Vel's Strategy Thread - Part Three

[pchang]

I'm pretty sure the AI code cares about who ORIGINATES the trade request and that is why you are seeing this behavior.

[DaBear]

Originally posted by pchang
I'm pretty sure the AI code cares about who ORIGINATES the trade request and that is why you are seeing this behavior.

I agree. That's why I was saying that the minimum threshold for his offer is lower than accepting an offer by you. I've seen it before where a civ that is grausions towards you offers you a tech at a great price and you turn it down (I needed the money) go back to them immediately and the price is back up!

[Arrian]

Ok, here's a question:

Do you think that playing a strategy that is "against the grain"of your civ is a good or bad idea, or neither?

Say you're the Japanese. Playing peaceful builder style with them seems strange, right? Well, that militaristic trait and samurai can really come in handy when a warmonger AI attacks your peaceful civ. In essence, you're well-rounded.

Say you're the Babylonians. You play warmonger style. But cheap temples and libraries in conquered cities come in handy, don't they? Playing the Babs, you can slip, fall, and end up with great culture. That matters when you go a-conquering.

Then again, one could argue that it's best to concentrate on your civ's strengths. If you never use those cheap barracks and super samurai as the Japanese, you're missing out. Whaddya think?

-Arrian

[pchang]

Cultural strengths are much more beneficial than millitary strengths. This is because cultural strengths carry over into all parts of the game while military strengths apply only to fighting (with the exception of leader generation, but leader generation is still so rare, that it is only a minor benefit). When you are culturally powerful, if you do go conquering, you don't have to worry about conquered cities reverting. If you lose a city or two, the odds are good that they will revert back to you anyway.

[pchang]

Samurai are just knights that don't need horses. They are not that good. In fact, all the UUs that are like regular units but don't require resources are not very good (War Elephants). UUs which have superior stats over their regular counterparts are much better.

In fact, Samurai are really stupid because the Japanese start with the wheel. If anyone can find and secure horses, it will be the Japanese.

[Arrian]

pchang,

I agree about the power of culture. It's huge. To answer the question I posed in my first post, I'd say that playing the Babs with a warmonger style will work much better than playing the Zulu as a peaceful builder. Fact is, culture and science rule the game. Of course, war is very important. I'm playing a game as the Germans now to see how they work. I have yet to fight... I actually went turtle and built up a nice little empire (I nabbed the GL, Sun Tzu - golden age, Sistine, Copernicus, Adam Smith's and I am 11 turns from Newton). I fully intend, however, to remove the Japanese from my southern border (probably once I get Cavalry). I wanna see "militaristic" in action.

The Samurai are solid. I agree that there are others that are better (Immortals, Mounted Warriors), but the extra defense point comes in handy. You will kill a lot of knights. Here's the thing: mounted units cannot retreat from other mounted units. Thus, they have to fight it out.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Your last point was the one I was going to make, and it is an excellent call, IMO.

The real weakness of the Samurai lies not in the fact that it's a bad unit, it's not...but given that the Japanese are the ONLY faction...er...civ (damn, I just KEEP doing that!) in the game who start with the Wheel, and the ability to see where the horses are, it is a "push" of a UU. That is to say, it nets them no real advantage nor disadvantage....it's just sorta....there. An alternate graphic.

That's okay though, because for the sake of balance, that's as it should be. After all, the ability to know from turn one where the horses are is an important ability indeed! If they had a UU that was every bit the equal of, say the Mounted Warrior or the Jaguar, they'd just *totally* dominate the game, denying all neighboring civs access to horses and then running roughshod over them with mounted troopages...OUCH!

-=Vel=-

[pchang]

Well the real reason I don't like the Japanese is because they usually start next to the Chinese and their 3 movement riders which CAN RUN AWAY from samurai.

[Arrian]

Ahh, ok, you have me there. I forgot about that. In the one game I played as the Japanese, the Chinese and I were good buddies. I killed a bunch of French knights, though.

Speaking of the Chinese, I remember someone pointing out that their "agression" setting in the editor is really low, even though they're "militaristic." That might explain why I can't remember EVER fighting them.

-Arrian

[pchang]

Japanese and Chinese good buddies??? That must have been an alternate universe. Anyway, the Ghengis Khan in me doesn't wait for the AI to declare war on me. During the course of a game, I will probably declare war on every other faction, er civ (did you like that Vel?), at LEAST once.

[vmxa1]

I found that the Chinese were not very aggressive against me in a recent game. By the time they got into war with me the riders were of no use. I was Japan and only built a few Samuari and upgraded them later. I only used one very late to trigger a GA. The retreat is so valuable you must build calv instead of samuari. One good thing about not having one of the early UU's is you can avoid its use until you want to. It is hard to pass up using Immortals and Hoplite types as no other decent unit is available at that time.

[mattcj]

The Chinese attacked me in my current game and even took a city from me, the bastards! But then my war elephants, teamed with the samurai, opened a can of whoop-ass on 'em. The biggest loss there was take-out for dinner.

[eMarkM]

I started my first Deity games yesterday. I have a whole new appreciation for Expansionist trait now on this exalted level. I started a few games as non-expansionist civs and sent my warriors out to explore. In each case I would uncover the nearby goody hut to have barbarians come out of it. Everytime. Goody huts don't give you many goodies on Deity so I'd invariably have my one city besieged by barbs. And these ain't the wimpy barbs, either. First warrior dead, starting worker killed, city plundered. Impossible set back on Deity. Restart.

So I figured I'd have to either ignore huts or try Expansionist civ. I went w/ Relig/Expan Iroquois. My first goodie hut was a settler! Very nice and I was actually able to keep up w/ AI for a moment. So real expansionist advantage isn't seen until Emp/Deity where otherwise barb infested huts might actually have something good in them. Expansionist I think is pretty weak on lower levels, but what a difference on early game Deity.

Later had a warrior discover a 2 ivory site, only to see the English racing me there w/ own warrior/settler escort. I started a war w/ her, killed the warrior, got 2 workers from settler capture and was able claim the site later. The early settler and this aggression are the only thing that's kept me in the game.

If I can even say I'm "in the game". AI has an obscene tech lead on me. I started my first "vassalization" war too late I think. Didn't get under way until almost AD. English are vassal target, they have no iron and are easily pushed around by my Mounted Warriors. I got all their tech and I'm still far behind. Once I got the tech it revealed they had even more behind that since you can't see the more advanced tech until you discover their predecesors. Really can't tell how far behind I really am, it's not even 1000ad and the AI is midway through middle ages. But the English will be my victim again once the 20 turns are up.

Persia is my other neighbor and they are fearsome, no chance to vassalize them. Luckily they've been very polite as they drain my coffers each time I buy tech from them. I finally bought gunpowder, was unfortunate to have nearly all the desert in my territory, but Persia ends up w/ the one saltpeter on the little corner of the desert they have. Ouch. The Persian cities I've seen all have mustketmen and I'm still struggling to upgrade to pikemen. This is where the game stands now and a mighty struggle lies ahead for Hiawatha.

e

[Spearthrower]

Thanks to everyones contributions I managed to beat Deity 8 player standard only a week or so after starting this game.. and this is the 1st time I've played any CIV games.

I got a good starting position and immediately found the Japanese to the North, 2 seconds later I found the Russians to the North East. Within 2 or 3 more turns I found I was completely surrounded with Germans to the East, Chinese to the south, Greeks to the south west and Romans to the west....... if I hadnt read this thread I would have given up. Instead, by systematically warring on each of the tribes 1 at a time except the Romans I quickly found myself not only in a dominant position but in control of most of the continent. By the Middle Ages I had 20K in cash and was about 4 or 5 techs in front... I didnt have many Wonders though but I wasnt really missing them.

Only India came close to me as it was seperated by the Greeks... but the strange thing about this map was that all the civs started on this huge continent on the right hand side of the map. Eventually through trading with India I got to see the whole map.... all the rest was water except a couple of tiny islands which the Indians had populated.

Thoroughly enjoyable, using my diplomatic connections to provoke the other nations into war... funny thing is most of the fighting took place in my lands due to me being smack bang in the middle!

Anyway, thank you all...... and keep posting!

Edit: I should have pointed out, I was playing with Egypt and ended up in control of all luxuries apart from Ivory so I was the main pusher to all the civs

[Sauron07]

I've been following a few other threads here in the last few days and wanted to survey the opinions of some of the more theoretical minds playing the game about pop-rushing, so I naturally came to this thread.

[kiss-ass mode off]

What I want to know is if players feel pop-rushing is currently unbalanced in the ealry game. By unbalanced, I mean does pop-rushing provide such an advantage(especially on higher difficulty levels) at the beginning of the game that it has become just an accepted part of nearly all successful strategies. When or if it gets to that point, there is no strategy involved in deciding whether or not to utilize this tactic - ie the benefits always outweight the costs so its really not a strategic decision anymore which IMO makes the game less enjoyable.

If you havent already figured it out, my perspective is that pop-rushing is slightly unbalanced right now, and would be even more so if mp were to ever come out. Even if I'm playing a peaceful building strategy, it is very hard to resist not rushing granaries and temples and sometimes even libraries and marketplaces before I switch to monarchy or republic.

So I want to find out what others think about this subject and if there is any feeling among the community that pop-rushing should be tweaked or at least be able to alter in the editor(Im assuming you cant change the effects of pop-rushing but having not really used the editor that much please correct me if I am wrong).

I would also be interested in finding out if any of the top finishers in the apolyton tourney avoided using pop. rushing or if any diety players have been successful without utilizing it.

Please post any thoughts or pm me if you feel the need(ie to utilize excessive profanity in your flame).

[Arrian]

Ok, kissass just kiddin', of course.

I generally pop-rush in the ancient era for temples, and occasionally libraries or granaries. It usually works out to 1 or 2 poprushes per city (more 1's than 2's). I beeline for republic, so it's only fairly early that I use it. For some reason, I just can't accept poprushing units. My mind can deal with working my people to death in order to complete a structure, but not a military unit. *Shrug* As for the strategy element... well, I always use it. Always. Even though my use of it is rather limited, I can honestly say I have never played a game totally without it. Then again, given the way corruption works (I do not have the patch yet, but I doubt they changed it THAT much) early on under despotism, how else are you going to get those outlying cities to build their temples?

-Arrian

[pchang]

Pop rushing is definitely unbalanced. However, it is one of the only ways to counter the huge head start the AI gets at emporer/deity. By using the paired base approach that Vel developed, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOWNSIDE to pop rushing. Using that strategy, you build designated pop rushing cities. Those cities pop rush units at EVERY opportunity. When you have the army you need, you just disband them. Since the city is disbanded, there is NO UNHAPPINESS penalty whatsoever.

[Sauron07]

Thanks for the feedback...


Arrian, you and I seem to have similar playstyles, although I recently began testing out some militaristic strategy and have experienced the power of poprushing military units as Pchang describes.

Tell me what you think of two potential fixes or possible editor inclusions -

1) apply diminishing returns to poprushing from any one city - ie the first poprush in a city produces 40 shields and each thereafter produces less 30,20,10, ect until it is no longer advantageous to do so. This would limit the power of the so called "training camps" by allowing only a certain number of units to be rushed AND would force players to deal with the unhappiness effects once they couldnt constantly deplete pop via rushing. This seems to be consistent with the current practice of diminishing the value of rushing more than one pop. point in any given turn.

2) ( and my personal favorite) Make pop-rushed units start as conscripts without a barracks and as regulars with a barracks. This does several things, it decreases the value of pop-rushing units for an early offensive and creates a tactical decision for the rusher of pop-rushing or waiting a few turns to crank out veteran troops. I think this is also more realistic and consistent with the handling of conscription later in the game. As a side note this tweak would also increase the value of the militaristic trait(at least for rushing tactics) as barracks and field promotions will become even more important.

[Arrian]

oooohh... I like #2. I've also seen a suggestion for empire-wide unhappiness due to poprushing - something similar to the way war weariness works. I like that idea too.

Here's the thing. The main reason I only poprush 1-2 times per city is that I want my cities to prosper and produce (normally) afterwards. If you keep poprushing, those cities do get pretty angry. Vel's "base pairing" works so well because the cities never cross pop 2 and are disbanded later, so no unhappiness.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Two thumbs up! Taken as a pair, the ideas on pop-rushing would tame that beast sufficiently that it would no longer represent the "end-all" to the game! As it stands now, it is entirely possible (and some would argue, desirable) to remain Despotic until you can switch to Communism. Those ideas, working in concert, would take just enough of a ::::CRACK!:::: from the Despotic Whip to make the question of whether to rush or no a truly strategic one, and it would seriously limit the usefulness of pop-rushed units (though, what I see happening in response, is that players would allow 2-3 units to build normally, send EVERYTHING out, and then (if needs be) pop-rush a token defender).

Excellent ideas!

-=Vel=-

[pchang]

We would pop rush a unit or two and allow the city to grow a bit, then pop rush a settler which disbands the city, re-build, then start all over again.

[Velociryx]

Cure your end-game blues via puppet-mastering

More on this topic later, but I've been toying around with the Meta-Game some more via global politics in my MarlaMap French game....I think that the combination of puppeteering, mixed with cheaper spying options should be more than enough to make for a fascinating end game (I've heard a good number of people saying that the end game is a little draggy....this'll certainly cure it!)

Again, more later....I gotta digest the various things I've been learning and see what it all means....it's been a blast so far though, I can tell you that!

-=Vel=-
(and then I PROMISE I'll get back to those civ-analysis articles!)

[absimiliard]

Just jumping in to say that I don't pop-rushing is overpowered. It has it's place, but when you ask about when you would and would not pop-rush I'd have to say that pop-rushing is ALWAYS the right answer, right up until it's not.

Let me refine that since it's a little blurry.

In the early game I always pop-rush a Granary & Temple, still debating the correct order. I occasionally rush the odd unit, but not much. Thus my thought that pop-rushing is ALWAYS the answer.

Until it isn't. At some point you have to switch over from pop-rushing, Republic & Monarchy don't allow it. So you have to be thinking about that point. I've found unrepentant pop-rushing up to that point leaves me with two big problems, I'm incredibly poor and undeveloped since I'm low-pop and secondly I'm suddenly losing people to Entertainers because of pop-rush-unhappiness.

So I'm very cautious about rushing when I'm getting close to the point of changeover. If I think I'm getting a better form of government soon, then I stop rushing immediately because unless I'm at war I'm switching the moment I get the chance.

In most of my games the tech progression is such that I make that switch somewhere after rushing a Granary & Temple, and occasionally a Library but before any other buildings. For unit building I prefer high-pop cities to pop-rushing for the long-term benefits.

Since there are parts of the game where rushing is the answer and parts where it's not, for me, I have concluded it's not broken. Though it's certainly powerful when used appropriately it carries some powerful disadvantages if used too much. (I really hate only making 2 gold a turn with 0% Science in a Republic because my infrastructure is so built up that my pop can't support it.)

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by absimiliard
Until it isn't. At some point you have to switch over from pop-rushing, Republic & Monarchy don't allow it. So you have to be thinking about that point. I've found unrepentant pop-rushing up to that point leaves me with two big problems, I'm incredibly poor and undeveloped since I'm low-pop and secondly I'm suddenly losing people to Entertainers because of pop-rush-unhappiness.

I think you're missing the point, absimiliard. What we've been talking about is building a city, pop rushing units out of it, never letting it grow above size 3 (or 2), and then, in the end, disbanding the city. No unhappiness at all. And, as Vel has described, it's entirely possible to skip Monarchy and Republic altogether, and simply pop-rush the entire game from Despotism -> Communism.

[Arrian]

I guess you could stay in despotism until communism and just play the whole game that way... but, um... WHY? Would that be fun? That's a serious question. People have different definitions of fun, but that would be absolutely ZERO fun for me. There's no "building" involved there. If I build a city, I want to keep it and make something productive out of it. Now, if poprushing/disbanding cities is your cup of tea, ok, I understand, but I don't know (absent multiplayer capability) if the game needs to be changed to counter that extreme strategy.

-Arrian

[pchang]

Another alternative for curing the end game blues is to go to Communism and just kill erveryone else.

[Cookie Monster]

I agree with the notion that pop rushing is extreme, however in light of the AI's stunning ability to outgrow you it is a necessary evil just to keep up!

Until one can develop build strategies for keeping up with the AI without having to resort to pop rushing this is the only way to survive. I've been dragged into countless wars for minor infractions with the AI (like asking them to leave my territory) when all I was doing was trying to play nice. In each of these situations I had a much weaker military than the AI did but pop rushing aided me in defending myself until I was strong enough to repel the invaders. Then I'd sue for peace.

Pop rushing can give you that boost you need just to stay alive until your industry is strong enough to compete on a more orthodox level with the AI.

Merry Civ3 to all and to all a sleepless night fighting the babylonians!

[Arrian]

Fighting the Babylonians? ACK! You're fighting me, then! Heh.

First off, I suppose my comments on the poprushing issue should always be prefaced by: I have not played above Monarch yet.

It took me a while to get to Diety in Civ II, and I'm following the same slow progression in Civ III. I've thrashed Monarch a few times, but it's no sure thing yet. Thus, more Monarch for me.

I understand that poprushing may become much more of a factor on Emperor and Diety. With the AI needing only 60% of what you need to build something, and 4 free units with each new city, you use everything available to you, right? So yeah, tone it down, but don't wreck poprushing that first temple in your border towns, please.

-Arrian

[absimiliard]

Hey Chris.

I totally get the idea of base-pairing. I could have sworn Sauron was just asking for general thoughts on pop-rushing. Thus my generalized response.

However now that I'm looking back through the thread I see the topic rapidly shifted to base-paired pop-rushing. That wasn't really what I was talking about though. So either I was a moron and missed the posts or I just cross-posted. Either way, no harm no foul.

But yeah, I totally get the base-pairing concept. The key is in the disband at the end. I just don't do it because I hate the way it looks, my playstyle is heavily influenced by aesthetics. (maybe too much since using base-pairing could make my military totally rock.)

[Skanky Burns]

Vel, i was wondering what your take on nuclear weapons was. Do you ever build them, or just totally ignore them, or perhaps just build a few for the "influence" they get you over other civs??

Mostly i find them near-useless. While they can seriously knock out another civ in a single turn, by the time you can prepare that many nukes to attack them with, you easily spend less shields just conquering them.