1.17f strategy - Page 3

Arrian · March 1, 2002, 11:22

Anyway, back to strategy (you know, the title of the thread?)...

There is still one way the human player can race ahead (this, to me, means 4 or more ahead) in tech: AI World War, preferably in the early industrial age. Widespread death and destruction, coupled with the "wonders" of communism, will allow you to pull away (provided, of course, that you stay out of the war). A geniune world war will also open up trade possibilities that did not previously exist. Many AI trades will be voided by the war, and you can step into the breach, and make a ton of cash, or gain access to more luxuries in return. Also, some of the AI's may enter golden ages due to a UU victory, so you will get top dollar for your resources.

In the game I was playing last night, I was able to kick back and watch the AI's duke it out while I industrialized and researched frantically toward Motorized Transportation. I got it, prior to the AI's discovery of replaceable parts. Mmmmm, Tanks vs. Riflemen. Suffice it to say that when Caesar, having destroyed Greece, came for me with his riflemen and Cavalry, he got a nasty surprise. He had 5 cities left when I quit to go to bed (though he did manage to get some infantry).

Now, clealry an AI world war at just the time you need it isn't something you can count on. You could spark one yourself once everyone has nationalism, if you play it just right, but there are many, many things that could go wrong. I tend to let the opportunity come to me, and then take advantage of it.

I think that 1.17, with the changes to AI tech trading and the resulting fast pace of tech advancement favors picking between two very divergent strategies: warmonger (early, often) and peaceful builder (no fighting) who busts out with Tanks in the late game. Prior to 1.17, I used to play a more hybrid style, building up peacefully into the middle ages, but then churning out a load of Knights and kicking some butt. With 1.17, I never have enough time to build up a large enough force for anything but homeland defense until I'm industrialized.

-Arrian

p.s. re: starting a WW between the AI's - wouldn't it be cool if you had an espionage option to frame another civ for something you did (like stealing a tech or sabotaging), ala MOO2?

DrSpike · March 1, 2002, 11:53

This is interesting; the faster pace of tech development coupled with less potent 2 move attackers has moved the goalposts.

However I tend to split the object of the game into early landing/diplo and early conquest/domination. Score to me is largely irrelevant. For a peaceful spaceship game conquering cities in the endgame with tanks helps very little. For a warlike game you're just going to have to accept that your units need upgrades a lot.

Thus the warlike game is harder in 1.17 due to this tendency for units to become obselete quicker and less propensity for rushing. A counterbalance is that you're less likely to be behind in tech with the pace of progression. The overall strategy has changed little.

For a peaceful game I still favour early war to get you up to say 16-20 cities, then hit the representative govts and stay peaceful. There seems little point to late game war here.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 1, 2002, 15:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
Deity/Huge/Pangaea/8AI 950BC

I played several openings to games until I got the perfect start.
...
Without pop rushing, military buildup is falling way behind. I think conquest will still be the way to go, but Horsemen are almost useless on these settings unless I use the Scout trick to deny the AI Iron and Saltpeter.

You mean you can scout-pillage without insulting the AI?

PS: as a humle settler it shouldn't be my action: will someone please start a poll on the 'general section', placing Firaxis in the title and voting for: do tech discoveries proceed too, too, too quick to fully enjoy the different eras and units?
Reading the forums I suppose a very broad majority would be in favor of a slowdown patch ... Firaxian-players probably too ...

Maybe your shot Aeson?

Sincerely,
AJ

Aeson · March 1, 2002, 17:43

Scouts can stay in enemy territory without having to be removed. Because they are so cheap, and can move quickly, usually I can get a Scout on all the Iron sources on my continent before the AI can get their workers there to build a road. You can also deny the AI luxuries or other resources this way. I like to call it pre-emptive pillaging.

Testing this with 1.17f (Deity), I was able to keep 3 Scouts holding Iron sources in German territory for about 40 turns before they had to be withdrawn. Of course I got them back into position again 2 turns later anyways. One Scout in Roman territory was allowed to stay even longer, I declared war eventually and the Scout had never envoked a demand for their withdrawal. The only real difference seems to be that the AI will ask for you to remove your Scouts on the first turn now, but doesn't seem to follow up with demands any quicker than in 1.16f.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 1, 2002, 17:49

Thanks.

AJ

Zouave · March 1, 2002, 17:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Aeson
Scouts can stay in enemy territory without having to be removed. Because they are so cheap, and can move quickly, usually I can get a Scout on all the Iron sources on my continent before the AI can get their workers there to build a road. You can also deny the AI luxuries or other resources this way. I like to call it pre-emptive pillaging.

Testing this with 1.17f (Deity), I was able to keep 3 Scouts holding Iron sources in German territory for about 40 turns before they had to be withdrawn. Of course I got them back into position again 2 turns later anyways. One Scout in Roman territory was allowed to stay even longer, I declared war eventually and the Scout had never envoked a demand for their withdrawal. The only real difference seems to be that the AI will ask for you to remove your Scouts on the first turn now, but doesn't seem to follow up with demands any quicker than in 1.16f.

Will this work with workers as well? I don't normally play expansionistic civs.

Aeson · March 1, 2002, 18:10

Workers can stay in AI territory for a while, not sure just how long though. I like to use Scouts because they can actually help in wartime too, leading AI forces around in circles or doing some actual pillaging. Their movement rate gives them a good chance of surviving in enemy territory as long as they stay away from roads.

Zouave · March 4, 2002, 10:49

I tried the scout exploit with a worker this weekend. They never asked him to leave, so it seems to work. Of course I had just beaten them pretty badly in a war, but then again, they are the Zulus.

DrSpike · March 7, 2002, 16:21

A few posts ago (actually a couple of weeks now - have been really busy) I mentioned my deity game as the Egyptians, with early opponents the Romans. It was an awful start, with the Romans confining me to 4 nice city spots. However, having won a few pre-patch deity games I was confident I could consolidate a bit, build a few temp cities, then rush the Romans to get a bit of territory.

I didn't waste any time building my army as I thought the Romans would declare war on me sooner or later. I was right, they did so just as I was mobilising, around about 700BC, with quite a nice sized army.

Imagine my chagrin (if you live in the UK you may have heard the screams) when I realised they were attacking with legions (expected), but defending with pikemen as well! Alas I had no iron (tough break), and my attacking units were _ahem_ brushed aside. Meanwhile the romans were slicing their way through my empire with those legions, and with their iron miles away there was little chance of cutting it off.

Hence my first post-patch deity game was an ignomious defeat.

Even though this was a ***** of a start, an important strategic question is raised in the appropriate timing for the early rush in post patch deity games. Originally randomturn's approach to deity was hard to argue with. With 1.16 I preferred to consolidate a bit then rush, but if the new tech trading means you're facing pikemen at 700BC for 1.17 I'm not so sure.

Thoughts?

DrSpike · March 7, 2002, 16:24

That's the first post I've ever had censored.

Didn't realise.

The phrase I meant to use was "somewhat suboptimal starting position".

Zachriel · March 7, 2002, 17:57

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
A few posts ago (actually a couple of weeks now - have been really busy) I mentioned my deity game as the Egyptians, with early opponents the Romans. It was an awful start, . . .
Hence my first post-patch deity game was an ignomious defeat.

Some of my best games have been defeats. Starting with a bad position, or a bad strategy and then having to struggle to regain my balance. Now, that's Civ!

I always attack as soon as I have any significant tactical advantage, especially on the higher levels. I don't often have any choice, as I usually play crowded maps.

Ironikinit · March 7, 2002, 18:15

I've only played emperor level a couple times, but it seems to me that I don't have to declare war, the AI will do it for me. I'm talking about the ancient period, in the later eras once I was fully established, it was possible to stay out of wars.

DrSpike · March 7, 2002, 18:31

In an aside the difference between emperor and deity is akin to the difference between warlord and emperor I'd say. In emperor games consolidate then rush pretty much always works well, even with a bad start, so my original strategic question is kinda moot. Of course really early rushing is attempting to use the AI's weight (read cheating) against it, which is both more effective and more necessary on deity. Of course in 1.17f....................

Dominae · March 9, 2002, 11:50

Hi all,

I just applied the 1.17f patch and loaded up a version 1.16 game. Just to check if everything was updated, I tried the new goto command on a stack of Cavalary units I had fortified in a city. To my surprise, three cavalry in one of my armies also garrisoned in that city left the army and followed the goto ('j')command, leaving me with an empty army! Is this normal? I was under the impression that you couldn't take a unit out of an army once it had been assigned to it...This is pretty easy to test out, but I have the savegame available if any of you guys want to see it.

Later,

Dominae

Ironikinit · March 11, 2002, 06:43

I went and played a deity game. It wasn't so different than emperor level.

DrSpike · March 11, 2002, 07:12

Play more, then decide. Emperor games are pretty much all winnable, unless the start is _that_ atrocious. In deity games any disadvantage is multiplied many times.

Jaybe · March 11, 2002, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae
Hi all,

I just applied the 1.17f patch and loaded up a version 1.16 game. Just to check if everything was updated, I tried the new goto command on a stack of Cavalary units I had fortified in a city. To my surprise, three cavalry in one of my armies also garrisoned in that city left the army and followed the goto ('j')command, leaving me with an empty army! Is this normal? I was under the impression that you couldn't take a unit out of an army once it had been assigned to it...

Dominae,
This 'bug' has been talked about before in the forums. To 'j' a unit type that is within an Army on that tile is the only way to extract units from an Army, and was most probably NOT intended by Firaxis.

Personally, I have not yet had the opportunity to use it myself.

Dominae · March 12, 2002, 08:48

Ok, thanks Jaybe. I don't read all the forums, just the ones that interest me, so I wasn't aware this little bug was well-known. Personally I've put it too good use to modernize my armies throughout the ages! Call it 'army upgrading'. Anyway, I don't think it's big enough of an exploit to fuss about, so I'll just stop now.

Dominae