Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Two

[Just My 2 Cents]

just a thought:

How one player plays his game shouldn't affect other gamers, should it? Is there one master player who decides how the other players should play? Are we all mindless automotons who need instructions from the more evolved gamers on what is considered acceptable? I've played countless hours of AC and was able to beat it on the Transcend level but many times I had to employ ICS to do it...

Does this make me less of a gamer? I don't think so. I didn't cheat, I simply employed a viable strategy. Other people may not approve of this strategy but hey everyone's entitled to their own opinion. If you cheat fine. In my opinion it ruins the game experience but you bought the game so it's none of my damn business. If you're a "frequent reloader" why the hell should I care? Guess what guys: it's cheesy but many lower level gamers (who don't have the time to religously read strategy forums and are only allotted 1 hour a night of computer time because many wives in the real-world would not tolerate any "staying up all night for just one more turn" nonsense) consider it a viable strategy.

My best friend also enjoys the SMAC/Civ series. He is what you would call a "purist" in the sense he avoids overlap when possible and always honours his agreements with the computer AI. I myself love to have cities with absolutely no overlap but acknowledge that in order to keep up with the AI sometimes its important to have that settler build where he is situated so you can build another settler in 10 turns instead of 15. And since I know the computer will backstab me if the opportunity presents itself I allow myself the same luxury. He doesn't approve of my overlap strategy but can admit it's really a question of preference, not exploiting.

RE: Pop rushing, what's the big deal? If you don't like to do it in your game, that's fine but to bash other people because they use this tactic and imply it's cheating? Come on. I just got one of my other friends hooked to Civ and I demonstrated the ICS and despot rush strategies and guess what? He still gets his butt kicked on Warlord level, 8 civs, standard map. They're still viable strategies but by no means are they a guaranteed win. I also suggested trying for a quick military victory via building cheap ancient-era infantry. Just like eMarkM would have suspected, he went for the mindless warrior rush strategy but there was no happy ending here children, my friend once again got his ass handed to him.

I play on Monarch level usually, 8 civs, huge map and I can usually win. Am I the world's greatest Civ player? Hell no, not even close. I have yet to win a game on Emperor and I already know the reason why: I can't expand quickly enough. But I have some tricks up my sleeve and I'm not that crap else I'd still be playing on Chieftain for some laughs. Yes I could beat Civ/Civ2/AC on the highest difficulty settings. No I did not cheat. No I was not a frequent reloader. Yes I did employ ICS about half the time. Yes I was usually a pacifist/builder. But the guys who played militarily, who went for the fastest win possible with the highest score? I still give them credit because it's not as easy as one would think or else everyone in this forum would be saying "surefire way to win on Deity level is to pump out mass warriors and rush the computer, even my grandmother can pull it off".

To summarize, I don't see what's the big deal with discussing strategies. ICS and pop-rushing aren't exploits and can't even be mentioned in the same breath as "cheating". eMarkM specifically, you're probably a better player than I but I don't think you should look down at the other gamers who prefer to rush. Just like your creating a "vassal state" strategy wherein the player keeps his AI opponent at a level where he can still be provoked to declare war yet be pacified in several turns to the point of giving up techs is a viable ploy, some might consider it an exploit (does anyone remember the "right click the faction in Alpha Centauri, demand withdrawal, usually instant war" trick?). I think it's good gaming but that's neither here nor there. I myself also enjoy building an empire that can stand the test of time but I have no objections to a player who employs "mindless unit rushing" strategies. Civ is also a war-game after all, albeit a mediocre one.

Long story short, everyone play the game how you want to since there's no right or wrong, and even if you cheat it will all catch up to you if multiplayer is ever released. And the guys who win on multiplayer will all be cheesy ICS unit rushers anyway who suck in singleplayer, or something like that.

Long live ICS.

[Adam Wallock]

Hi All!-

I've been lurking/following this thread since day one and I thought I'd surface. I got Civ3 on Oct 30 and have played hundreds of hours since. I'm on a brief hiatus for Wiz8 but still thinking a lot about Civ3.

This thread is IMNSHO one of the only ones worth reading here or at Civfanatics. I really am enjoying the depth of thought that a select few of you (especially Vel) have put into the posts.

I do actually have some insight to share tho'.

What no one seems to have mentioned, unless I missed it, is an additional advantage to to Despotic Rush in Ancient Era conquest. When you capture a city, if you start rushing improvments and units down to Pop 1 and then let it grow back to Pop 2 and then rush once more (back to pop 1 again ) the remaining citizen will be the last to grow, i.e. Native to your Civ.

This brand of ethnic cleansing almost eliminates the possibility of cultural reversion, and stocks the city up with the culture and units it needs to hold and expand your new borders.

If you are using a rush strat. anyway (even to a limited extent) this seems to be a very useful safeguard against all that conquest being for naught. Especially if you are conquering cities from a Civ with culture much higher than yours which could easily be the case if you have spent the first 3500 years rushing military.

I sure hope this tidbit can further the wonderful exploration of strategic themes that this thread represents. Please keep up the good work everyone. I know the lurkers are loving it too!

[Hastus]

This is something I am still experimenting with but its a good idea that may become useful.

I like to win by Conquest or Domination in the Modern time.
If you start a war in industrial time or modern time it could usually drag on for a long time if your goal is total conquest or domination.

At those eras I have already built all the mines,irrigation roads and railroads in my empire and the workers are only used for the pollution patrol. I sometimes use them for lumberjacking/planting to speed up city advancements in total corruption towns but I find it very tiresome. So most of the time my large work force (including many captured workers ) just are at sleep.

So what I decided to do is before I declare war against any civilization I have a built up a strong force ready to strike at their capital. That way I will be able to take it at one turn after war is declared. However what I also do is call up my target civilization just before I declare war and give them around 20 workers for free (This takes them from polite to furious btw,no idea why ).

That way I am able to take their capital the at one turn,and have a workforce of 20 man being able to build fortresses etc or join the city. Often I also rush in airport as the first improvement effectivily making their own Capital a landbridge to the rest of their empire.

I find this strategy a good way to securely relocate my workforce to hostile lands.

Another thing that I have thought about but do not know if it works is the possibility to give a huge mass of workers to a civilization that have already built all the improvements around their towns,railroads etc.. And that also already got a a good workforce themselfs. The question is..will the AI add my workers to their citys if they got around 30 extra workers? This is just a theory but if that is the case would that not cause a revolution in his towns? Making war alot more easy and perhaps even defecting towns? Anyway,that is just speculations. I need to experiment with that.

As always,this is the god of threads. I have got tons of great ideas from here. Thanks to all who keeps the great ideas flowing.

[vmxa1]

I am not going to put in any opion on cheating, but I do want to respond to the idea that every is entitled to an opion. They are, but when you expound on it publicly are can expect to be challenged. At that point one persons opion is right and the others position is wrong. They can not both be correct if they in conflict. IN either case all can surely do as they please, but can ot expect it to be respected.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Adam Wallock

When you capture a city, if you start rushing improvments and units down to Pop 1 and then let it grow back to Pop 2 and then rush once more (back to pop 1 again ) the remaining citizen will be the last to grow, i.e. Native to your Civ.

Mentioned as a Tip on page 37 of the Prima Guide

[cousLee]

It was my uncle that introduced me to the Civ series with #1. He was definatly a frequent re-loader, and when I asked him about it he had this much to say.
"it's my floggin game! I Win when and where I want! I didn't pay $xx to have my arse handed to me, if I wanted that, I would get married". Now, I don't necessarrily agree with him on some of his point, but he was right about one thing. It's his game.

You can have diffrent opinions from far ends of the spectre and both be right. Whether or not the debate is held publicy. If you get the most enjoyment out of your game by MASS reloading, your not wrong. It is after all your game. If you get the most enjoyment out of your game playing ultra-purist, your not wrong either. It YOUR game. What makes you both right, is you both found your own individual way to ring the most enjoyment out of your purchase. I have no problem with either side of the argument.

I am only semi-purist. When I get a new game, I play a no-holds barred session to develop a working strategy, then go semi-purist on my second and subsequent games. It also helps me find bugs to be on the lookout for (to avoid). Sometimes, finding those are a hoot in themselves. Like in my game I am playing now, I had eradicated the Romans very early on my little island, but later on, during diplomacy with another, had the option to offer "contact with" with the eliminatee... for 40 gold. I had good chuckle at that, took the measly 40 gold, and figured not my problem if the Russians hadn't yet realized they (Romans) were gone. It may be possible they re-seeded (have heard mention of that happening) , but I doubt it. A cheat? why so? because I know they are gone? bah. All I did was take advantage of an unsuspection AI. Will we end up in a war? most likely. When they do pull a sneak attack, I will attribute it to the mis-information they paid for. Does it happen in RL? sure it does. There are too many posts about LE to dispute that. But it was only funny once, and will refrain from using it again. I really don't need the cheezy tactics to get a mere 40 credits. If my game is that bad, I should try a lower level. But it didn't ruin my game experience because of it. (unlke my first training game, an empty victory indeed). But thats me. and it's my game. (and I am getting my arse reammed in this one anyway if number of bases are crucial). What really gets me, is people that in one post complain that people don't play purist, and in the same or following post, they talk about having to re-start the game 100 times to get a good starting position. I will 99% of time take whats given. What may look like a nasty start, may indeed turn out to be a jewel. (which is the reason for this post). I admit I made some crucial early game blunders, which is why I have half the cities the AI has, but my island has turnned out to be not too shabby. I still have tech parity, and lead the culture pack with well built-up cities. I started surrounded mostly by desert terrain, on this 89 tile island. But it got much better as I expanded. Had I reloaded for a better start, I would have missed out on the 7 gems, 7 ivory, iron, and freshwater lake. It had a whopping 2 hut, and the Romans. Got a tech each from the huts, and one from the Romans.... right before I eradicated him with my entire army of 2 warriors. Now I have a plot of land with every tile type (good for future resource yet to show), and 7 core cities set in near-purist fashion, and room for one more if I wanted almost all desert to work on (pffftttt). Got the lighthouse built, and shot off in two directions. One town I plopped down very near to the Russians with 2 incense in the window, but the border sprawl denied me the horsies. no biggie. Thanks to the Russian harbors, I traded one of those and a gem to the Germans for the same thing plus 5G per turn. NOW i can build my war charriots and hopefully get on par with base numbers. The other direction, well, that town is gonna be an outpost for some time, but will be a good launch point when and if I take on them Germans. France pissed me off tho, beat me out of the GL and stuck me with the GW. they got that and the pyramyds in their capitol. ANYWAY. sorry for taking up soo much thread.

The strategy point, is don't judge a book by it's cover. what looks like a bad start may be your diety victory looking you in the face. Thanks for reading, if you made it this far.

[cousLee]

I did have one thought about despot rushing, and long term penalties. How that kind of penalty really stop the whip? After beating them senseless for an army, disband the base to a worker and penalty averted.

If you really wanted to make it hurt, after too many uses, have there be a chance of your units going barbarian (who wants veteran barbarian swordsmen running around.. yilkes). This in addition to dimising return. As that could prob be averted the same way as above.

[Raging Mouse]

I don't know if this has been said before, but if not then I hope it helps.

In the game I'm currently playing, I decided to conquer India's luxury resources, but ended up having to kill the entire country. Why? Because it was late in the came, and india was my equal, culturally. Initially, my target was only one city right behind the border, with dyes right next to it. Since I didn't want to switch away from Democracy, I figured anything more would be a waste of resources.

Easy peasy. I went in, and my combined horde of cavalry and cannons were able to take the city without losses. I garrison the city with three cavalries and a cannon while the rest fan out into the countrside to break India's retaliation. 11 indian citizens remain in the city when the turn ends.

Next turn, I get the heartwarming message that my newly conquered city has defected back to india, together with my three cavalries and my cannon. Making getting it back a true pain.

A small analysis showed that I was quite close to their capital, and two other cities of India had spheres of influence that would have gone past the conquered city, had it not had any influence of it's own. VERY probable cause of defection, in other words.

Solution: First I took my remaining three cannons, plus another four coming along later, and bombed the crapola out of said city until only one citizen remained. That took three turns. Once I reconquered it, I wanted to make sure I could keep it, so I had to conquer both the other cities to nullify their cultural influence.

Next problem: Now I had two new cities, and each of them had two Indian cities with huge spheres of influence threatening to eat them up.

At this point I figured I couldn't conquer the cities fast enough to prevent cultural defection. So; I cooked up this winning recipe:

1) Never ever garrison a city you think will defect to the enemy.

2) Starvation Schmarvation! Keep them happy, not well fed! Every single citizen should be an entertainer!

3) Strike back! As soon as there's no resistor left, rush-build a library. Not a temple, as they're more expensive and produce less culture.

4) Do some preliminary work. Bombing a city down to it's last citizen dramatically decreases the difficulty of keeping it from defecting, since that single citizen will likely be either content or happy.

And with these four golden rules, India was gone. And all it cost was... ehm... the lives of tens of thousands of potential civilian defectors. There's a lesson to be learned here; Cities are valuable, but not the population in them.

There. Hope this helps you beat those culturally superior nations.

[cousLee]

Good point about it's the cities, not the population.

RE 3> Thats one of the main reasons I like the religious trait. Temples are cheap, so are cathedrals. Cheaper even than a library. But in trying to build them (en masse), I have noticed that I get tech parity only near the mid-middle ages, and if I don't do a little tech whoring, parity comes a bit further down the road. So even tho your going against a cultural monster, you stand a fair chance of having better units. Best idea imo, is hit those civs early, before they become too much of a cultural powerhouse.

I just launched a campagin against against the polite Russians, as trading in silk and horsies(esp) is not acceptable. From my AI styled city,drop position. I attacked away from the capitol. and captured a size 4 town. Cut a whole peninsula off her territory. Turn of capture, 4 resistors. next turn, 4 verry happy russian workers, no defection yet, even tho it (and my launch pad), have the russian capitol between them and mine. I truly suspect it has a lot to do with the luxury resources. I have six comming in to the captured town via the harbor in the launch town. Plus 10% on the luxuries slider.

I do sit at the top of the culture hill, but not that much on top. (not miles ahead of anyone). So make sure you got them new citizens of yours happy suckers. Even if you have to up the luxury slider bar for a few turns, at a loss, it's better to lose a few gold coins, than it is to lose half your invasion force with your new prize.

(darn typos)

[Just My 2 Cents]

vmxa1: the whole point of opinion/preference is there IS no right or wrong.

my favourite colour is blue. yours is orange. who's right? am I fascist for liking blue? are you a homosexual for wearing orange shirts? can you detect I'm being sarcastic? but I guess on a forum one of us has to be right so we'll wait for vel to judge, right?

took up way too much of this thread last time so I'll be quick. I have enough friends in the real-world so I'm not here to make friends. Most forums like this are about 30 posters kissing up to the guy who is supposedly the most popular, or is supposedly a woman, or whatever. I enjoy reading most of the posts because the strategic insights are usually revealing but that's about it.

every idiot is entitled to his opinion, even me. but that's all it is. once again vmxa1, if you get the next 15 posters to tell me I'm wrong it won't affect me, that's not right or wrong, it's mob mentality.

[vmxa1]

When someone says Elvis is alive and that is their opinion, they are either right or they are not. If you say I like blue and that is my opinion, your are correct, that is neither correct or in error, it is an opinion. The problem is that people claim it is their opinion on something that is not really an opinion. It is either a fact or it is not. The discussion is about a given form of cheating. It is either right or it is not. It is really not a matter of opinion. You are either cheating or you are not.

[ChrisShaffer]

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Cheat v.
1. trans. To escheat, confiscate. Obs.
2. To defraud; to deprive of by deceit.
3.
a. To deceive, impose upon, trick.
b. To lead into (an action) by deception.
4. intr.
a. To deal fraudulently, practise deceit.
b. to cheat on: to be sexually unfaithful to (one's spouse). Also without on. colloq. (chiefly U.S.).
5. trans. To beguile (weariness, tedium, etc.).
6. To obtain by cheating. Obs.
7. trans. and intr. Cinematogr. To suppress or adapt (part of a film) during editing so as to create a desired illusion. So cheated ppl. a., cheating vbl. n. Cf. CHEAT n.1 4c.

I believe that 3a and 4a are the best choice of definitions for our purposes. I note that all of these definitions depend on some sort of deception, trickery, or fraudulent dealing.

Thus, if someone is open about what they did, it is not cheating. It may not be a valid entry for the tournament, but it is not cheating!

[Capt Dizle]

Thanks Chris. I appreciate a guy with a dictionary. That is the mark of someone who is trying to cheat miscommunication. I salute you.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary

1. to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud.
2. to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice.
3. to defeat the purpose or blunt the effects of

Number three there is the basis of my posts about the entries in the tourney by people who used the reload method of producing a high score. I have no problem with people playing the game anyway they want, but, to submit such a production, whether disclosed or not, seems to me to be cheating.

If you lose a battle and reload you have "defeated the purpose" or "blunted the effects" of the combat system. By this definition you have "cheated" irregardless of whether or not you disclosed what you did.
You cheated the game.

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Thanks Chris. I appreciate a guy with a dictionary. That is the mark of someone who is trying to cheat miscommunication. I salute you.

I've reported your post to the moderators. Calling someone a cheater is very rude. I'd ask you for an apology, but I suspect it's useless. What's gotten into you jimmytrick? You're a great tactician, but you've been devolving into personal attacks that detract from your arguments and simply make you look bad. Why?

edit - my complaint is retracted below, I misread jt's post.

[Velociryx]

Whoa….looks like it’s been a tough couple of days!

I’m not entirely surprised though….any time you get people together talking about something they’re passionate about, there’s bound to be some friction.

What saddens me a bit though, is that I fear the fighting has caused the strategy thread to lose its “Five Star” rating, and I truly believe it was worthy of those five stars. There have been a lot of people who have put a lot of time, energy, and effort into posting their ideas here (besides me, let me point out! I have no life….this is fun for me, but there are plenty of people who post here who don’t have the spare time I do, but they post anyway).

Anyway….perhaps if we let the dust settle on the issue of what is or is not a cheat, we can get back to talking nuts and bolts of strategy.

Truce?

::hopeful smile::

-=Vel=-
(who has pretty much been Civing all weekend, and has a LOT to write about!)

[Capt Dizle]

Chris,

My post to you was a compliment. Please try to read it again without preconcieved notions.

I used my Webster's to demostrate that even within the scope of definitions there is quite a bit of room for discussion and disagreement.

To cheat miscommunication is to "blunt the effects" of miscommunication.


That is a good thing.

I always try to compliment people who go to the dictionary because it is a sign of sincerity, maturity, and rational thought.

I really think you read my post too fast here buddy.

jt

[Velociryx]

JT: LOL...I had to read it twice myself before I "got it" myself.....early morning brain-fog most likely.....but yes...I too, got the impression he just read it too quickly.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Also, the "you cheated the game" remark was not directed at you, lol. It was directed at the practice of reloading, not any individual.

I am actually confused here as to why you are upset. I thought my post was fairly clear.

[Capt Dizle]

that MarkG has not made a ruling AFAIK on the issue for the monthly game.

And so I am gathering steam for a little crusade to force him off the fence. I can't believe that the new tourney came out without a ruling on this one.

jt


ps...of course I will probably get banned for one reason or another.

[inca911]

Originally posted by Raging Mouse I went in, and my combined horde of cavalry and cannons were able to take the city without losses. I garrison the city with three cavalries and a cannon while the rest fan out into the countrside to break India's retaliation. 11 indian citizens remain in the city when the turn ends.

A Pop 11 city requires a much larger garrison than 3 Cavalry to prevent cultural reversion. Unnecessarily
destroying almost the entire population and infrastructure of such a well developed city is wasteful. Next
time, load up some un-upgraded older units and bring them along for cheap culture control. If there is a
wonder-laden or resource-laden city that I want to keep, I simply send some extra units along for the
ride. It makes life much simpler and you then have a base of operations that you can use (unless
corruption is off-the-scale). Anyway, one unit per population of the city prevents any city from cultural
reversion. Even the former Perisan capital with 4 Wonders!!!

[Arrian]

Ok, I think we've hashed out this "cheating or not cheating" or, in other words "who cares how others play in the privacy of their (SP) own games?"

WOOHOO! I finally have a really successful Monarch game going. Monarch has totally changed my civ (faction, for Vel) choice. I was all about the Babs on Regent, but man, oh man, I'm loving the Persians right now. That whole industrious thing is nice... and I take back my prior comments rating the Mounted Warrior so much higher than the immortal. Fact is, a 4 attack early on can't be matched... and results in steamroll victories (I'm sure those of you playing the Persians have noticed this, of course). Anyway, I expanded normally, but managed to cut off the Babylonians to my south and Germans to my north. This gave me a decent area to settle. The Babs were designated "target." I was REALLY hoping they'd build the Great Library. Unfortunately, they didn't, but they did build the Colossus and Great Lighthouse in Babylon. I think the Persians should have "usually located next to juicy Babylonian civ" in their description.

The Continent I was on kinda looks like a Donut, with an extra peninsula up north (The Babs and I in the south, Germans in the middle - just north of the donut "whole" inland sea, and the Zulu up north). The Babs died. Badly. I didn't lose a single immortal. In fact, I took three cities before I lost a HIT POINT. Wow. No leaders, though. I didn't poprush a single unit.

I beat the hell out of them and then sued for peace, taking all money, tech (I may not have gotten any, actually) and cities (1)beside their capitol. The city that I received in the deal was actually on the other continent, right next to 2 silks. This, once I built a couple of workers (to road the silk and then chop trees for the harbor), gave me 4 luxuries, and of course contact with some nice people over there. I used IFE in this game, since I... well, needed it and it was there. Slowly, I ramped up my economy and got a tech lead, which in conjunction with the "industrious" production bonus, nabbed me the Sistine, Newton, Theory of Ev. and Universal Suffrage thus far...researching computers now, but considering switching to Fission to make damn sure I get the UN.

A WW rages presently, as a couple of MPP's I signed (I usually stay out of them, but I was feeling a tad isolated at the time) dragged me into various wars. The Zulu and I are eating up Germany (I really hope I can grab the coal so I can RR the area i capture, but no biggie if I have to import it for 20 turns). I've had to trade for some pretty key resources in this game - coal and rubber thus far. I do have oil, thank goodness, but only 2, and one was German. Unfortunately, my silk city on the other continent is threatened by the civs over there I'm now at war with. They won't talk to me. So the plan for now is to finish the airport over there while finishing the Germans off, and then airlift in my rather large army of Tanks, as well as rebasing the Bombers I'm building. That should be fun, and I may even be able to get rubber out of it.

My conclusions: good starting spot, lucky enough to cut off Babs, got some gold (as in the bonus resource), which helps that early republic budget deficit, built the forbidden in a decent spot near my captured colossus, had 4 luxuries - that may have been the key - and I only beat up on one civ. Everyone else liked me until WWI broke out. 4 persian workers under democracy w/replaceable parts can clear/plant trees in a turn, and that is really the only way to build up culture improvements in those border towns w/o RUINING your treasury. Not too shabby. Most of my success has been due to the geography, of course. I have played many an unsuccessful - and extremely frustrating -Monarch game prior to this, many times "winning" but not winning, ya know?

Vel - About my MW tactics, the idea is to swarm, take several border towns, weather the counterattack (I do bring some grunts, and the MW's are used for mobile defense for a bit), and then proceed onward. At that point, the AI is hurt so badly it can't mount an active defense, so my MW's are largely safe.

Also, I'd be curious to know if you could take that early advantage you got on Emperor with the Aztecs and hang on to the end. Given the nasty evil AI production/research bonuses, they can catch up fast. Given that I'm still scratching and clawing on Monarch, I don't think I'll be movin' on up for a while.

-Arrian

[Quurgoth]

Egad, this game is tough on us purists.

My style:

Pop rushing is only used to build culture-producing improvements (library, temple, cathedral, etc.) in a city that's in danger of being culturally absorbed by an enemy civ. If my borders are challenged because they're near the Babylonian capitol, I feel OK about rushing to finish the one or two improvements that seem to guarantee my cities will remain my own.

I have never used IFE.

There's only one reason I'll overlap cities: to keep my cultural envelope whole, which can keep a foreign civ from building a city in the cracks. I do this rarely, primarily (as above) in areas far from my capitol and close to an enemy civ.

I love this thread, because I'm impressed by sharp minds and I enjoy the perspective of others. Vel et al., you're brilliant, and the way you deconstruct the game to learn its inner workings is instructive. I also realize that, with my style, I may be stuck at Regent or Monarch for a long time. Civ2 was cake, even at deity... this is a whole 'nother thing

Observations (I'm primarily playing at Regent):

I don't like Republic at all. Monarchy seems to work much better for my style, although I'll keep tinkering.
The French and Babylonians are most effective for my style... the French dominate commercially, the Babylonians dominate culturally.
I sell EVERYTHING that has any value... communications, techs, luxuries, etc. The only exception is military resources (iron, etc.). I give away a lot of money.
If I have a weakened civ nearby, that will clearly never be a military threat, I always sell my techs to every other civ, then give them away to the nearby civ. They eventually are gracious, and when they do develop a tech on their own I get a good deal.

This game is pretty spectacular

[Velociryx]

LOTS to report on after playing for pretty much the whole weekend. I’m a little bleary-eyed this morning, having gotten perhaps four hours sleep all weekend, so bear with me!

First, let me say that having opened up a can of royal hurt and pain on Emperor, I decided to shift back down to Monarch, cos I just found the game more enjoyable at that level. Felt like all I did was fight on Emperor.

So….played large 12, monarch, as one of my all-time favorites, the Babylonians.

Firstly, my start was decent, but far, far less than optimal….early game exploration revealed that I was on a short, fat peninsula that widened into a MONSTER of a continent, with wide swaths of desert for me to slog through to get to good city-building sites. Still, the land in my general vicinity was good land, if somewhat widely spaced….meaning I’d almost HAVE to use wider city spacing than I normally prefer. No biggie, I worked with it. Persians and Aztecs VERY close to my east, Zulu pretty close to my west, with the Iroquois north of them, and the Americans north of them. So…half of us on one continent. I was pretty sure I’d be on the “technologically advanced” continent when first trans-oceanic contact was eventually made.

My first goal was to control exactly when my GA occurred, and I knew I didn’t want it early, which meant building few, if any bowmen, and keeping them in places where they’d not see combat (good early investment tho…upgradable to longbowmen, which is nice).

The area I settled in was rich in surplus resources (SIX Incense tiles!), so I knew from the start that it would be a mercantile game.

I also knew, when the freakin’ Zulu beat me to the six tiles of dyes in the jungle they started near that their Civ was the one I was gonna target for destruction.

Okay…they dyes only constituted half of my decision. After carefully looking at the map, I reasoned that my Empire would just LOOK a lot cooler if I absorbed most, if not all of Zulu holdings into it. (How’s that for finely tuned strategy? LOL) What can I say though…I am, first and foremost, an artist…and that kinda thing is important to me. Besides, I don’t wanna be the ruler of some goofy looking empire (and in this game, the English rule over something that looks oddly like a turkey).

So…tag….the Zulu were “it.” That was scary too, cos on the power chart, they were the top dogs, with me running right behind them.

Soon as I secured Iron (3 sources, by the way!), we began putting together a goodish army (100% swordsmen in this instance….here’s why: As the Babylonians, everybody I was in contact with had SERIOUS culture envy, meaning my borders were pushing hard against theirs. My troops step across the border and they’re adjacent to the target city. Nothing fancy required. Also, repeated testing has revealed that if I overrun three enemy cities, they’ll invariably cry uncle. Sometimes with two if they’re small, but every time I’ve captured three cities, no matter how big the Empire, they were always willing to talk peace. Or maybe I’ve just been lucky.

So…three strike groups of eight swordsmen each.

Bam.

One-two-three….just like clockwork, and suddenly we had lots of veteran swordsmen and three new cities….and all their money/most of their tech!

Great! But I still didn’t have that city with all the dye in it (I did take Zimbabwe, the capitol, with it’s two wonders tho!).

In short….we were happenin!

To prepare for said combat, I did something….a little different. Rather than the “pairing” technique I described elsewhere in this thread, I simply built two settlers, and founded a pair of “war-cities” right in the face of the Zulu, capitalizing on some high production food tiles that the Zulu were hoping to “grow into” and using them against the Zulu. Turns out I didn’t need them, cos the wars were all so short, by my thinking was that it really SUCKED to have my reinforcements coming in from so far away….and if I could have a place right on the border that I could rush in needed replacements from….

So…after the first war, I peacefully disbanded both of them, but it was a pretty cool idea, I thought.

Also, after the first war (which netted me six workers), I made sure to have four workers milling around not far behind my attack force, ready to move in as soon as peace was declared and start hooking the road network up with mine and stuff.

Peace lasted EXACTLY twenty turns, and by now, each attack group had been bulked up by one….nine swordsmen in three groups.

Bam-part-two.

Three more cities, a great leader (Agum), mo’ money, mo’ tech.

It was good to be Babylonian, and, our two short wars had catapulted us solidly into the numero uno spot on our continent!

Still didn’t have that damned dye tho.

I waited till I’d finished the Heroic Epic to attack again, hoping for another leader (made an army with Agum). Attacked again, but this time, I hadn’t bulked up on my attack force….was too busy building infrastructure and such, so I figured my grizzled swordsmen would have to be enough.

They had taken some losses though, and all told, I had 19 swordsmen and Agum’s army to work with….they dyes being my primary objective.

‘bout this time, an American city founded a little close to me (Denver) decided they wanted to join up, and it gave me an idea….

Knowing that the AI is all-seeing, it would know if I left a couple of little crap towns in the middle of nowhere undefended….

It would probably beeline right for them….

So…I left Denver and a recently conquered Zulu town (Swazi), which was TOTALLY useless for the moment, completely surrounded by jungle, with no resources or anything in it….left them both wide open and undefended, and marched my army toward the city (whatever it’s called) with all the dyes, and it’s next-door-neighbor, which I renamed to “Justanotherzulutown”).

Our third war was fought circa 800AD, and we were in the middle ages by then, so it was my swordsmen vs. their Pike. Some brutal slug-fests ensued, but zippo on the Great Leaders…. Still….as a battle plan, it worked like a charm. I captured the new Zulu capitol and all their dyes, they captured two USELESS size one cities that were completely surrounded by my superior culture (and were likely to be reabsorbed anyway), and were ready to talk peace.

More cash, more tech, and now LOTS of tradable resources, and I was all set.

Swazi rejoined us soon after the treaty was signed, but Denver is a bit of a holdout….to this day (1400-something), they have not come back….no biggie….but it’s odd to me.

Anyway, at this point I switched to Republic and hit the diplomatic circuit. It seemed that the industrious Zulu people had built a road network connecting me to the Iroquois and their American neighbors further north, and I had meanwhile hooked up with the Zulu, Aztec, and Persians.

We were all connected, and I was a guy with stuff to sell!

And sell I did!

Even the jealous Zulu bought some of their former dyes from me!

Suddenly, I was swimming in money!

Whenever someone would get a new tech….suddenly it was time to renegotiate for those spices and dyes!

I forced LOTS of rival civ towns into disorder by suddenly pulling the plug on my luxury items and demanding renegotiation when somebody had a juicy new tech I wanted.

Did the same thing with horseless (1 extra) and ironless (2 extra) Zulu….if they wanted to build the good toys, then they had to play by my rules.

At this point in the game, I stopped and contemplated what I had learned:

Distilled points up to now
* Three captured cities, and the AI is ready to talk peace.

* With high culture pushing borders HARD against your rivals, an all swordsmen force will be fine, cos they can be adjacent to the target cities on the turn war is declared.

* The research advantages enjoyed by your rivals can be undone by a focus on commerce. If you’re willing to wheel and deal, you can spin yourself into a position of complete dominance.

* High-demand luxury items can be used to wreck havoc with a rival Civ’s Empire if the plug is pulled when they don’t play as nicely as you want them to.

* Most of the time, the AI will offer their world map as part of a trade deal. Refuse that portion and ask for 2-3 more gold per turn. Most of the time, you’ll get it.

Essentially, you have a captive market. They’re gonna be BEGGING for the goods you’ve got, and remember….the more cities they have, the more valuable those luxuries are to them! This is good incentive not to overrun them completely. First, the corruption will crush you like a beer can, and second, you can make a TON of money selling luxury items and strategic resources to other sprawling nations. And, you also have a big economic stick, too. If they do something that ticks you off….pull the plug. You don’t have to do a trade embargo (tho you can if you want to protect your market in the long term and prevent them from simply going elsewhere), you can just….stop selling and watch as their cities riot.

I don’t know how many turns I made the AI waste doing stuff like that when I was working on a Wonder they were competing with me on (Copernicus’s Observatory). Snagged the Wonder, too…probably via strategic use of Luxury items. Very cool, that!

I also found a very good reason to let the Zulu nation live!

I was gonna just take them out, but then….something dawned on me as the game progressed into the Industrial Age.

I had three freakin’ tiles of saltpeter I didn’t need anymore!

And an extra horse tile.

And a bunch of Iron that nobody was buying anymore!

Well….nobody but the poor, tech-starved Zulu….

Talk about a captive market!! I was making money hand over fist selling them all the resources I didn’t need any more, and that nobody else (who had higher tech) would touch with a ten foot pole!

They were my little harmless buddies to the west! (well…and in stubborn Denver on my northern border), and still furious with me, after several hundred years of peace.

So….it’s GOOD to be the guy with lots of luxuries. I’ve had civs (factions…lol) offer me a tech and money just to get some incense (which I’m swimming in, and could really care less about, except that I know they want it….NEED it for control….heh….it’s good to be the King!)

Next stop….Built Newton’s University and sparked a BRUTALLY effective Golden Age.

Was able to run 100% science, widen my tech gap by an average of five techs (the English are my nearest competition, and I have a three tech lead over them), and make +/- 500 a turn. Any time another civ researched a tech along a different branch of the tree, I simply bought it with cash (no tech swapping here), and then shopped that tech around. My research I kept as my own….entirely proprietary.

OH! With one exception! GAD, I almost forgot.

The Babs are a scientific civ, so you get a free advance when you move from one age to the next.

The other civs will pay ANYTHING (well, nearly anything) for those techs that bridge the ages. I sold Nationalism all around for SILLY kinds of money. Several points in the game, I was actually making more in trade revenues than I was in taxes (and I’m no slouch where taxes are concerned!).

My Golden Age was perfectly timed, cos it helped me build my FP in Zimbabwe, build factories everywhere….every city I own has a factory in it.

Helped me snag both universal suffrage and the Theory of Evolution (which gave me steel and refining as my freebie techs, after I made SURE to make the rounds and buy up every other tech that the AI had researched already!), and it came to an end just as I’m 3 turns from getting Electronics. Hoover Dam, here we come! I suspect I’ll be able to finish it before the English even get the tech, but we shall see.

Anyway….an awesome Monarch game with an awesome faction….(aside to Arri – Sounds like you're having an absolutely AWESOME game man, congrats! And....just so ya know....I’ve decided to let the “juicy Persian civ” off my border live for the moment…heh (good comment there, btw! My cube-neighbors at work were wondering what the heck I was chuckling about over here....somehow, I just don't think they'd "get it")….but I DO totally agree with you….Persians are just about unbeatable with those Immortals! It is fortunate for me that they don’t have any oil in our current standoff…)

So…I learned a TON this game….mostly about how to use your tradable goods as a weapon. Iron, coal, especially luxury items, can all be used to make sure that YOUR civ walks away with the lion’s share of the loot!

OoO

Slightly off-topic here, but related enough to mention….

Note to Mod-Makers
I’m certainly not going to try to tell you guys how to do your thing….the stuff you do is completely beyond me and my patience threshold…two HUGE thumbs up!!

I have been hearing though, that a number of mods propose to alter the upgrade paths for numerous units. Specifically, for offensive units, and IMO, that would be a mistake that would unbalance the game.

We all know that the warrior upgrades to the swordsman, and then…nada. You get swordsmen or seven shields on the disband. That’s it.

Meanwhile, the lowly Spearman can upgrade all the way to the modern era.

Now, the realist-crowd would argue that the swordsman can pick up a rifle just as easily as the spearman, and they’re right, but….

I think the game-mechanics reason behind dead-ending the attack troop branches of the upgrade tree is to create an opportunity cost for the attacker. That is to say, you can’t buy a wad of swordsmen and then not use them. Well, you can, but you’d be seriously wasting your money.

What it does then, is it prompts aggressors to….well…aggress. They’re going to lose their investment if they don’t!

At the same time though, attack units have a very definite shelf life compared to defensive units, and when that shelf life has ended, you simply have to scrap them and build new.

This puts a certain amount of time-pressure on the attacker…also a good thing, because if he’s not quick enough with those swordsmen, the defender will have pikes or musket men in place and he’s up the proverbial creek.

::shrug:: Maybe it’s just me, but I get the feeling there’s an exquisite sense of balance in having the attack-oriented troops along dead end branches where upgrades are concerned.

Of course, if you DO mod the game thusly, I’ll prolly dl it anyway and test it out….but with swordsmen upgrading to riflemen, I can tell you that I’ll be doing a LOT more attacking….

-=Vel=-
(more later!)

[eMarkM]

Monarch has totally changed my civ (faction, for Vel) choice. I was all about the Babs on Regent, but man, oh man, I'm loving the Persians right now.

Yeah, this is how I've scored most of my Monarch wins, as Persia. An early war using Immortals to take out nearby Zulus or Babs. Though I would caution you on war w/ Babylon. It's likely you'll fall into a "their dismissive of your culture" rating w/ them, so be careful if you go on a war of conquest. Keep track of your culture rating vs them. I usually end up razing all but Wonder cities, w/ settler waiting to replace city, because it's next to impossible to hold theirs because of their culture.

Looking forward to Vel's analysis of Perisans, though since he's going in alphabetical order and is writing such well thought and detailed analyses, it'll probably be around Spring by the time he gets to it

Vel, in your series of specific strategies for each individual civ, to make them even more in-depth, you may want to consider their typical neighbors (eg, I always have had Zulu and Babs near me as Persia) and strategies on how to deal w/ them.

e

[Velociryx]

Oh! I love it! And you can bet I'll be adding a "Culture Group" segment to the re-write for the guide! *Excellent* idea!



-=Vel=-

[jglidewell]

Originally posted by vmxa1
When someone says Elvis is alive and that is their opion, they are either right or they are not. If you say I like blue and that is my opion, your are correct, that is neither correct or in error, it is an opion. The problem is that people claim it is their opion on something that is not really an opion. It is either a fact or it is not. The discussion is about a given form of cheating. It is either right or it is not. It is really not a matter of opion. You are either cheating or you are not.

Acutually it is not an opinion at all.

Elvis is in fact alive !!

If you run the scroolling credits all the way to the end then you will become a believer yourself.

[Arrian]

Vel,

I've noticed some important similarities between our two, rather successful Monarch games.

1) Extensive sale of luxuries - often for tech. I've done this to great effect. If you can monopolize a couple of lux. items, you can make up for early tech problems while you're setting up your economy.

2) Early military success against one, and only one, adversary. This, I think, is very important. If you hit one, then another, then another... you will end up in the mid/late game with some pretty "cautious" or "annoyed" civs - and those are the ones you haven't fought. Plus, wars take time, especially if you have to move your army from one side of the empire to the other in order to hit the next target.

In your case, you were able to do 2 rounds of attacking & get all tech, whereas I did it once, but kept up due to my golden age.

3) Industrial/Modern Wonders are ours for the taking. Due to the way Monarch works, it is unlikely (possible, but unlikely) that you will get early Wonders. The key is setting up your empire in such a way that you can nab the later ones. Capture early ones if possible.

I forgot to mention that I did get Hoover in my game... thus 2-turn tanks and bombers in several cities.

Differences:

1) You were able to hold off on your golden age, I was not. Immortals triggered it, of course. Sounds like a late-game golden age can really put you over the top.

2) You kept the Zulu alive as a client civ, I wiped out the Babs. The deciding factors were 1) they were relatively small, so my initial attack knocked them to 1 city, and 2) they declared war on the Zulu (why is a total mystery), who would have taken that last city anyway. Instead, I got some money out of the Zulu for an alliance vs. the Babs, and took the city myself. Shaka was "gracious," and we're still on great terms.

Some important notes: Having a strong economy is crucial on this level of play. It is always important, but is even more so now This means marketplaces/banks ASAP.

Placement of your forbidden palace will not always be "perfect." I found that I was holding off on building it because I really wanted it in an ideal location, but need either 1) a leader to build it in less than 300 turns, or 2) that location was an opponent's capitol (and still under their control). Heh, I was a little too ambitious for my own good. I suggest putting it near some cities with hills/mountains. This will allow them to actually produce some shields. Once you have factories, you're talkin' a Tank in 2 or 3 turns (or wealth, if you're low on cash). Of course, if you have a city with a could of gold hills, I would give STRONG consideration to strategic placement of the FP near that city.

During the middle ages, build as many knights as you can w/o hindering overall development. They upgrade to cavalry for 20 gold each

Give small gifts (world map when everyone has it already, 1 gold, etc.) to other civs from time to time. I'm not positive this is the reason, but my diplomatic relations w/others were pretty cordial (heh, Civ2ism there) with everyone for most of the game. Besides, it's awfully cheap and easy to do.

Given Vel's example described above, if you can manage it, hold off on that golden age! I've always thought that a mid-game GA is the best. What he describes could fall into mid-game or late-game, depending on how you define such things. However, the key is that you're competitive at that point, and the GA puts you over the top.

-Arrian

[ChrisShaffer]

Sorry jt, I thought you were saying I was "cheating communication" and not "cheating miscommunication." There was a double negative there that I didn't get.

You're right, I read too fast, and I withdraw my complaint against you. Sorry.

[eMarkM]

On resource trading:

Getting those fields of luxuries is really key. Usually worth going to war over. In this Egypt/Monarch game I have going I started w/ only one wine. I ran into a field of 4 jungle spices and just before my settler was about to enter the square where I was going to build a city, Rome beat me to the punch. Since I had a warrior escort right there, the town came right down and each civ's fortunes forever changed. Rome only had one silk to themselves, so I effectively shut them out of the lux trading scene. They never could build up a bank balance and quickly became a vassal.

I later fought a war over 3 English furs, had to take their capitol to get it. These wars over lux fields are well worth fighting. Any extra luxs you have should be traded. You only need one for your own empire and you shouldn't let the others sit idle. Not only do you rake in money from selling these, you can bankrupt the other civs as they bleed $$ to you. Go to each civ you know and first try to get a tech in the trade. They often will say 'no', but always ask them what they'd offer for it. They'll usually give you gold/turn. Always shop for the best deal. You should always get every excess lux exported at all times. You can usually put science way high then and still be making a profit each turn on gold/turn deals.

Now the same doesn't apply to strat resources, IMHO. I try to keep geopolitics in mind when I trade these. In this Egypt game I had virtual iron and saltpeter monopolies. With these I became king-maker. I decided which civ would get what, but only when I considered how it would benefit me in the power game.

The Greeks and Russians shared my continent, each had no iron. I had 5. Russia was very weak and the Greeks were in close 2nd after me. The Russians came between me and the Greeks and the Greeks & Russians were fighting a on and off war forever, w/ Russia slowly losing ground. Perhaps you can guess who I sold iron to. The Russians. I would have got a LOT more from Greece since Catherine could barely offer me anything for it, but I sold it them and denied the Greeks to give the Russkies a fighting chance of keeping the Greeks in check. This worked and it wasn't until much later that Greece disposed of the Russians. By that time I was far and away the #1 power.

Overseas continents, I still consider geopolitics, but will generally sell them since I don't have to worry as much in the early and midgame how they effect me. These bring in BIG $$ and tech from cash rich civs.

e

[Velociryx]

It seems as though we're all starting to drift towards the same "mercantile" style of play then....very cool, and it's certainly proving a viable alternative to simply beating all your rival civs to a pulp! Requires a little more time to set up, a few surgical strikes and wars of opportunity to secure resources, but in the end, it strikes me as a LOT less micromanagement involved.

Two things, and maybe this is just me:

I always try to secure the islands. I have no idea why....I just....crave them as staging points. I'd almost rather have an island *near* the other continent than a city actually on it (unless of course, it just has a TON of resources). Anybody else have this island infatuation, or is it just me?

Second thing....I've tried to ignore it, but I can't....the Iroquois MW is an absolutely awesome unit, but something is up with that graphic. I grew up on a farm, and I've never seen a horse with a head like that! He looks pretty normal when he's facing you, but when he's profiled....sheesh!

-=Vel=-