Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Two

[vmxa1]

I did not take a postion on Elvis being alive. I said it was either true or false, not an opinion.
Question: has any one figured out if there is any impact to using a despised government? Does it at least affect the happiness? If it does nothing, why bother to mention it? Should we be avoiding the use of a despised form of government?
Why does the AI sign trade embargos and MPP with a Civ that you are at war with the day after begging for peace? This puts them right back at war with you? I have had Civs do this three times in a row. War, peace,embargo/MPP,war. Each time losing cities and paying reparations.
Why do they insist on sending troops throuh your land, even after being clobbered?
Why do they persist in trying to land settlers next to your developed cities, when they can not hope to maintain them (I kill the defenders before they build)?

[DickK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Continuation of the Civ-Analysis Article

Aztec (Religious/Militarist)
Starting Tech: Ceremonial Burial/Warrior Code
Special Unit: Jaguar Warrior (1/1/2): Warrior with an extra movement point that you can build from turn one. Same stats as Chariots…cheaper (50% cheaper!), and you don’t have to research any techs to train them!

Vel -- Hey, I think the AI has been reading your analysis!

I really like the fact that the AI has a personality, not as strongly as SMAC, but its still good. It seems to be aware of its advantages and tries to exploit them. That is a very positive change from the too-generic Civ2 civs.

Example: In my current game, I'm the Iriquois in the middle of a med-to-large continent with the Americans to the East and the Aztecs to the West. I'm glad I sent my first exploration unit west! Thanks to that I was able to block a key passage that somewhat limited the Aztecs' expansion. I also found & blocked the Americans and then turned my attention to back West. Didn't trust the Aztecs to keep the peace and they didn't--if he's going to exploit his advantage it has to be early and he's been trying real hard. Thank goodness for the Mounted Warrior. If I'd been the American's this time I'd be sacrifices on Aztec altars! The AI is playing a very aggressive and fairly smart war--the tactical situation is pretty simple and there's no complex tech in the game yet, so hasn't really caused most of the AI's weaknesses in combat to come into play.

I also "liked" how once I'd stopped his advance and pushed it back he immediately (bought?) an alliance with the Americans to create a second front. Fortunately I could largely ignore that since I had a narrow front with a few strong defenders. He then enlisted the aid of the Greeks (on another continent 2 squares South) and I signed up the English (on a third continent but who had established a couple cities near the Aztecs). They Aztecs immediately shifted to the defensive against me and swarmed onto the English cities taking both.

I've just gotten gunpowder so his Jaguar's aren't much of a threat to my cities anymore but its going to be a long war at the rate things are going!

I've been pleased at how the AI has managed to use a variety of things against me, all consistent with the Aztec "personality". The bottom line is that it matters a lot which Civ you select and you need to understand that Civ's stregths/weaknesses as well as how that impacts your interaction with the other ones.

Keep up the good work!

[Gen.Dragolen]

Velociryx,

You have any suggestions for dealing with what amounts to a muligan everytime you start a game ?

I've been trying to deal with having no resources or luxuries in any starting city and so far have been unable to prevent getting gang raped by the AI's (ie. everyone with whom I've had contact to that point).

Not that I don't understand how the game worksor that I'm playing on Diety level (though in hindsight, that might be easier to take). I have played the Egyptians a few time since they are an old favorite from Civ's 1&2, and have repeated cultural victories in the early 1900's. I simply followed the rapid expasion stratagem to block in the AI's and then back fill. I never wanted for food resources or iron. The most of the games were headed that way and got boring. So I decided to try out the other civ's and have found that none of them could last much past 1 AD...

In experimenting with the other civ's I have noticed that there are several advantages the AI enjoys with which the Egyptian civ can easily deal. First, starting locations. I have yet to see an AI that hasn't had a choice location for their captial compared to my starting location. Always food and a luxury or two. Not that they have any great production advantage at first while you build out, but that they seem to have food and all the resources they need to product their advanced units. As soon as I have iron working, they have iron in spades when I get one if I'm lucky. Second, the AI does not respect cultural borders when moving settlers. Short of lining up warriors across the map to keep them out, when you ask using the diplomacy, the AI will agree and exit your lands in the direction of your capital. This lead me to my third point. Why not attack the settlers? Because every single time I have, my warriors or whatever units I have used, they die in the assault. Right there, I have a huge problem with the combat model they have used for CivIII: unrealistic when an elite unit or UU can loose to an unfortified regular unit of the same type on open ground. Fourth, the AI's have a better position allows them to use the diplomacy options. With one city established behind your frontier, the AI's will demand your maps. And when refused, it has been declaring war the next turn. And this is usually after it has spent the current turn making alliances with everyone I've met so far, and so now you face multiple opponents. Before you say I should have made an alliance or two of my own, this leads me back to the original problem of not having any luxuries or resources to offer as inducement. And since the AI can see what I have for gold because of their embassy, they want every last shekel each time they offer a deal. And each one want the same things: your map and all your gold.

Now I'm thinking that the starting locations may be just my bad luck, but having the same situation 20+ starts in a row with anyone except the Egyptians, any strategy is frustrated by these circumstances. I'm going to reinstall and hope for better, because otherwise, I'll go back to mod'ng CTP2 where the AI has the same level of a starting advantage and leave CivIII on the shelf until Firaxis comes out with a multiplayer expansion.

Not that I haven't thought long and hard about the starting production orders and look at the ground and what it had to offer. I have tried to apply the lessons in the Art of War that have worked in real life on the battlefield (Infantry Officer's Combat Course), and should work on some level in the game but not one thing works when you get into a combat system where a healthy 1/1/1 warrior can defeat a healthy 4/2/1 UU in walled town built on hill...that should have been a warrior on his way to an early grave.

Better luck hunting that I've had...

[Arrian]

Dragolen,

Wow, sounds like you've been having some tough luck in your non-egyptian games. To a large degree, I think it's bad luck. Starting location is key, and I've had strings of bad starts between good ones before. Try out the Babylonians.

I'll be the first to admit that I restart a lot. Sometimes, you just get screwed in terms of starting position, and there is nothing you can do about it. The higher the level of difficulty 1) the more crucial start position is, and 2) the worse your start position tends to be.

-Arrian

[Quurgoth]

Ongoing commentary:

Starting location indeed matters, a TON, more so than in Civ2. This has led me to instantly restart if I'm in bad terrain, even on Regent level. Nearby luxuries are nice, and resources, and rivers are the best tiles near a capitol, IMO. Interestingly, the times I tried the Egyptians I got awful starting locations, and my best luck has been with the French.

Has anyone else won the space race in the early 1800s? I think the early victory may have been a result of the frequent tech trading I engage in.

A funny story:

I was in the earlier years of my current game (large/7/regent), with each civ having roughly 15 cities, when a nearby barbarian encampment suddenly exploded with 9 horsemen. Fortunately for me, the terrain was mountains/hills, and I had a nearby warrior.

Guess what? Those pesky barbarians followed my unit like bloodhounds... straight to enemy (American) territory, where they promptly lost focus on my warrior and proceeded to whack the American units in their city muwahahahaha!

Lastly: WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY DOES IT TAKE TO GET A GOOD LAND LOCATION ARGHETRJAEWRJ@#$!~@#~ In the 4 victories I completed, and in the 10 or so that I pursued briefly, I have had a grand total of ONE land location that I consider solid. In 90% of my starts, I'm right on a coast (a lousy spot for a capitol, given the proximity bonuses), or in mountain/hill/desert terrain, or I'm on a tiny island or peninsula.

I'm gettin' downright paranoid.

[Velociryx]

Hey guys....sorry I've not been around much t'day....work has been...UGH....well...'bout typical for a Monday....

Anyway, I agree completely with Arri, Dragolen....I think it's mostly bad luck. When I first started testing, I tried to do so under optimal conditions and would restart till I got some terrain that I "liked" but the past several games, I've just been running with it, regardless. Sure, it's an uphill climb sometimes, but...::shrug:: all part of the fun 'n games.

And Arri....an excellent and interesting synopsis on the similarities (and differences) of our current games!

I think, in broad terms here, my strongest games have been ones with two wars in them....well, perhaps multiple short wars, but with two primary opponents. In the early game, a turf war for land and resources, and late in the game, with the biggest, meanest AI dog on the block (and generally, that one opens up with an RoP blitz....

The first war establishes local dominance, and the second, to knock out your next nearest competitor. When I've done both, it's not even close....

Other stuff I forgot to mention earlier:

More on Armies:
An army only counts as one garrison for purposes of quelling discontent. IMO, it should quell all discontent in a given city regardless of the type of government you're running, at the price of say....increased corruption or something (discontent populace venting in other ways?).

Also, I TRIED to make a city revert back to it's former owners this past game. Let them riot in the streets and did nothing to stop it. It was right next door to the Zulu capitol, and my only garrison was an army, and the city never changed hands as I expected it would.....so apparently, they're good for that too....anti-reversion insurance?

Anybody know if you can build the Pentagon by having three empty armies? I'm gonna try that when I get home. I finished my military academy, and will be building armies soon, but I don't wanna staff them till late game (mech inf). So....I figured I'd build them now as "shells" and if it works, when my third one pops out, I should be be able to build the Pentagon too, which will allow me to put four Mech. Inf. in them (eventually).

Taking Denial to the next level
We've already been discussing here about early turf wars and expansion styles to deny rival Civs access to strategic terrain or resources....here's another goody tho....

The AI LOVES to build it's UU's. When a UU wins a battle, that civ gets a golden age. Now that I've seen the sheer power of a mid/late game GA, I've been thinking that it might be an excellent idea to pick fights with all my near neighbors and intentionally LOSE a battle to one of their UU's...they get a golden age when it's largely meaningless (since on Monarch, they're gonna get most of the early wonders anyway), and I force them to burn an important advantage (true, since they're getting wonders left and right, many of them already ARE getting golden ages, but this way, I can control precisely when it happens).....now we're inching into the metagame, which I've intentionally not been saying much about so far....cos I'm still learning it myself! But....I'm gonna play with that and other concepts floating around in my head and see what shakes out.....for the moment tho...it's back to work....

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Vel,

Hmm... about deliberatly picking a fight in order to lose to a UU and trigger a "premature" golden age for the AI. There are several problems with this.

For one, you now have an angry AI with production + golden age bonuses. Eek.

Second, the whole strategic thinking behind this requires that the civ you attack is not one you've designated for destruction, or even vassalage. Why is that? Because if you're going to make them your vassal, why do you care when their golden age occurs? A vassal, by definition, is a civ you can wack with ease at any time. Ok, so by this reasoning you would do this to a civ relatively far away and try to make peace asap. They will dislike you for some time, however, and if they get too strong, you've made yourself an enemy you may not want. Anyway, as you said yourself, the AI is triggering golden ages left and right early on due to the wonder building advantage it has.

Regarding the RoP blitz... do you use that all the time (once per game, I mean)? I dunno if I could do that... especially because if I saw the AI put his whole army in attack position near my cities, I'd do something about it, RoP or no. It's one of those "gray" areas, I think.

Yes, you can build the Pentagon w/three empty armies, so you can wait for mech inf

-Arrian

p.s. Yeah, mondays suck.

[Velociryx]

Good points all around! I think specifically it would work best with the ancient civs, since you can make the declaration and then sue for peace while they're still little and (production bonuses or no, pretty harmless). Then, you can spend time and cash making them friendly toward you again.

As to my reasoning tho....specifically cos later in the game, they might be real contenders for a couple of juicy projects you've got your eye on. Deny them their GA bonus and you make it tougher for them to beat you to it....or...something along those lines!

LOL...don't mind me today....my brain is still fuzzy from lack of sleep. I think the concept is prolly valid, but you have to be strong (top dog or nearly so) to pull it off well.....

UGH...and let me just say that if this Monday EVER ends, I'm gonna head home and sleep.

No civving tonight for Vel!

....well....maybe just a little....



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

D'oh! I forgot! RoP Blitz -

Actually, I've only done it the way I outlined one time. Generally, the AI that's my nearest competitor is on the other continent, so I'll make an RoP agreement with someone who shares a border from them, drop my guys and mass them on the "safe" side of the continent, and "blitz" them from the neighbor's turf.

Once I do that (late game), my first build is a rushed airport.

That's game, set and match. (Airdrop in bulk)

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Finally hit the wall with lack of sleep, huh Vel? Me, I've just doubled my diet coke consumption.

I'm ridiculously addicted to this game. It took forever to fall asleep last night, because my brain refused to stop planning the attack on Berlin and defense of my silk city (the name escapes me).

Speaking of golden ages, I'm really happy the Germans are going to die without producing a single panzer. The last unit they attacked me with was a knight - they must be unable to trade for saltpetre (no cav), and since I took their oil... NO TANK FOR YOU!

One thing about the Industrious ability that I've been thinking about: the industrious worker bonus jumpstarts you quite nicely. Usually, the first thing I do is mine a shielded grassland (or cow, if available), which allows me to pump out my exploring/garrison units quicker and move on to a settler. This goes 2x as fast for an industrious civ. So does connecting your early cities by roads. This may help you get a settler over to that great city spot the AI is gunning for too - it may be the reason I was able to keep pace with my AI neighbors in the land grab in my Persian game. Persopolis is a pretty nice spot, but by no means "ideal." I wonder what I could have done with a bonus resource or two (what I had was a river, 2 floodplain, some forest, some plains and some shielded grassland).

-Arrian

[DickK]

Starting location importance.

While I suspect Vel's right that virtually any start is viable in the long term, I personally don't have the patience to suffer with a poor start. If I see a big patch of jungle close by or I start where I can't see at least a couple food bonuses and/or luxuries close by then its time to restart.

If I start a bunch of times on the same map I've noticed that I tend to end up in the same spots over and over again. That got me thinking about it so I played with the editor for a while and noticed a couple things about starting locations--at least as designated by the editor. The key issue for their placement seems to be spacing them out. Once its figured out where a starting location needs to be, it then seems to simply adjust to get it in a minimally viable spot--can't tell what the rules it uses for that tho'. But locations are clearly influenced by the overall and local conditions--if grassland/plains are uncommon then it will pick spots that it would otherwise seem to bypass.

An interesting thing happens if you edit the map and delete all the game-designated player starting locations. On the two maps I tried this with, as long as I picked the same civ I always ended up exactly the same spot. Restarting ~10 times always landed me in exactly the same square. Picking a different civ landed me in a different but again constant spot. Took the map and edited it slightly--adding a few land squares near the spot I always landed at and now I started in a completely different spot on the other side of the "world". Would love to know more about how the software "decides" to pick starting locations because there's something interesting going on here.

[Velociryx]

Yep....last night I was like this in front of the computer:

::looks over shoulder and talks to cat, who's looking accusingly at him:: "....yeah...I know, I know...but I just gotta get those dyes from the Zulu and set up some juicy trade agreements. Then I'll go to bed."

{{{Two hours later}}}

::looks over shoulder and talks to the cat, who's been very patient about waiting for the traditional pre-bedtime snack, and who's now beginning to grow horns and have smoke drift up out of her nostrils:: "Okay....okay....I give....let's go get you some food, I'll refill my tea, and then......comebackinandplayjustaLITTLEmore......af ter all....I'm in the middle of this bada$$ Golden Age and I'm only two turns away from landing both Universal Suffrage AND the TOE" (at this, my cat looks at me like I'm COMPLETELY insane).

{{{Three MORE hours later}}}

One....mo....ore....turn....just....one...m...m... .m....{{clunk, as Vel's head hits the desk}}



-=Vel=-

[inca911]

Originally posted by Arrian
It took forever to fall asleep last night, because my brain refused to stop planning the attack on Berlin and defense of my silk city (the name escapes me).

I'm really happy the Germans are going to die without producing a single panzer.

-Arrian

Interesting. I also debated last night whether a war to deny coal to the rest of the world (except one other civ) was worth the effort. I pondered both an assault directly on the capital heartland (demanding the coal containing city as part of the cost of peace) and a simple single city grab (one AI city has 2/3 remaining coal not controlled by me throughout the world). The presence of Furs in the Persians capital city made up my mind. The plan is to now take their capital and one other city, both having many, many wonders and demand the coal city as well. One question remains:
When you obtain a city from the AI, do you get their military units as well or must you staff the city by yourself?

If all goes well, I will have two ~ pop 12 cities that I want to keep to cripple the Persians and if I have to deal with revolt suppression as well in that coal city, then I have to move some troops ASAP!!!

[Velociryx]

....as I sit here in this half-delerious state and contemplate going home.

You know what this game is lacking in somehow? Atmosphere and suspense! I mean....sure, when you're doing a delicate balancing act re: diplomacy, there's a certain dramatic tension, and the sweep of history certainly makes for a dramatic setting but....case in point:

In SMAC, when you build the Secret Project (read: Wonder) called "The Dream Twister," you got treated to an EERIE, SPOOKY damned movie that had all sorts of disturbing imagry in it (and creepy music too!).--I should mention that the Dream Twister was a means of launching an enhanced Psychic Attack against your enemy, essentially either driving them mad, or worse.

At the end of said movie, the following lines of white text appear on an all-black screen:

Three blind mice.
Three blind mice.
See how they run
See how they run....

{{Assassin's Redoubt - Final Transmission}}

OoO

And when you see that....when you read those words while still listening to that creepy music in your head, you know without being outright told that something bad....something really, impossibly bad happend at Assassin's Redoubt, and as you shiver to fight that "skin-crawl" sensation that's on the back of your neck, you suddenly find yourself glad you weren't there.

Civ doesn't have that, and it could.

Or....maybe I just need sleep.

-=Vel=-

edit: Here's what I mean for an off the cuff example of how it could be added to this game.

You finish the colassus and the screen goes blank for a moment. The next thing you hear (before you can actually see anything) are the creaking sounds of being on a wooden ship.

Slowly, the screen lights, and you find yourself staring at this massive pair of bronze FEET....attached to this even MORE massive bronze Statue that's straddling the harbor (oh, I know it didn't REALLLLY straddle the harbor, but...effect, you know?). Big fanfare music, awesome statue....that'd be tops...

-=Vel=-
(off to bed with me!)

[Hastus]

I agree with you there Vel.

This is the only complaint I have about the game really, the lack of movies.

I remember playing Civ 2 and SMAC and one of the most fun parts for me was actually to see the different movies after each wonder.
No matter how many times I built Magellans expedition it was still as much fun to see the ship sailing on the sea and the sailors rushing around on the ship. And to hear the sea crash against the ship when it broke the waves.

Another thing that I would have liked in Civ 3 is different ending movies as well. When you finish as a diplomacy victory for example you should see some sort of movie for it.

Although I think these movies should have been in the game when it was released. I would buy the expansion just if it had the movies. Hopefully it will. *Prays*

[gruedragon]

Vel (and others),

I have a couple of questions:

The first is on tech whoring. How do you know when a civ has researched something? Do you call them up every turn? If so, doesn't that make them annoyed at you like Civ2/SMAC?

Secondly: Given the overwhelming advantage some civs have due to their unique unit and/or combination of traits, do you every see yourself turning the civ-specific abilities off? Myself, I'm leaning towards turning them off so everyone starts on the same level.

[Fitz]

Lol ... Well, I was paying attention to this thread, but I turned my back for a weekend. What are you going to do when the folks get home and see this mess?

Nice to see there are so many devotee's to Civ3 strat, seems like way more than my SMACing days.

*waves to all his new (hopefully) friends*

Anyway, to test Vel's comments on base pairing and the expansion paradigm, and follow his suggestion that I actually get stuck into this game, I started a new game on Friday.

My first game as the Chinese on the lowest level was getting boring, and I hadn't followed any sort of plan, so it was time for something new anyway.

Huge map, 16 civs, regent level (it is only my second game), continents, random Civ (greeks it turns out).

Expansion Paradigm
Method:
First cranks out a worker, then a settler, settler, etc ...

Second Base founded in good food location, then does the same as the first base. These two workers improve for food the best two squares, then improve a high shield square, then start roading my empire.

Third base founded in high resource area, builds worker, then warriors for itself, then first two bases, then exploration.

Fourth + bases founded to my personal grid (4 spaces, three diagonal, one up/across), emphasis on food sites first. I determined by my initial contacts that I could comfortably get a grid of 5 x 5, or 25 bases. Each of these bases follows the pattern of building: worker, warrior, temple, settler, settler, etc.

Comments:
Initially a thin expansion, with 2 bases keeping the expansion alive, 1 base making some troops/explorers, and the others getting some basic culture then completing the expansion to 25 bases. I was on par with (and slightly ahead of) the AI, probably only because of the low level. I decided to sacrafice early exploration in favor of expansion and defense, which worked fine in this specific case but could potentially hurt future games. It seems that I picked just the right number of bases, although I actually didn't decide on 25 until I had 8-9 in place and knew a little about where nearby civs and good base spots were. Lack of exploration meant that I could only pin in 2 of 5 civs on my continent with my base grid (mearly a grid for aethetic reasons). However, that worked ok, since that gave me two weak civs to pick on later.

Interlude
On my continent, I had pinned in the Egyptians and Chinese to my south, with the Japanese to my west, and the Romans and Indians to my north. The Japanese were aleady pretty strong, and the Romans/Indians far away, so I decided to follow (probably to my future regret) the "pick on the weak guy" stratagy. Chinese were to be the first target, followed by the Egyptians (and their horses). I already had discovered Iron, and convieniently enough had some right next to my unit producing base.

Base Pairing
Method:
After my 25 bases were in place, all bases continue to crank out settlers until I have12 "training camps", effectively 1 for each base internal to my 5 x 5 grid, except one side is ocean, so I included three bases there. At this point, each "real" base changes to Culture production, and the training camps start producing swordsmen, with a few catapults and hoplites mixed in. Population whipping started immediately. Once the army was big enough (~10 swordsmen, 5 hoplites, 5 catapults), the invasion of the Chinese began.

Results
Overwhelmed the 7 Chinese bases, then move on to the Egyptians (~9 bases). By the time I got to the Egyptians (about 3 techs, probably 60-70 turns) my army had at least doubled it's size, even after losses. Another 60-70 turns later (about another 3 techs, I'm just estimating here ), it was time to look at that tough nut, the Japanese. Basically, total dominance to this point.

Comments:
The stratagy is obviously extremely powerful, and at this point in the game I have started pulling up those training camps and recycling them back into the real bases. I've switched to Republic, which may make my envisioned war against the Japanese impossible. The only thing that stopped the total annihilation of the Japanese already was my (probably incorrect) use of population sacrafice. Instead of putting a police unit in the base to quell the single dissenter, I relied on luxuries. I shortly found that a single luxury doesn't quell multiple pop sacrifices. Each pop sac after the first (maybe the second, I wasn't paying total attention) required another luxury. Obviously this isn't true of police, or I'm sure that Vel would have mentioned it. I personally felt that I had advantage enough already, so why make it an obscene advantage. Thus, the new units kept going to the front as soon as they appeared, and the sole entertaininers left behind meant the base never grew until the unhappines affect disappeared or I got a new luxury. Since I got 3 new luxuries in the course of conquering my two neighbors, it wasn't the end of the world.

If I had garrisoned them, I'm sure that instead of the 120 or so turns I took to wipe out two civs would have only taken 70-80.

Conlusions
Base pairing & pop rushing seems to be an extreme advantage, as well as being ugly. On this low level I'm sure that had I taken half my original 25 bases and used them to build a military I would have done fine. Alternately, I could have set a higher target number (since going from 25 to 37 took almost no time) and gone half and half, or maybe even a higher fraction as military. I think for higher levels that closer base spacing (three squares) would speed up the expansion phase and keep me competetive in that regard, but obviously the idea of crushing my oponents early in this fashion would have to be rethought, since I doubt even then I could wipe out two civs (some 16 bases) even with 35 bases (17+ on military, not rushed) that early in the game.

[DFHNY]

Vel et al:
Played for 16 hours saturday. Very nice game. Had 2 friends over, so it took longer as we all had to agree on various tactics/strats. Few on the boards mention playing civ3 with friends but I find it boring/scary to play it solo. I mean who is there to see you kick ass, etc. Played persians/std size/regent, bad starting points over and over. I have never had the computer give me a good starting point really, always thinking about moving my palace but never do. After a while you just ignore the corruption and play the game.

1. Do you turn off diplomatic victory? Seems anyone can build that darn UN and win thus stopping your fun. Is there a way to postpone the vote?

2. We noticed that combat troops with the same attack # do better or worse against other troops, why? E.g. we fought long and hard with immortals vs. babs bowman and it was about a break even fight. Then I got the longbow but rarely used it (right same 4 to attack...) until I learned by experience that it never loses to a bab bowman! That was a good thing to learn as I lost a major battle for their capitol and came back with muskets and the long bow to take it out. Is the rule always use the "most recent" weapon invented?

3. I have played 6 long games now and rarely if ever get leaders, must be some trick to it. Also have never gotten enough of a lead to get early wonders, but by Bach am far enough ahead of the AI that he can't reach it. People who get the pyramids or great library must really know that "early" game.

4. Do you have a good tactic for using the bombardment weapons? I have yet to find them effective in the field (as opposed to civ2 where I found I could rarely take a city w/o catapult, and the cannon, now there was a gun).

Thx
Dan in brooklyn

[Thoth]

Originally posted by inca911

One question remains:
When you obtain a city from the AI, do you get their military units as well or must you staff the city by yourself?

When a city changes hands through diplomacy, all units in it are instantly transported to their former capital.

[Bblue]

I have to agree whole-heartedly with Vel on his (and others) points that Civ III does lack some of the 'feeling' of the earlier Civs and SMAC. I really miss the wonder movies and even those crackpot advisors from Civ II. Sure sometimes's I'd click right through them, but more often then not I'd watch them, in a way they gave a feeling of accomplishment (yeah, PC game accomplishments, whoopie) I get the feeling they really cut out the bells and whistles in CivIII, not that they are nessasary my any stretch of the imagination, but for me they are missed. Atleast they didn't seem to skimp on the AI as a whole. (Overall, I'd have to say the core AI is by far the best I've played agianst, definatley not human, but we're not dealing with Deep Blue here)


Now on to some thing vagley related to stratagy (I did say vaugly ) How do ya'll feel about the victory conditions? As stated in many others privous posts I find the diplomatic victory... well it has an unfinished, abrupt feel to it. No haggling like in SMAC?, no real warning it's coming? Ai Civs rarely abstaining from a vote? Feels... small. I do however see it's place in the game, but see the need for some additional work. Stadagywise, the UN is an absolute must build (keep it from the niegbors and control when and IF it gets used, I'll only use it if it looks like I'm gonna lose the space race/ only happened once so far)

The Space Race... 10 components instead of 40, combined with the 4 turn tech cap. I NEVER get to see the upper end techs in the Modern age. Had the game since it was released and still haven't had the need (or time) to research Stealth, Genetics,.. anything past the component requirements. With the 4 turn research cap and the reduced number of components, that puppy is ready to fly a turn or 3 after I research the tech for the last part. Well I did research Genetics once, built the Cure and won a a 20,000 pt cultural victory a few turns later, but the Ais were atleast 1/2 way done with thier Spaceships and I could have had my SS done, but I wanted to do a cultural victory that game. IS it just me? or does anyone else find that the modern techs after the ones that give SS components have become just.... additional 'future techs', if that much. Stadagywise, is there any real use for the latter modern techs?

[HenryMad]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You know what this game is lacking in somehow? Atmosphere and suspense! I mean....sure, when you're doing a delicate balancing act re: diplomacy, there's a certain dramatic tension, and the sweep of history certainly makes for a dramatic setting but....case in point:

In SMAC, when you build the Secret Project (read: Wonder) ....

I totally agree with you Vel. Those wonderful SMAX in game movies have greatily enhanced my gaming experience.
Maybe because I'm a scifi fan, but sometimes I was really believing to be on Chiron fighting mindworms or the awful Miriam who was too close to my capital from the very beginning........

nevertheless, this is another story

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Velociryx
More on Armies:
An army only counts as one garrison for purposes of quelling discontent. IMO, it should quell all discontent in a given city regardless of the type of government you're running, at the price of say....increased corruption or something (discontent populace venting in other ways?).

Hmm. This is seems to be false. I had stationed an army in a city for repair and it's 3 units each showed up with a smiley next to its icon. I could tell it was the in-army units making the citizens content, as these units do not show health bars. Are you sure? I'll test it again myself today.

[sophist]

I've had the same experience with an army of 3 units having 3 garrison units.

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


Hmm. This is seems to be false. I had stationed an army in a city for repair and it's 3 units each showed up with a smiley next to its icon. I could tell it was the in-army units making the citizens content, as these units do not show health bars. Are you sure? I'll test it again myself today.

[bloodlust]

EDIT: upps stupid question - deleted
__________________

[sophist]

And another thing about combined arms.... Using artillery and fast units when attacking a city are key for one reason I haven't seen mentioned. Consider: morale upgrades are only done after an outright victory (i.e., the other guy dies). If your fast unit retreats, then there's no morale upgrade for the defender. There's nothing more frustrating than throwing a swordsman at a spearman and then losing it because the swordsman won't retreat. And then to add insult to injury, the spearman gets promoted so your attack strengthens them (If it doesn't kill you...?). On the other hand, if you attack with a weaker unit (say a horseman) and it has to retreat, 1) your unit survives 2) the enemy defender does not promote! This is especially important against a militaristic civ (stupid Japanese *grumble* *grumble*) where the odds of the defender promoting are pretty high. On top of this, there are no outright victories with bombardment either. If you fail in your bombardment, the defender still doesn't promote. And if you succeed, that gives a better chance of victory to your slow melee units. So if you use artillery and fast units to whittle defenders down, not only do you 1) save units 2) have a higher chance of saving elite units, you also win faster because you have a reduced chance of promoting the enemy defenders.


I fear the day the AI gets patched to use artillery properly.

[Padmewan]

Not to keep this thread on its diversionary path, but I also agree about the lack of atmosphere. Since in-game movies are a standard for just about any genre, I feel like we're "owed" something extra for our money. Different music for each Civ, or at least each set of Civ's (Western, Eastern, Middle Eastern, native American) would have been nice.

I also don't feel like I'm negotiating with anyone in CivIII the way I was in SMAC. The robustness of the various pacts were part of the charm. I'd start developing a real fondness for my allies in SMAC -- and yes, the diplomatic victory was much more satisfying because of the effort of wheeling and dealing.

The problem with the lack of utility of late-game techs was a problem in SMAC too. By the time I was ready to roll out the most advanced possible units it was only my forbearance that prevented the end of the game.

[Arrian]

Mornin' all.

1st off, yeah, I think that atmosphere could be a bit better - but then again, I shut off all the CIV II bells and whistles once I'd seen them once... slowed down my domination of the world and all. The UN victory is... shall we say "minimalist." I would like to have seen something more like the council vote in MOO2, or the more varied uses of it in SMAC. Whatever.

Anyway, I was pondering some things last night as I methodically annihilated the Germans and relieved the Aztecs of their rubber, aluminum and incense. The AI's weaknesses show up more in the late game.

DISCLAIMER: I rather like the AI in Civ III, and I think it is a vast improvement. I understand that there is no HAL, and that for the time being, AI is quite limited.

That being said, if Firaxis does want to tinker with the AI for a later version of the game (like a MPG edition, perhaps), they may want to carefully consider how the AI buys tech when it's behind.

Example:

It's circa 1760, and the world is at war... all except me. I got what I wanted and got the hell outta dodge. I'm a democracy (was the whole time), whilst the remaining AI civs are all communist. Thus, my tech lead figures to increase. I just developed ecology. I called up Cathy over in Russia and Joan "I loved you the entire game, but then I attacked your MPP partner, forcing you into war with me, so now I hate you forever and ever" of Arc and discussed terms for the sale of this new secret. I received 300 gold and 55 gold/turn from Russia and 250 gold and 54 gold/turn from GI Joan.

That's a lot. Now, since we lack a cheat mode, ala Civ II, there is no way to check on whether or not the AI civs would have been better off pumping that cash into research. Granted, they were communist, at war, and ecology does get them 1 step closer to Modern Armor. Still, it's not a deal I'd make.

I was also thinking about how the AI's attitude toward you works. Stay with me through the rather long story below, as there is, in fact, a point:

Since the world exploded into war, nearly everyone was fighting everyone else. I had two MPP's at the start of it all, and they sucked me into 1 war I wanted, and four that I didn't. The one I wanted was vs. Germany, which netted me coal, 3 extra oil, and some totally corrupt territory. The others were essentially wars on the other continent that Joan of Arc became involved in. She and I had an MPP, and thus I got sucked in. Now, 2 turns after the MPP forced me to fight everyone, she called me up and cancelled it (the 20 turns were up). The MPP that remained was w/the Zulu... who had gotten involved on my behalf in some of the wars. Joan soon enough attacked shaka, and I had to fight Joan, my former ally. Arg. I was also at war with the English and Russians, due to my former MPP with Joan. These wars were "phony" in that I never attacked them. Joan, however, had a city right next to my very important silk city. This I captured... and razed. Since then, I have made peace with England, Russia and France.

Russia - Gracious
England - Polite
France - Furious

Hmm, perhaps taking and razing that city was not really necessary...and ill-advised. Joan will apparently be holding a grudge. "Phony" wars don't seem to hurt relations in the long term. Real wars do, particularly if you have a penchant for wiping cities off the face of the earth.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Gruedragon: Yep...'bout the only way to know for sure is if you see a Civ start on a wonder or if you call them constantly....fortunately they don't seem to mind. I ballpark their rate of discovery at about 2 turns faster than my best rate (science at 100%), and that's how often I tend to contact them. (that is to say, if I set my science slider to 100% and see that I'll get a new tech in seven turns, I assume the AI will get their next bit of research done in five turns, and more often than not, that's on the money).

I DO agree with you that some of the UU's come damnably close to being broken (Mounted Warrior, *maybe* the Immortal, and definitely the Jaguar), but....I've so far resisted the urge to turn them off. I think that a human player simply shying away from those civs with heinous UU's (and making sure you're playing against them) would give the AI another important advantage, but you're right....it IS unbalancing. Fortunately, the AI doesn't seem to know the best uses for those Jags, else every game would be a short one....



Fitz! Good lowdown on the pairing/pop-rush thingy...and I'd have to agree with you....used in concert, it's just overwhelming.

Army thing and others....take everything I said yesterday with a grain of salt! LOL....My eyes could have easily been deceiving me, since I was running on almost no sleep after civing all weekend. Actually, I hope I AM incorrect about the army thing! That'd certainly make them more useful, especially if it turns out to be true about cities having a much less, if not nil chance of reverting with an army garrisoned there.

-=Vel=-
PS: I'll prolly not be around too much today....gotta hit those civ articles HARD today, free time permitting! I'd like to get them all done for when we have to move to "part three" of this thread, if not before! (that way, you guys don't have to wait till spring!)

-V.

[Arrian]

DFHNY-

1) I don't, but I sure as hell build the UN asap, so I don't lose.

2) I think you experienced some random bad luck, because I WASTED the Babylonians, bowmen and all, with immortals in my present game.

3) Leaders are tough to get. I usually try to use my elite units in battles I'm pretty sure they will win, thus increasing their chances of survival and eventually popping a leader. This is not to say that my strategy works that well... in my present game I have gotten no leaders despite numerous elite unit victories. In a recent game as the Babylonians, I got FOUR. Fighting was about equal in the two games.

4) Bombardment weapons are only effective in relatively large numbers. First off, catapults are pretty useless. Cannon aren't much better. But artillery... in large numbers you can utter BREAK a city with them. Bring 10 or so to a siege. A size 20 city will be reduced to a size 5 w/o most of its improvements in a couple of turns.

-Arrian

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Arrian
4) Bombardment weapons are only effective in relatively large numbers. First off, catapults are pretty useless. Cannon aren't much better. But artillery... in large numbers you can utter BREAK a city with them. Bring 10 or so to a siege. A size 20 city will be reduced to a size 5 w/o most of its improvements in a couple of turns.
-Arrian

I submit that even catapults in large numbers are useful. My army of 10 catapults did fine at reducing all city defenders to 1 hp over 1-2 turns, destroying walls, etc. Not that you really need to do that when their backed by 20 swordsmen, but if you start leaving those swordsmen behind as garrisons ...

I played around last night with tech trading, since I bought all the contacts that I didn't have of the remaining 13 civs in the game, and I agree that the AI is just stupid. Armed with a pot of gold, I obtainined 3 techs I didn't have from one civ, one I didn't have from another, then turned around and sold to every civ all my techs that they would buy for 8/turn & 25 gold (or more). Within 20 turns I had the tech lead, and at least 10 of 13 civs had no real income and no cash reserve.

On the other hand, switching to Republican forced me to sign an early peace with Japan. I hadn't realized how severe war weariness was. I can empathize with people who have complained about civil disorder from war weariness now, especially those who are fighting defensive battles. Considering how hard it is for most civs to change governments, I would hope a defensive war (ie they declared war on you) would have a much reduced war weariness effect, but I get the fealing that isn't the case.

Thanks Vel. I was enamoured of the base-pairing idea when I first read it, but now start to feel that it is excessive. Probably liked it since in my SMACing days I was a fanatic about getting all base improvements, and this method seemed to allow that in Civ3.