make 2 government switches, so its 12 turns for free.


I have played a few times like this in regent on a large map with 16 civs. And by the medieval times I have ended up with an empire that was a good deal larger than average (Usually the biggest of all) and the best culture by far. My military is usually not so strong in the very early ancient since I spend 15 shields on a temple as opposed to training a few warriors. I worry about the Persians with their immortals… at our temples we pray to avoid an early war with them.
This strategy leaves me set up with a lot of space to develop a booming economy and sets me well on the path to a cultural or space race win (Of course with such a strong economy I could do a military win later on in the game, like when I get tanks). Its biggest effect is felt if used right at the beginning, but they last till the end of the game.


- Gunther.

[Nero Would]

Great tips Vel! I have a couple of comments on your Civ Strengths summary.

You left out one of the strengths of Commercial civs - they get 1 extra gold from each pop 7+ city. As with the extra shield for Industrious civs, it's not a huge advantage.

The editor allows you to assign free techs to a civ independantly of the civ strength (e.g. you can give a Religious civ Warror Code instead of Ceremonial burial if you want). The free tech that you list for each civ strength is the one that Firaxis chose to associate with that strength: with one exception. Japan (which is militaristic) gets The Wheel instead of Warrior Code (at least the editor says it does, I haven't played a game as Japan). It's the only civ that starts with The Wheel, and the Wheel is the only tech that is given only to one civ.

One of my early research priorities is to get The Wheel and Iron Working so I can see the horse and iron resource tiles. I usually play as England, so I start near Germany and Russia who are both scientific and I can usually trade for Bronze Working with one of them quite early. So I research The Wheel first (since nobody near me starts with it) and then go for Iron Working after I have traded for Bronze Working.

[Steve Clark]

Would that be the famous Entertainer's number cruncher Nero Would?

All I can say, Vel, is to keep up the great work. I have gotten quite a few folks from other forums coming here and reading your strategies and analyses.

[adaMada]

Vel and everyone else on this thread:

-- adaMada

[vmxa1]

I have to say the IND is very good trait. I like Relgion and Commercial next. Having said that I have done my best game so far with Persia and they use none of those? Immortals can handle anyone in the early part of the game and with the Science boost you are soon out in front with tech and can sell/trade or barter. I am starting to reconsider the value of switching governments. If you have a civ that likes Monarchy, they tend to dislike either Dem or Rep. In that case you do not need to swith but one time and that can be very late in the game.

[Nero Would]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Would that be the famous Entertainer's number cruncher Nero Would?

Guilty as charged M'lord I'm a novice at Civ games, so I'm only crunching small numbers at the moment. I like to understand the rules of the game before I try to beat it. Fortunately for me, I enjoy puzzling out what the developers didn't put in the manual, so I should have lots of fun with Civ III.

[vmxa1]

While you are looking into the numbers, check into how they determine the resource useage. I had 3 uranium deposits and nothing using them as far as I know. No nukes/nuclear sub, did not even have the wonder. No trade for it, and yet it a matter of weeks two were exhausted? It seems that resources are depleated regardless of use?

[pchang]

That is correct. As long as the resource is connected to your road network, there is a % chance that it depletes each turn. It is in one of the text files (i.e you can change it). Note that the depletion % for horses is 0.

[ChrisShaffer]

Religious civs can use the whip to build a temple starting with only one shield. That's one population point turned into 29 shields. Very nice for expanding borders from the get-go.

[vmxa1]

I understand, I can change some things, but I would like to stay standard, so when I take a long break and come back (months), I won't have to remember what I did and why. I would prefer they added a tweak that does not change the chance of depletion, but does skip any chance if you have not even used the resource. That just seems sensible. By the way I think Rubber does not deplete either.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Nero Would


Guilty as charged M'lord I'm a novice at Civ games, so I'm only crunching small numbers at the moment. I like to understand the rules of the game before I try to beat it. Fortunately for me, I enjoy puzzling out what the developers didn't put in the manual, so I should have lots of fun with Civ III.

Just don't be counting the steps each of the Civ3 units make, it's not worth it, my friend.

Stefen, from over there.

[Hastus]

I start by building a worker in my first town then a warrior then a settler. I do this in all my new towns,I sometimes skip the warrior but I always build a worker first. The reason I do this is beacuse I think that first worker will pay itself many times over. Since under despotism irrigating dosent do much good you are able to pump up mines all over early and snatching does early wonders with a killer production. However I do play industrious civilizations most of the time and I am not sure how effective this would be without that trait. Anyone got thoughts on this strategy?

[Velociryx]

Hey guys, and g’morning! And thank you Steve, for rounding people up and bringing them here! Judging by page views alone, I’d say we’ve got a pretty good thing going!

Went back and added the missing information on Commercial Civs after reading the comments here, and will prolly go back later and rework religious based on other comments, so please, keep ‘em coming! The articles and essays here will serve as the genesis for the eventual strat guide, after they’ve been hammered into finer form via our discussions!

I’m inching closer to finishing my detailed article on the various Civs (doing a compare & contrast, as well as writing up a couple different strategies and styles for each), and in the meantime, I figured I’d ramble on about a few other topics that have been on my mind regarding the game.

To that end, I’d like to talk more about a subject that I touched on a few days ago….starting position.

Prevailing local geography can really cinch the game for you, or hinder you in unbelievable ways, especially given the effects of corruption. The starting spot of your first city can and will quite literally define the character of your early game.

Two examples, at opposite ends of the spectrum:

First, let us suppose that you start land-locked, on a medium sized or larger continent. Your capitol (by default, your first city) will be centrally located to the rest of your empire, no matter how you choose to expand. Quite likely, your expansion will be in all directions initially (a city founded along each of the main compass points), with resources determining the exact city placement.

Thus, as you expand, cities that are “additional layers” away from your capitol begin to feel the burden of increased corruption, making the eventual addition of the FP a necessity. Note though, that in this case (a centralized starting point), relocating your Palace is NOT required, as you can simply control the direction of your expansion.

At the other extreme, would be a start that places your capitol at the tip of a peninsula, or adjacent to a wide swath of desert you have to “jump over” in order to start founding good cities.

In this case, your early game is going to be MUCH different from the initial start described, because the majority of your cities will face corruption due to distance from the capitol.

In game terms, this means that while you may grow and expand as quickly as the AI is, your cities will not be nearly as productive, forcing you to seek out more high-food producing centers than you’d otherwise need to, in order to speed build based on population sacrifice (a thing which most people will be doing in the early game anyway, but which you will be REQUIRED to do in order to remain competitive, in the absence of decent production from cities very far from your capitol). Of course, the ultimate solution to this problem is that once your Empire reaches critical mass is to relocate your Palace AND toss up an FP, but, unlike the first case mentioned, you face a steep challenge (having to do both). There ARE, however, some things you can do to help your position.

First, you’ve GOT to be aggressive if you start with your capitol in a poor position (read: NOT centralized to your natural expansion). By aggressive, of course I mean expansion-wise, as odds are good that your capitol will serve as one of your “settler farms” for much of the early game. A poor opening position will mean that each settler has to travel further to found a new city, making a good road network (one that does NOT cris-cross over rivers, for example) even more important, because you’ll need every bit of speed you can muster to keep pace!

As to the rest, there are a great many different possibilities….a great many TYPES of aggression you can use as tools to further your position, and I’ll cover some of them below to get your mind turning on the subject: (keep in mind of course that anybody, with any sort of start can make effective use of the following….it’s just that if you DO start with your capitol in an isolated position, the items below become less of a luxury and more of a “must-do.”

1) Military Aggression: This has numerous advantages in that it frees you up from having to worry about going for Early game wonders. Let somebody else get them, and while they’re building the wonders, you’re building an army to relieve them OF their wonders. You’ll NEED to start thinking in terms of founding a base near forests (preferably with a game tile in the radius) to be used as your troop training center. The reason for this is that if you start with a poor geographic position, you NEED to get a Great Leader sooner, rather than later, in order to speed-build your Palace where you want it. In the early game, with so many of your cities producing next to no minerals (mostly lost, due to corruption via distance), you’ll find yourself hobbled if you don’t make relocating the capitol happen in relatively short order. A Great Leader can do that for you, in addition to netting you a handful of nice cities (keep them if they fall in a nice position relative to your soon-to-be-moved Palace, burn them down if no).
2) Palace Bounce: This is especially useful if you find yourself on a peninsula and hemmed in by numerous rival civs. Odds are good that they’ve intentionally settled the headlands of the peninsula in order to stifle your growth, and if so, then rushing in cultural improvements and then relocating your Palace in their face will almost assuredly cause rival city defections, enabling you to “bounce” your Palace again, this time closer to where you want it (and probably cause a few new defections, prying deeper into the Empire(s) of your rivals.
3) Map-Making: Especially vital if you find yourself alone on a smallish continent, or hemmed in by a rival with a bigger and better culture than you that’s preventing defection. In this case, you NEED to build a galley and get the heck out of there! Find a new place to settle, and do it quickly….remembering that the AI is expanding like a mad rabbit on Viagra…if you don’t find a place to build a few new cities, there soon won’t be anyplace left!

Final thoughts re: Implications of starting position:
A centralized start….even a centralized start devoid of any sort of bonus resource (food or luxury) is generally superior to a more isolated start (at the tip of a peninsula, for example) for a number of reasons: First, it limits the natural size of your empire and increases empire-wide corruption effects in your game. Second, in order to maintain long-term competitiveness, it all but requires re-location of your palace AND the building of your FP, where a player starting with a centralized location will probably be able to leave his palace where it is, and simply build the FP. This of course, implies that you’ll be hard-pressed to net any of the ancient-era wonders, and if you do, it will be a much more difficult proposition than if you’d had a more centralized start.

It (isolated start) also may require a much more militarily aggressive stance from you and/or make the technology “Map Making” much more important to your game than it might otherwise have been. Regardless of the specifics of how you choose to deal with it though, the fact is, an isolated/peninsular start for your civ will VERY MUCH determine the flavor and character of your early game, and can have implications that will carry through well into the mid-game.

-=Vel=-

PS:
The concept of resource depletion brings up an interesting point. Strategic Reserves.

If it indeed proves to be the case that a resource with a road running through it has a % chance of running out, then, if you find yourself with more than one source of a given resource, it would behoove you to NOT road that tile until and unless your initial source ran out….thus, prolonging your total supply of that resource….strategic reserves….

[rugbyprop3]

Good Points..

In playing the game I dont know if you have mentioned or made clear the fact that 99.95% of the time you want to build your first city in the location that is given to you.

I don't know what the computer uses for its initial builds, but figure that on average after starting your first city on turn 1, you should have your first settler in approx. 20 turns. So if extra time is taken finding that perfect spot you can put yourself in hole that is hard to recover from. 20 turns figures in at least 1 warrior and potentially 1 worker depending on how good start warrior.

Use the warrior that you build along with your worker to scout ahead for all future cities, your 2-3-4 cities are ussually my production powerhouses. Typically for every city after your 1st you are able to scout good locations for their placement.

Also after you get 3-4 good cities established, that is when I ussually go and try to build some space to back fill into.

Using this strategy ussually works well for me.

[SerapisIV]

Hey tight head, who do you play for? I played hooker for Illinois for 4 years and now play off and on with Michigan. Lake Front 7s is a kick ass tourney. Nothing like playing next to random concerts in the background

[albiedamned]

This is a great thread. I know everyone says it, but it bears repeating.

Vel, I was a devoted reader of your SMAC strategy guide, so I look forward to your continued strategy postings on Civ3. I wanted to mention a strategy that I've employed in my past two games. The first game was with the Romans on Monarch, and the second game was the tournament game (Babylonians, Regent).

In both games, I did not engage in a single battle the entire game with the exception of attacking a few barbarians at the very beginning. In my Roman game, I did not plan to play this way (they're militaristic after all!), it just happened. In my Babylonian game I definitely planned it. I won the Roman game by spaceship in 1810, and the Babylonian game by spaceship in 1760. In both games, I switched to Republic as quickly as possible and then to Democracy as quickly as possible, and never made any other government changes.

The obvious advantage to this approach is that you can spend all your time and resources building your empire. I never had a lot of cities (about 10 in each game), but each of my cities had all possible infrastructure and 20-35 pop size by the end of the game. From the early Industrial Era on, I was able to maintain 4 turns per advance and still have plenty of surplus gold, largely due to trade arrangements (income from other civs). On a few occassions when my treasury did drop, I would just sell one of the less important techs to all the civs on the same turn for cash.

Several times in the ancient and middle ages I was threatened by the AI, and each time I gave in to the demand rather than start a war. As much as it hurts my pride to give in to demands, it was worth it in the long run. The World Map or gold that you give them is not worth the time and effort you will have to invest in a war.

There are two major disadvantages of this approach, both of which I was able to overcome. One is that since you don't fight, you can only trigger a Golden Age via building wonders. And the other disadvantage, which is very related to the first, is that without any Great Leaders it is difficult to build the early wonders. In both games I was able to trigger my Golden Age, but not until the late middle or early industrial era (Universal Suffrage triggered it in my Roman game, and Newton's in my Babylonian game). Once I got the GA, it was lights out for the rest of the world. But had I been beaten to those wonders and not gotten the GA, I might have been in trouble.

There is a third disadvantage to this approach: boredom. While not a tactical disadvantage, it certainly has to be considered. Having not gone to war for 2 games in a row, by the end of the 2nd game I was rather bored and itching for a fight! So I feel sorry for my opponents in my next game, because I guarantee I won't be so nice this time!

I think it would be difficult for anyone to achieve a quicker space race victory than I have without using this no-war strategy. Comments?

[rugbyprop3]

Originally posted by SerapisIV
Hey tight head, who do you play for? I played hooker for Illinois for 4 years and now play off and on with Michigan. Lake Front 7s is a kick ass tourney. Nothing like playing next to random concerts in the background

Right now I am playing for Milwaukee Rugby Football Club. During sevens season especially Lakefront Sevens, as a sevens scrub I have played for Curious George.