Picking the right Civ!

[Arrian]

Txurce,

Good job on that one - refresh my memory, was that Monarch or Emperor level?

I find the 160k sq. miles very interesting, considering that last night I tried to finish off my Japanese game to see what the score would be. I built two cities in territory I had blocked off with my Cavalry (I had 40 Cav just lying around in former Roman territory, so I formed a wall and kept empty space available). This jumped my sq. miles to 132k. Nothing. I built temples/cathedrals and the borders expanded, plus I built a third new city and got its borders to expand. Nothing. In frustration, I declared war on Germany and took five cities (two of which had border expansions by the time I gave up for the night). Nothing. I ended up going to bed without a win. I decided not to save it - I'm actually kinda psyched about this, because it means I can easily gain control of the last luxury I don't own (spices) without triggering the win. I had worried that I'd have to block off the spices I wanted like I did in former Rome w/Cav, and use colonies.

Still, I just wanted to see what the score would be. Germany has riflemen, so I really didn't want to have to fight them yet. I was gonna wait for tanks. I did get three great leaders (presto! three armies in-theatre), but I took heavy casualties in order to capture a major hill city south of Berlin. The damn thing had 4 or 5 vet riflemen in it. It ate a Cav army, several vets, and a couple of elites before I took it. 9 of 11 artillery shots missed. The other two hit buildings.

Sir Ralph,

Good analysis on map size differences. My strat is definitely geared toward normal/8 civs. Large maps with more space really limit one's ability to conquer your own continent in ancient times. I've seen it done... with the Iroquois.

Txurce's suggestion of the Aztecs isn't a bad one - I thought of it after I'd written my last post, the only disadvantage being GA timing... but hey, same problemo with the Iroquois (better unit payoff, though).

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph,
It's interesting how strategies can vary (if only relatively slightly) by one's goals or prefered starting conditions. An early GA is no big deal to me, since it comes when I am engaged in my all-important wars of expansion, which means I'll take all the extra units I can get. But I can see how playing huge world/9 civs an early GA could be largely a waste, since your first engagement is quite possibly not decisive, due to distance. Out of curiosity, do games on huge maps with a full complement of civs play out much like standard/8 civs? I ask because your prefered scale allowed me to see for the first time why anyone would take certain civs... especially most of the late bloomers.

While bouncing the capital makes much more sense on a huge world, and enough extra work that I have yet to do it, it seems more precise than waiting for a GL (however likely), and positions the capital in a more efficient place.

[Harovan]

What concerns your attempts to win by domination, I would suggest you to use the tool MapStat. It shows your approach to the domination limit with 1-tile-accuracy, and it is not considered a cheat (at least in the CFC tournaments). There were reported some problems lately, but I had none with it yet, and the author is actively improving it.

I will probably take the Americans for my next huge/9 game, for the following reasons:

- no need to be militaristic, because with these settings early wars are not effective, due to the big distances between the civs.
- being religious would be nice, but since I build my cities dense now (3-apart), I don't need temples to close gaps, and a high culture is later more a disadvantage than benefit. What concerns happiness, being expansionist I never had a problem hooking up 4+ luxuries. I go for republic as soon as I can and have built marketplaces in my core cities, and will stay a republic for the rest of the game. WW ist not so rampant in republic as it's in democracy.
- expansionist is the key for a big empire
- industrious improves this effect by fast roads for your expanding settlers.

I first build 4 cities around my capital, if it's possible, in this shape:

. . O . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . O
. . . X . . .
O . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . O . .

X being my capital, O the other cities. Then, I continue only the O-shape. This will leave 3x3 gaps in the structure, but that's ok. The AI won't sneak cities in. This way, I seize a huge amount of land. Later, I build cities in the centers of the gaps, closing them and making a gapless empire without any temple. The cities will overlap, but that's ok with me. I don't want them to grow above 12, so no need for more food. I build 5 hospitals or only a few more, for battlefield medicine. I don't need mass transports/recycling centers... if I ever hit the modern age.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Txurce
Out of curiosity, do games on huge maps with a full complement of civs play out much like standard/8 civs? I ask because your prefered scale allowed me to see for the first time why anyone would take certain civs... especially most of the late bloomers.

It's similar, with huge/16 you'll get boxed in during the BC's too. If I play huge/16, I play with continents, that's about the same like twice 8/pangaea. Huge/9 I play on a pangaea, usually with a domination or conquest goal. But the conquest does definitely not start earlier than in the medieval age, so an ancient UU is a waste. For this reason, I dropped the Iroquois.

[Arrian]

Yeah, I would think you would want a medieval or even industrial UU for that setup. Hmm... expansionist... medieval/industrial UU... Russia? Not a great UU, but how about the timing (this assumes you don't trigger your GA via Wonders).

-Arrian

[Harovan]

I was playing around with this thought (see my note on my next Marla's game). I just had a great russian game in the CFC tournament. The UU is not of the best, but if it comes to these $"#&%!* longbowmen, it's definitely better than cavalries .

[Theseus]

Great thread!

Some of Arrian and Txurce's dialogue spawned a thought:

There is a tendency, perhaps left over from Civ2, perhaps just natural, to compete with the AI in the land grab.

Why bother?

Especially on standard / large maps (nods to Sir Ralph), it seems that early war is a preferred strat. Well, success there will be determined by timing (relative strength in units) and size of force. If that's is the case, why bother building early cities on anything but GREAT sites... the cost in Settlers / Workers / defense is high, and they won;t contribute to the war effort.

Build on highly productive sites only, and kick ass militarily... don;t worry about the AI civs' Settlers, as you'll address the secondary and tertiary cities that they build soon enough!!

It might start out ugly, and feel sort of weak (lack of a consolidated territory), but I bet as long as the AIs' territories don;t cut off any of your cities (and thus the benefit of resources when you go to war), this will work wonderfully for the early warmongerer.

BTW, OT, the discussion about choice of civs on this thread has to a great extent revolved around the early game, with a focus on warmongering on standard maps... what do you consider early war??

[Txurce]

Arrian,

My Iroquois domination game was on Emperor level. You had a similar experience with the variance in how much land you needed to win also? What was the final tally? My prior two were around 133k sq. mi. I'll have to see if MapStat works on Macs, once Sir Ralph lets me know where to find it! (9 out of 11 artillery misses? You may as well have used catapults!)

Sir Ralph,

The Americans make a lot of sense for your prefered game parameters, although I assume their UU continues to rival the man'o'war in worthlessness. The Russians also look promising. My guess would have been that a civ like the Chinese or Japanese would do very well, because the era of their UU is when you could hope to gain control of a big, sparse world. I still don't see the point of playing with modern-era civs like Germany, but imagine that this will be a very different story in MP, given the likelihood of closely fought games that go down to the wire.

I try to build my cities in a ring around the capital if possible, but there are so many variables - geography, building toward the AI - that I don't really have a locked-in start mode. On the other hand...

Theseus,

Your suggestion to build only prime-real estate cities seems like an extension of Arrian's "build 5 or 6, take the rest" approach. My question would concern the time I waste walking my settler in search of that prime real estate. This loss of time (and population) can be exponential early in the game. Especially if I have a good settler source in one of my first two cities, I might be better off building a plains city, building a barracks, and letting that size-2er pump out units from very early on. What do you think?

My early wars always feel like they start late: a few hundred years short of the BC/AD line, to a couple of hundred after.

[Theseus]

Hmmm, good point... obviously dependent on the terrain. I an a "re-starter" so I guess whole idea rest on having generally good terrain.

However, given poor terrain, is it not possible that my premise is even more true? In that case, one needs to create lebensraum to have the time to build properly... severely damaging nearby early civs might be optimal, in that they become vassals / punching bags, etc., but also act as a buffer around your territory.

In such a case I might still follow Arrian's mold, or build even perhaps fewer cities, with an eye towards quick growth to 4-5 pop, with good food productionand then corresponding high shield production, to thus produce a very early aggression force.

You've seen some my earlier thoughts... "whenever you have relative strength, attack," where relative strength can either be at the unit or force level. That is what the early "rushes" are about... why not truly focus early civ development on this concept?

[Editor's note: Reputation? Hah!]

To answer my own question: I am bummed if I don't start a war by 2000-1500 BC. Slightly psycho, I know, but I think it a crucial time to damage nearby civs (one city down counts for quite a lot in the long run), and the value of the off-chance that I generate an extremely early GL (Pyramids before 1000 or 1500 BC is a game-winner).

Also, I am re-reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and aside frome the basic premise that high food production has dictated the history of human civilization, it is Diamond's clear thought that the evolution from bands forward was a product of warfare.

So I guess I'm just doing what my teachers taught me.

[Txurce]

Theseus,

Re: building only on prime land, you may have a point in that a few cities with lots of shields are better than more mediocre ones. I agree that it makes more sense the worse your starting location. Have you tried this yet?

It would also help me to even imagine how I could start a war between 2000-1500BC. I agree that taking over even one city at this stage can make a huge difference to both civs in question. And you'd only need a few archers to accomplish this (I know, you're going to say "Why not warriors?"). The thing to watch out for, at least on Emperor, is the early numerical edge that the AI gets. I started a game the other day where, just as I built my second Iroquois city, the Russians sent over two warriors and two spearmen, and took my capital. Until then, I thought the AI was programmed to give you a chance at the start; I'm sure it is, but it's not a lock, as I found out.

Some of you guys may be interested in a book that just came out on tanks, which has received very good reviews.

[Harovan]

Txurce: MapStat is in the Files forum, in this thread. There's a Java version, which definitely should work with a Mac, although I haven't checked this yet. You'll like it, it's great if you play (or want to avoid) domination.

As to the "modern" civs. The Americans make no big sense here indeed, because of the useless UU. I'll play them rather for their traits, not the UU. But being a German, I tried Germany of course, and I can assure you, if you ever hit the late industrial age: There's nothing what can stop Panzers. Absolutely nothing, believe me.

[Arrian]

Just for the hell of it, I tried out Rome last night. It did not go well. Then again, it's not like I did anything brilliant either. I just walked up to a Greek city with 6 legionaries and attacked (the rest were on the way, I blew 650ish gold upgrading vet warriors). The city (size 1, flat land, no river involved) had two regular hoplites in it. My grand legionaries managed to inflict 2hp total damage, while promoting 1 hoplite to elite and the other to vet. Greece 6, Rome 0, golden age for Greece. Yikes. Shoulda hit Egypt first and returned for Greece once I had horsies.

Txurce,

I haven't actually finished that Japan game. I will, I just took a break to play around with Rome. I still don't understand why they made the Romans "commercial" instead of "industrious." But anyway...

Theseus,

I have definitely gotten into the mindset that I don't really care about the "landgrab" anymore. All I am concerned with is building a solid core of 6-8 cities, connecting up horses (and iron if possible), and connecting up 1 luxury. I'm not gonna race the AI to city locations, unless there is a horse resource at stake. Just like you said - it's a waste of resources. I fully intend to crush my neighbors anyway, so why bother building settlers to build outlier cities which will be totally corrupt for a looooong time? I'd rather build my assault force. Speaking of which, I do usually force myself to build about 8 cities, because of unit support issues. I need money to upgrade, so I need to have enough cities to support my troops for free, so I can be running a nice surplus every turn until the big upgrade is complete.

War in 1500bc? Estas loco, amigo. I might do that with Germany, China or the Aztecs (start with archers and/or jags). Maybe. But nearly every time I've gambled with warriors, I've lost. Besides, I want the AI to build up for a bit, for two reasons: more cities to capture instead of raze, and more units to fight & kill - which means more chances of getting leaders. I agree that getting the Pyramids early is nice, but when my strat works well, I often use my first leader on the Pyramids. That would be around 500-400bc. Sometimes a neighbor builds it. I love that. I get it anyway, but not the culture.

-Arrian

[God]

My ranking of the traits:
1. Religious: The best beacuase a) cheap temples, a must for newly caputered cities and 1 turn anarchy is amazing. In the Industrial Age I am constantly switching govs and religious truly shines there.

2. Industrious: Very good early in the game getting those horses and iron hooked up and mining the bonus grassland.

3. Militaristic: More promotions to elite means more leaders. I have got 11 leaders in a Japan game so far, and still counting.

4. Expansionist: I thought it was an ok trait and I never really used it but now after being inspired by Aesons 64,000 diety game as Iroquois I have changed my tactics. Those scouts can also be used to deny others civs iron, for knight conquest by the player.

5. Scientific: This is generally a popular trait, but I don't agree. The cheap libaries are nice, but I find if I need culture in caputered cities I much rather build a cheaper, far more effective temple in it. Libaries don't seem to help too much in corrupt conquered cities. Free tech is good, but its something not essential.

6. Commercial: This is a pretty bad trait. Its the only one that I don't miss when I play a civ without that trait. Corruption may be a bit less but I can deal with corruption. I really don't expect or want to have my distant cities building their own tanks. Thats what my main cities are for. Extra commerce ain't a big deal either because money is usually never a huge problem.

The best UUs are the Mounted Warrior and the Samurai. The MW may not be as good as Immortals on offense or defense but the movement is the key. MWs will still cut through spearmen with ease, and I with them its possible to eliminate more than 2 civs on a huge map. Samurai are good because they come at a good time, and because they seem to always have luck on their side. They cut through pikes better than knights even though they have the same offense.

The best civs are the Egyptians and the Japanese. Iroquois will be up there as soon as I finish my current Iroquois game. Why? They all have the relgious trait, big decider. Egyptian industrious is awesome, they are the best builder civ. Japan produces leaders like mad and has an awesome UU. Same with Iroquois. Kill a few civs with MWs and with iron denial, rush over the rest by upgrading your MWs.

I played as Japan and used the early conquest method with horsemen. It was very succesful. Japan starts with the wheel meaning immediate chariots. I have managed to use a chariot and warrior gambit to take out one civ on Monarch level. Those chariots are also very cheap and are cheaply upgraded to horsemen IIRC.

[Catt]

Overall -- Egyptians.

Refined -- Egyptians for Builder; Japanese for War-mongering.

Many excellent posts here and I won't rehash everything. Suffice it to say that Religious trait is fabulous; Industrious is near fabulous.

One other reason for the Egyptians that I haven't seen much mention of: the UU. Not because it's good, but precisely because the UU is virtually worthless..

I believe that the impact of a properly timed Golden Age is one of the greatest truly game-outcome-altering events possible, better than any wonder, any leader-generation, etc. While Mounted Warriors, Immortals, Aztec Warriors, etc. all have some wonderful stats, these wonderful stats prompt earliest possible use of the UU, and a GA in the ancient age just can't compare to a GA in the early / mid Middle Ages. So make five or six Egyptian War Chariots, and just hide them in a well-defended city until you're ready for a GA; use swordsmen, horsemen, etc. for your military forces. When you're ready for a GA, use those blasted war chariots to take out an undefended longbowman or severaly wounded knight. Presto, properly timed GA.

Japanese -- well, you actually get to use your UU as soon as it is available without worrying about triggering an early GA.

[Harovan]

Played a few ancient ages with the Americans, just to check build and research order, threats by possible neighbors (Aztecs, duh), etc. They are a very good civ for maps with many space, namely huge maps with less than maximum civs. Ability to build granaries (and the Pyramids) from the start, scouts and fast settlers due to a good road net gives quick expansion. 3-turn-mines rock. And I need only one worker per 2 cities, that saves resources and pop points, again for quicker expansion. A dense 6-8 city core with granaries and no corruption, and 4-5 workers for roads makes a settler flood par excellence. The "outer" cities produce mainly units and settlers only, when their pop hits 3. First research goal is horses. If building enough scouts, no further research is needed in the ancient age. I think I will start a real game with them this weekend.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by God
Those scouts can also be used to deny others civs iron, for knight conquest by the player.

Not anymore. With 1.21f the scouts are forced to leave after a while. As soon as the AI builds up some culture, the scout can't make it back to the iron till a worker is there.

[Theseus]

Sir Ralph, Given the settings (namely, huge maps with less than max civs), I could see Exp/Ind being great attributes. As this also leans towards builder strats, the UU is irrelevant. What triggers teh GA, and how well can it be timed?

Catt, in some much older threads, I also focused on the interplay of civ attributes, UU timing / relative strength, and the timing of the GA. My thoughts several months ago were that an early Industrial GA was so invaluable that it would override all other considerations... I posited the same strat for the very early UUs, that it would be better just to save ONE and use it for precise GA timing. I am now, however, thinking of changing my tune... if in your early development you stick to only GREAT city sites, and you build / improve accordingly for 6 or so high productivity cities, and focus on an early military to let slip the dogs of war, triggering an early GA may be a game winner. Food / shields / gold for thought.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
My thoughts several months ago were that an early Industrial GA was so invaluable that it would override all other considerations... I posited the same strat for the very early UUs, that it would be better just to save ONE and use it for precise GA timing. I am now, however, thinking of changing my tune... if in your early development you stick to only GREAT city sites, and you build / improve accordingly for 6 or so high productivity cities, and focus on an early military to let slip the dogs of war, triggering an early GA may be a game winner.

Didn't see your earlier posts on the GA timing issue, but was pretty certain I wasn't the first to really bemoan getting my GA too early.

And I agree wholeheartedly that a very successful ancient age GA at the precise time can virtually guarantee a win. I've just found in my limited sample of games (work, marriage, three kids) that I can (to some degree ) keep up in the ancient age through careful warfare followed by extortion, tech buying, etc., and, by triggering GA in the middle ages or early industrial ages with a real empire humming and most AI opponents having burned through their GAs, open up a commanding lead. (BTW, all this comes from someone who is playing on Monarch -- could be hugely different on lower / higher levels.)

Originally posted by Theseus
Food / shields / gold for thought.

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph,

Thanks a lot for the MapStat tool. I'll report back on how it works for the Mac. As to those panzers, yeah, that's what I figured. They're not quite on a par with the advent of cavalry, but they're up there. Those Americans sure seem to have a lot going for them on your prefered settings. And are you saying that all of your research past horseback riding can come from huts?

Catt,

Your ratings make a lot of sense (like God's), but my own experience leads me to disagree about properly timed GA's being seriously outcome-altering. I say this because I never time mine - I almost always use early UUs (like the WC), and my GA starts at the onset of my first war of expansion. This gives me a production boost that I may or may not need, but regardless, I try to be on the cusp of control of the game by chivalry, based on that initial series of wars. (This is similar to what Theseus is talking about trying.)

Ironically, I've used the WC not just to create a builder civ that wins the space race, but two very early domination victories. Basically they're cheap horsemen, and they move to the front on roads built by industrious workers. That's a surprisingly lethal combination, if you build enough of them, which is easy to do if you're in a GA. (This works particularly well to overcome the AI's edge on Emperor; on Monarch, I could survive longer without necessarily being aggressive right off the bat. This probably mirrors what you're saying.)

Arrian,

6-8 cities is probably about what I end up with before starting a war. I rarely have the room to expand beyond that, even if I wanted to. It might be a different story if I wised up and spaced my cities more closely, but I'm still hung up on classic spacing. It's a bad habit - particularly playing domination - and I'm going to try to break it.

I've had a bad couple of games as well, playing the Japanese. In my first ones, the Chinese attacked with their warriors and archers right away, and it was all over: the game told me I was humiliated. In my next one I was on an island with the Chinese, which means I couldn't extort enough tech, and now I'm behind the leaders, with no way to catch up except to sail my samurai toward the enemy. Unfortunately, my galleys don't handle deep water as well as the AI's.

[Theseus]

Txurce and all,

That last post triggered a couple of thoughts... I'm just from an evening out so forgive me if I'm a little random.

[Note: I'm working down from Catt's post at 21:06]

- Work marriage and three kids. I got engaged several months ago, and live in mortal fear of what family life will be like... LOVE kids, but I can;t yet imagine the time demands.

- Catt, I've mostly played Monarch, and have just started living at Emperor... to date, I've played a sort of Ancient war, Middle Age build but stay at war kind of strat. Same thesis: save the GA for for when you've got your core / prime cities humming, and use it for the "builder" benefits. I'll test this weekend, but I am starting to believe that the strongest overall application of the GA is NOT in the build phase, but rather in the late early war phase... applied properly, to a core group of early high production cities, this is (potentially) a game winning strat. Random thoughts: Not true on huge maps with less than max civs; not true on less than continents; not true next to Greeks; preferable in the center of a magor continent; very true next to late GA civs... etc, etc, etc... NOT the night to think this through in depth!

Txurce, you used an interesting phrase: "cusp of control." I like it, as it expresses a concept I've been pushing, that it is not necessary to destroy AI civs, just to control the "metagame (nods to Vel).

Lastly, also to Txurce, just as we've been discussing ignoring the landgrab, I suggest ignoring a) spacing, and b) "Civ2-think" as to city sites (i.e., cities on hills are dramatically more important now).

Arrian has gotten me playing on standard maps now, and early war is SO much more of an issue. "Early War" to me means Warriors, and maybe Chariots / Horsemen... terrain is a huge factor in that case. Haven't played a game this way yet, but my latest thinking is that 4-5 cities, built on hills, but next to rivers with wheat or cattle, is a winning configuration. Everything else - land, pop, techs, gold, etc. - will come from this start.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Txurce
And are you saying that all of your research past horseback riding can come from huts?

It can, although you probably won't rely on it. I had huts that gave me The Republic, for instance. But I can not remember to have found a hut with Currency. But at this point, you should have enough money to buy the last few techs. As soon as you see an AI leader with a new fancy hat , you're there. Don't forget, if there are scientific civs, to ask for Monotheism, as it's one of the prerequisites for Chivalry, what we probably all strive for .

[Harovan]

A few more thoughts about this: With a substandard number of civs on large/huge maps, you'll have lots of goody hut for you. And I mean LOTS. The other expansionist civs explore with their initial scouts and don't seem to build more. At least I've never seen more than 1 AI scout at a time. So most of the huts are for you, which gives you a big advantage. Build 20 cheap scouts, that does about the same like the Great Library, and you have it early on and not only on the dawn of the medieval age. By the way, one of the most important jobs for scouts is not only to explore and open huts, but mainly to make contact. Contacts make techs cheaper.

To the other expansionists out there: Have you ever seen an expansionist AI civ with more than 1 scout?

[Arrian]

Arrian,

6-8 cities is probably about what I end up with before starting a war. I rarely have the room to expand beyond that, even if I wanted to. It might be a different story if I wised up and spaced my cities more closely, but I'm still hung up on classic spacing. It's a bad habit - particularly playing domination - and I'm going to try to break it.

Txurce,

Yeah, I'm still using wide city spacing too. I have no plans to change that anytime soon. I recognize that packing my cities in close to each other offers a number of benifits, but I just don't like doing it. And I can be subborn about such things.

Theseus,

Cities on hills are nice for the defensive bonus and all, but I only do it if the hill is in the "right" spot. In many cases, I don't want to waste the hill, which will produce three shields with a mine and a non-despotic government, on the fixed 2 food 1 shield city square. As for rivers with wheat & cattle, I couldn't agree more.

I would just like to mention that I HATE JUNGLE! I HATE it. It slows my golden horde to a crawl. ()*&#%)@(@! Jungle. Ok, I'm better now.

I started a new game last night because I was eager to test out the 1 leader per elite thingy, and despite having a pretty good start, I bogged down and ended up quitting. My #2 city was built on a gold hill, on a river, with floodplains, another gold hill and a gold mountain. Rock on. Anyway, I was rolling in cash, and I built up my normal strike force. I went on my rampage. But after the near-total destruction of two civs, I had captured maybe 6 cities. SIX! My continent was too damn big. There was still empty space, so the AI was still in expansion mode and had all these size 1 or 2 cities with no culture. I roll up to attack, they poprush it down to 1, I raze the city. Over and over again. Arg. And, due to the aforementioned )(*#@%&@ING JUNGLE and quick contact with the other continent, I still had two untouched AI's on my continent when I hit the middle ages. My 1 and only leader became the forbidden in Beijing, which had way too much empty land around it. I actually built the Pyramids, since I was beaten to the Colossus by 1 turn by the wench named Elizabeth. Anyway, another "winning ugly" game. I would have won, but I fell far short of ultimate power.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by Txurce
Catt,

Your ratings make a lot of sense (like God's), but my own experience leads me to disagree about properly timed GA's being seriously outcome-altering. I say this because I never time mine - I almost always use early UUs (like the WC), and my GA starts at the onset of my first war of expansion. This gives me a production boost that I may or may not need, but regardless, I try to be on the cusp of control of the game by chivalry, based on that initial series of wars. (This is similar to what Theseus is talking about trying.)

Ironically, I've used the WC not just to create a builder civ that wins the space race, but two very early domination victories. Basically they're cheap horsemen, and they move to the front on roads built by industrious workers. That's a surprisingly lethal combination, if you build enough of them, which is easy to do if you're in a GA. (This works particularly well to overcome the AI's edge on Emperor; on Monarch, I could survive longer without necessarily being aggressive right off the bat. This probably mirrors what you're saying.)

WRT Monarch vs. Emperor, I suspect you're right (need to be more aggressive early at higher levels). On my Monarch games, when employing GA timing, I tend to avoid the early wars if possible. Try to shoot for Chivalry, and go to war with Knights (many upgraded horseman / chariots), and trigger a GA during the war. Provides military production boost, but also allows the opening of a tech lead or the complete elimination of the tech gap. Also helps tremendously to be in GA around the time of Sistine Chapel, JS Bach's etc., which I would expect to also be true on higher levels (can't always count on having a leader at the right time). However, I generally have not been on the cusp of control by Chivalry -- that's my catch-up point. Will have to get better at opening an earlier lead on Monarch before I jump to Emperor .

I say they can be seriously game-outcome-altering (at least to a much greater degree than other aspects of the game), because, if you can catch up to the AI, i.e., be about even / a little behind / a little ahead, and then trigger your GA, I find that you have a much better chance to put the game away or secure a very comfortable advantage (which you sdhould lose only through negligence!) during those twenty turns of GA -- but for this to work, you need to know where all the other AI stand in terms of power, tech tree, territory, etc. For me, the risk of an early GA is always that you pull away from the AI(s) closest to you, or those on the same continent, but later learn through a wonder completion pop-up that a civ you haven't contacted yet is clearly 4 or 5 techs ahead of you.

Haven't tried for the early domination wins, but I can see how the very early WC rush could be very effective, especially with, as you point out, industrious workers building roads to the frontlines (so I exagerrated a bit when I called my WCs worthless!). I think my personal game preferences tend too strongly towards the builder approach -- I just love to see an incredibly efficient, prosperous empire full of cities with nuclear plants, factories, offshore platforms, research labs, etc. If I'm forced to go to war early, either by an aggressive AI or the greater challenges of Emperor, I will certainly remember your success with the WC.

Great posts, guys!

Catt

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'll test this weekend, but I am starting to believe that the strongest overall application of the GA is NOT in the build phase, but rather in the late early war phase... applied properly, to a core group of early high production cities, this is (potentially) a game winning strat.

Largely agree, if you mean that you need the GA timed to bring unbeatable advantages to the war effort, i.e., overwhelm your enemy with units churned out from the high procution, GA-enhanced cities. But, what I really like about it during the "late stage of an ancient / medieval war" is the freedom to pump military units from some cities but ALSO to continue the build of science / culture in other cities -- when the AI is at war, it ternds to build only units (and Wonders!).

Originally posted by Theseus
Random thoughts: Not true on huge maps with less than max civs; not true on less than continents; not true next to Greeks; preferable in the center of a magor continent; very true next to late GA civs... etc, etc, etc... NOT the night to think this through in depth!

Agree with all, confused by one. Why not next to the Greeks?

Originally posted by Theseus
Work marriage and three kids. I got engaged several months ago, and live in mortal fear of what family life will be like... LOVE kids, but I can;t yet imagine the time demands.

Yeah, my wife is not thrilled to see me open the laptop at home -- I am essentially forbidden from going to (hiding in) our home office (converted attic) to play on our home PC.

Kids - something to look forward to! Have twin (not identical) 4 month old girls -- for the first two months was going to sleep at 8:00 pm, letting my wife stay up until 2:00 am, getting up at 3:30 am and letting my wife sleep until late morning. Needless to say, when not feeding between 3:30 am and 9:00 am (feeding doesn't take a lot of time during the 6 hour block), playing Civ 3 -- now back at work with kids sleeping through the night, game time seriously constricted .

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
A few more thoughts about this: With a substandard number of civs on large/huge maps, you'll have lots of goody hut for you. And I mean LOTS. The other expansionist civs explore with their initial scouts and don't seem to build more. At least I've never seen more than 1 AI scout at a time. So most of the huts are for you, which gives you a big advantage. Build 20 cheap scouts, that does about the same like the Great Library, and you have it early on and not only on the dawn of the medieval age. By the way, one of the most important jobs for scouts is not only to explore and open huts, but mainly to make contact. Contacts make techs cheaper.

To the other expansionists out there: Have you ever seen an expansionist AI civ with more than 1 scout?

I don't usually play expansionist, but if playing on larger maps with less than normal number of civs, it would seem that your strategy would almost be a must! Fantastic early lead.

I haven't seen expansionist AI building multiple scouts (but OTOH, if they did so, would presumably send them off in other directions?).

Again, great thread, guys.

Catt

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
But I can not remember to have found a hut with Currency.

Hosianna!

PS: The Americans rock!

[Theseus]

Catt, I was not clear that I was thinking specifically of Egypt; GWs against fortified Hoplites is not my idea of fun; Rome would be a problem too, for that matter.

Regarding kids, here's what I imagine:

Baby cries.

(Just one more turn...)

Baby cries louder.

(Just one more turn... 'bout to attack Rome.)

Baby screams.

"Don't worry, I'll get it honey" (I got a GL!!! Gotta get back home!)

Baby comes in: "Look Dad, I believe in very early war too. I demand a bottle, all of your gold, 5 gpt, and the Pottery, I mean potty, tech. If you do not agree to my demands, I will use my UU, the Poopooman (3-3-4), to wreak havoc on your pitiful civilization."

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
Catt, I was not clear that I was thinking specifically of Egypt; GWs against fortified Hoplites is not my idea of fun; Rome would be a problem too, for that matter.

Regarding kids, here's what I imagine:

Baby cries.

(Just one more turn...)

Baby cries louder.

(Just one more turn... 'bout to attack Rome.)

Baby screams.

"Don't worry, I'll get it honey" (I got a GL!!! Gotta get back home!)

Baby comes in: "Look Dad, I believe in very early war too. I demand a bottle, all of your gold, 5 gpt, and the Pottery, I mean potty, tech. If you do not agree to my demands, I will use my UU, the Poopooman (3-3-4), to wreak havoc on your pitiful civilization."

[Txurce]

I would have to be traveling when this thread heats up again!

Theseus cites starting on the center of the map as being advantageous to early war, and it certainly is... although it's also a dangerous area; picking up writing to make alliances seems essential in this situation. It reminded me of something that seems pretty obvious: starting position (which is pure luck) is the single most important aspect of the game, followed by GL generation (which has significant elements of luck).

The Greeks are a ***** to encounter in early war, but to echo Catt, I don't think they actually screw up the early war/GA approach; there's usually not much downside to skipping them (as the Egyptians, for sure!) and kneecapping every other civ on the block. Even if the Greeks prosper as a result, they're not going to prosper as much as you did, which means that you can flatten them later with cavalry (or knights, if conditions are right). Again, this is not the ideal for early war-with-GA, but it doesn't make the strategy not viable.

Classically spaced cities still make a certain amount of sense in a space race game, since they eventually pay off in extra gold for science. But I will try more closely spaced cities in my next domination game, as I shouldn't reach sanitation in an ideal effort. The tricky part of Theseus' "selective city location" approach is that you don't know what you're going to find, and may waste critical time looking for those more ideal settings. (I realize that I tend toward strategies that minimize chance, mainly because it leaves me on familiar ground. I could argue against myself that, just as I eschew defenders because I'm striving to win asap, I should play a riskier starting-grid approach, if I'm shooting for a high score/early finish.)

Catt raises a good point about mid-game GAs helping you get the key happiness wonders. I miss building these in about half my winning games... although I conquer them soon enough. Again, this makes a lot of sense from a builder perspective, which works better on Monarch (although someone posted that early research is viable again on Emperor in 1.21). Have you guys confirmed this?

[Catt]

Txurce, no time right now to respond to all points, but excellent post.

Originally posted by Txurce
Again, this makes a lot of sense from a builder perspective, which works better on Monarch (although someone posted that early research is viable again on Emperor in 1.21). Have you guys confirmed this?

I've seen these posts here and there as well. My experience, on Monarch in 1.21, early research is improved but not necessarily viable (i.e., you can actually make headway up the tech tree, so if you're isolated and unable to war / trade / extort techs, you won't fall ridiculously far behind) -- but I haven't come close to keeping up with the AI through an early research approach. I'm still playing the ancient era with tech at 0%.

Catt