Civ choice for the "builder"

[Arrian]

Ok, since I started a thread on civ choice for early warmongering, I figured I'd go back to the other side of the spectrum and discuss civs from a builder perspective (which I happen to be better qualified for anyway). "Builder" style tends to be peaceful, although many builders play a hybrid style - some warmongering along with the building.

Again, I am assuming "culturally linked starting locations" is on. Obviously, this whole post carries the disclaimer: IMHO.

First, ranking of the traits, from a builder perspective:

#1) Religious. Cheap temples (right away) and Cathedrals, no anarchy. That's a lot of turns saved, both in gov't switching and building those improvements. Strong culture early helps with cultural defections, and makes ancient era culture bombing possible.

#2) Industrious. 2x worker speed, some extra shields in large cities. The double time workers really help expansion, which is much more important to the builder than the warmonger. The warmonger will take by force... the builder must beat the AI to the good city sites. You also start with masonry, which is a nice bonus.

#3) Scientific. Cheap libraries & universities, 1 free tech per age. I was torn between Ind & Sci for the 2 & 3 spots. This one is a solid builder trait too, and saves a lot of turns building those improvements, not to mention 12 turns minimum from research (3 techs x4 minimum each = 12). Bronze working means you can build spearmen right away... no biggie.

#4) Commercial. Lower corruption (not by much, in my experience) and extra gold in large towns/cities. Not a strong trait, really, but it can be useful, particularly if you have room to expand. EDIT: v. 1.29 has boosted this trait considerably. It could be argued that it challenges scientific for the #3 spot.

#5) Expansionistic. Scouts, nice huts. This can bump commercial from the #4 spot on maps larger than "normal." Free tech, settlers and gold is hard to argue with.

#6) Militaristic. We're talking "builder" here.

The Civs -

Babylon: Rel/Sci, neighbors Persia & Zululand. Well, the traits are awesome for the peaceful builder, particularly on smaller maps. The UU is nothing to write home about. Zululand could present problems, but they are fairly easy to placate. 'Ware the Impi! Oh, and the Immortal too. The key is managing to stave off attack until Chivalry. Grade: A

Persia: Sci/Ind, neighbors Babylon & Zululand. Good trait combo for building, although not being religious hurts a bit. Strong ancient era UU, can be used in a pinch until Gunpowder, after which it is largely useless. Zululand, as noted above, can be a serious nuisance (thank your lucky stars the AI is not Aeson), but placating them is usually not too hard. Also, if you do get attacked, you can throw Immortals at them. Babylon is little threat. Grade: B+

Zulu: Exp/Mil, neighbors Persia & Babylon. Pretty bad trait combo for the builder. UU is great for terrorizing the enemy early on, but doesn't help the builder all that much, though they upgrade all the way. Persia is a potential problem, due to the Immortals. Grade: F

Egypt: Rel/Ind, neighbors Greece & Rome. Great trait combo, especially on larger maps where the 2x worker speed really shines. UU offers cheap mobile defense early on, and is in the horse upgrade path. Rome can be a terror with those Legions, but is often very weak when played by the AI. Greece is often more of a problem, but once you're in the middle ages the playing field is even. Grade: A

Greece: Sci/Com, neighbors Rome & Egypt. Decent traits, strong defensive UU. Rome, as noted above, has a strong UU, but your hoplites (which eventually upgrade to Mech Inf.) can match them on defense. Egypt expands well, so they can eventually be more of a problem than Rome. Grade: B

Rome: Com/Mil, neighbors Greece & Egypt. Terrible traits for the builder. Strong UU in the ancient era... no upgrade path, though. Neither neighbor presents much of an early attack threat, but each can be problematic later in the game. Grade: F

England: Exp/Com, neighbors Germany, France, Russia. Terrible traits, unless playing a huge 'pelago map. UU is largely useless, except for the aforementioned huge island map. Germany presents a threat early, middle and late, so beware. France is largely peaceful... Russia is in between. Grade: D

France: Ind/Com, nieghbors Germany, England, Russia. Good traits, particularly on larger maps. Herr Bismarck is a problem, Lizzy can never be trusted, and Cathy is often ornery. And you wonder why French is the language of diplomacy? Oh, yeah, almost forgot about the UU... wonder why? Grade: B

Russia: Sci/Exp, neighbors Germany, England, France. Ok traits, better on larger maps. The English are usually weak, the French are usually peaceful (at least in the beginning), but Bismarck is very aggressive. Grade: C

Germany: Sci/Mil, neigbors England, France, Russia. So-so traits. English are normally weak but meddlesome, France solid but passive, Russia difficult. No militarists in the bunch, all have Middle Ages UU's, but none of them are anything special. Your UU comes late and is fantastic. Grade: C+

India: Rel/Com, neigbors China and Japan. Solid traits. The Japanese are militaristic and aggressive, so they are a concern. China, while militaristic, is fairly docile. Each has a very strong Medieval UU, while you have a knight that needs no resources. You'll love it if you lack iron and/or horses, but otherwise you may as well not have a UU. Grade: B-

Japan: Rel/Mil, neighbors China & India. So-so traits. Your neighbors are usually peaceful, though watch out for those Riders. Your UU is well-balanced and concurrent with your neigbors'. Grade: C

China: Ind/Mil, neighbors Japan & India. Poor traits. One peaceful neighbor, one aggressive one. Your Riders vs. Japan's Samurai = bloodbath, so avoid Medieval war with them. Grade: D+

America: Ind/Exp, neighbors Iroquois & Aztecs. Poor traits, though better on Huge maps. The Aztecs are a major concern early, but the threat lessens with time. They remain dangerous, though. The Iroquois are less aggresive, but can do much more damage if they come for you in ancient times. Beware both. Grade: C-

Aztecs: Rel/Mil, neighbors Iroquois & Americans. So-so traits. Both neighbors can be problematic. Abe can be quite aggresive, and the Iroquois have the Mounted Warrior. Your jags are a warmongers dream, but don't really help a builder. Grade: C

Iroquois: Rel/Exp, neighbors America & Aztecs. Ok traits, good on large or huge maps. Your UU is powerful, but ancient. If attacked, however, you can open a serious can of whoopass. The Aztecs are always a concern, and America can be even more troublesome. Watch your back. Grade: B-

Gather, discuss.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

Babs, hands down. The only lack is Industrious, so buy every worker you can find.

When pursuing a builder strat though, where do you set research?

(sidenote as warmonger: boy do I love demanding 5 techs for peace!!)

R

[Arrian]

rpodos,

My normal "builder" research track:

Step 1 - Literature (and build G.Library)

Step 2 - Currency

Step 3 - Republic

Step 4 - Feudalism

Step 5 - Theology

Step 6 - Invention

Step 7 - Education

Step 8 - Astronomy

Step 9 - Economics

10 - Theory of Gravity

11 - Democracy

I'll stop there, but I could probably give you the whole tech tree start to finish. Beginning research rate I leave at 50%. If I see I'm making more than 5 gold/turn, I up it. Obviously, I play with it with 1 turn left on a tech.

Yeah, warmongering does offer that way of catching up. The Great Library is the builder's version of that.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Ah my poor Zulu, can't really defend them in this thread. You're right on with the Persian comment... The Persian Iron is always my primary target!

I like Greece on higher difficulties as a builder. The hardest thing is catching up in tech without going to war. Usually I get a Civ without Iron to attack me, and just wait until they throw all their offensive military away against my Hoplites. Then make peace for several techs. I don't think this counts as warmongering too much! The early GA helps with expansion, which pays off throughout the game. The Greeks are very good at OCC games too, mainly because they start with Alphabet and a Wonder (Collosus) to store shields in for the Great Library. B+ for the Greeks!

That's about all I can find to differ with. (and a paltry half grade from passive agressive warmongering at that)

[Arrian]

Hmm, it's true that the highest difficulties (by which I mean Emperor & Diety) may change some of the grades, but then again, I kinda ignored those levels, since only a very skilled, very patient player can successfully use a builder strategy when put at such a disadvantage.

The Greeks can be strong, and the AI usually does fairly well with them. The cheap, no-resource pikemen from game start is nice to have... but I'd rather have a unit that can hit. Even as a builder.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

If considering pure builder style, my choice would be:

1. Egyptians - for quick tile development and a good culture (religious branch)
2. Babylonians - for a very high culture (both religious and scientific)
3. Greeks - for the darn good ancient defensive UU and a good culture (scientific branch)

Since I am not a pure builder, but about 2/3 builder and 1/3 warmonger, "my" Germans seem to be a good choice for me, for being both cultural (scientific) and militarily strong.

Arrian, may be after this one you open a thread for "mixed" strategy?

[Arrian]

Ralph,

In truth, I'm about 2/3 builder 1/3 warmonger too. I don't want to just win, I want to win big, so I've gotta fight. Plus, I want my people happy, but the AI won't trade me luxuries at anything approaching a fair deal (subjective, I know), so I'd rather bash some skulls than pay.

Regarding another thread for hybrid strategy... well, I think that's harder to categorize. Anyway, the grades I handed out in this thread were not purely based on peaceful building. So in a way, the grades here are for a hybrid stategy, less warmonger than builder.

Ah, what the heck...for the 1/2 warmonger 1/2 builder:

Babylon: B- (better on small maps)
Persia: A- (B+ on larger maps, A+ on small ones)
Zulu: C (C+/B- on larger maps)
Egypt: B+
Greece: B-
Rome: C (better on small maps)
England: D- (better on 'pelago, of course)
France: B-
Russia: C (slightly better on larger maps)
Germany: B
India: D+
Japan: A-
China: B- (B on larger maps)
America: C- (slightly better on larger maps)
Aztec: A- (A on larger maps)
Iroquois: A- (A+ on large maps)

Tough to rank these, because it all depends on when you intend to fight vs. build. Hence, a fairly high grade for China. For the straight builder, China is a poor civ. But if you start off with a horseman rush, and turn that into a Rider rush... and continue with Cav if you want...OMG.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

I, too, am really a hybrid player, in that a) I have found that you need to build happiness-generating buildings to deal with war-weariness, and b) my primary purpose in warfighting is to generate GLs, which I use to build Wonders, many of which are "build-magnifiers."

On the other hand, I really really LIKE warfighting. So I'd probably peg my strategies as 80-20 warmonger.

That being said, I would still give the Babs an A if focused on the builder side. Arrian, I think your grades reflect a little too much focus on the UU. Being both Rel/Ind, the Babs are cultural kings. In there case, the UU is not a warfighting advantage, but rather a blessing in disguise for GA timing. You just have to prosecute wars using normal units. I don;t think realtive strength compared to the Immortal is all that bad (think extra vet fortified spearmen on both defense and offense), and Impis aren't much of an issue beyond the early early stages of the game.

I have played some great games with them, but I find that I have a slight edge in using fast-moving UUs in creating GLs is all.

R

[Arrian]

rpodos,

I did give the Babs an "A" for building. They're my favorite civ! Yeah, they're the best culture civ in the game, and if left alone for a while, they "build up" really well. 1/2 price temples, libraries, cathedrals, universities and research labs (not that it really matters by then) are really nice, along with no anarchy and 3 free techs. I could care less about their UU, if I'm playing a mostly builder game.

I didn't really pay much attention to UU's when I rated civs for the mostly builder style, but my second ranking involves more fighting. Therefore, UU becomes more important (both effectiveness and potential golden age timing). The bowman is poor in both categories, IMO.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

I guess I'm saying that for a more hybrid, balanced strategy, I would look to the Babs for their insanely great builder characteristics, and just be a warmonger anyway with only normal units. I would NOT use the UU in warfighting AT ALL, and instead very precisely trigger my GA. This is actually very cool... if you are having problems with warfighting early, trigger the GA to pump out units. Or if you see that someone is going to beat you by a hair to a given GW, if you have enough time left and it will help you win the race, trigger the GA. Or wait until early industrial, when you have loads of cities, maybe your FP, and are starting the race for that great cluster of GWs.

Actually, to one of Vel's points, I think this could make for a more prolonged period of "balance" and therefore fun, especially on Monarch.

You are at risk from the Impis early, so I would probably target the Persians first, before the get their Immortals, with a warrior rush, and as soon as I got Horseman, a-Zulu hunting I will go. Man, I love this... set for 40 turn research, build settlers, warriors only, except maybe 1-2 barracks at the front, and then while at very early punishing /denial war with Persia, build temples and then maybe a few more barracks, then Horseman rush and warrior upgrades, then while the Impi extermination is going on, build libraries than spearman, turn on the research heat, get to chivalry, upgrade your horsies...

Big empire with 1-2 vassals; big, veteran / elite combined force in place; temples and libraries in place, and ready to build out the other goodies, probably several GWs and an FP.

I would expect a couple of hair-raising battles and risky situations along the way? What's not to like, even for a war-hungry bastard like me? My only complaint would be that I'd expect a few fewer GLs, by virtue of not using a fast-mover UU.

I give'em and A- overall.

R

[Arrian]

I have never really fought an ancient war as the Babs. The one exception was the game where I found Beijing undefended, with a settler in it, in about 3000bc. I thought, "thank you, Civ gods!" and took it. But I still played that game with a builder mentality. Since the AI civs took turns trying to kill me, I was often at war, but I was so strong that I kinda fought with one hand behind my back (busily "building").

The thing is, if you are going to play as a warmonger, you're gonna get big, you're gonna have great leaders, which means a forbidden palace, which means double productivity fairly early, which means a MUCH stronger economy than normal, which means that you can lead in tech AND have a ton of cash... which means having 1/2 price science improvements just isn't that important. You can just rushbuy that stuff. Yeah, that's even cheaper for the Babs, but I'd rather have industrious workers (mmm, Egypt). Oh, if only Egypt had a later UU, and didn't start next to two civs with a 3 defense UU. Heh. Maybe I'll take the linking starting locations off and try a horseman rush with Egypt (so I don't blow the GA).

-Arrian

[Dominae]

In my experience, the Egyptians are your best bet for a builder strategy, especially 1) when playing at higher levels (Monarch and Emperor...I'm not in to torturing myself by playing Deity) and 2) if you don't like restarting in case your game is suboptimal.

The key is to play a 80% warmonger 20% builder hybrid strategy until you have a decent land mass with which you can build to your heart's content. The Egyptians are most successful at this because their cheap War Chariots allow relatively early rushes (don't go picking a fight until you have around 8-12 offensive units on Emperor, trust me!), which in turn is made possible by Industrious workers. In my opinion, the Egyptians can generate an effective early-game army faster than any other civ.

Specifically, my strategy is to set a few core cities, and my workers (only 2-3) to connect them (at the expense of irrigation and mines). I research The Wheel and gain access to Horses. At this point I drop everything (usually Warriors/Spearmen and Settlers) and crank out the War Chariots, the last wave of which is pop-rushed. I then ruthlessly attack the nearest civ. The first thing I build in the newly-conquered cities are Temples; I defend the city a War Chariot until I can pop-rush the Temple. Finally, I connect the new cities to my road network (again, at the expense of irrigation and mines). The point here is that all the steps I've just mentioned are made "easy" by Egypt's strengths.

What does this accomplish beyond the pure Warmonger strategy? Well, I've accomplished the following things:

1. Doubled my land mass and city count (roughly).
2. Connected all my cities with roads.
3. Built Temples in all my border towns.
4. Protected my empire with a fast defensive force (War Chariots).
5. Captured a bunch of workers.
6. Initiated Golden Age.

To me, this is an ideal setup for a Builder. Furthermore, I doubt a pure builder strategy accomplish this as fast; conquering cities culturally takes a lot longer and requires improvements, and building workers is simply slower than capturing them.

On Monarch or Emperor, the AI, given enough space, can usually build 1.5 cities for each of yours, even if you're being a pure Builder. Early warmongering is the only way to even the odds and set up favorable environment for building. Also, if you're starging locations isn't exactly favorable, the above strategy is still doable, allowing you to dig yourself out of a hole as an alternative to restarting.

The only downside to this strategy is that Chariots can't traverse Jungle or Mountain squares. I've actually quit a game where I had about 12 Chariots really early, but they were blocked in by a huge jungle. Ugh.


Anyway, that's my two cents on Builder.

Dominae

[hannibcannib]

Egyptians

[Brinoch]

I've gone through several different phases with Civ III. I generally prefer to play a builder-type of game, and on Monarch and Regent I can outbuild the AI following REX expansion. Occassionally I decide to be somewhat belligerant and go smack around some neighbors, but I find lenghty wars to be tedious.

Given my experiences, I've become somewhat attached to the Industrious trait. I like larger worlds--continents and pangaea. I've played all of the Industrious civ's at one time or another, and while the religious Egyptians have tremendous advantages, so do the scientific Persians. I may be a bit odd, but I actually like the American Expansionist's a lot. I really like those early scout units.

With a build queue of scout-warrior-settler-warrior-settler-scout, I'll have the region surrounding me explored in no time. Since huts pose no barbarian troubles, both techs and settlers beckon. Of course, what you get is random (cash is such a disappointment), so each game is a little different.

The problem then become the build cost of both religious and scientific buildings is normal and I slow down a bit. I find myself with a bit of a double peak -- an ancient lead with the computer catching up. Then extending my lead again with the burst of Wonders in the medieval era.

With the Egyptians, I find myself just absolutely pulling away. If I don't pick a fight, though, everyone catches up and eventually supercedes me.

The Persians, however, have a great UU and an trait that gives throughout the game.

It's a tough call, but those are my three favorites.

I must admit, at one time I was enamoured with the French, too. On the larger worlds I play, though, I just find the American Expantionist trait more valuable.

[Arrian]

I have pretty much settled on the Egyptians as the best overall builder civ (particularly on larger maps), with the Babs right behind them. I can out-build and out-wonder the AI w/o even fighting on Monarch (last game - Great Library, Hanging Gardens, Sun Tzu, Sistine, Copernicus, Leo's, Newton, and I could have taken a shot at Bach's, but decided I had other things to do). I have opened up the largest tech lead under 1.17, as a builder, with the Egyptians (largest ever under 1.17 was my Japanese warmonger game). It would seem like the Babs are a better choice for that, but it seems that the early infrastructure boost you get as an industrious civ really pays off later.

I'll definitely have to try the horseman rush as Egypt to see whether it's worthwhile. I'll build WC's and use cash to upgrade them to horsies. Then, when I'm ready to stop fighting, I'll use one WC to trigger a golden age...or maybe even wait longer than that. We'll see.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

Great idea on how use the WCs.

I'm doing a horse rush right now... The Egyptians got stuck without access to horses, so they are no problem. The Romans are a real problem however. 10 turns till my Samurai come though!!

R

[Dominae]

Arrian, to tell you the truth, I haven't been able to out-produce the AI on Monarch level myself; I usually come out about even (depending on the map), so I guess Monarch is the difficulty for me to be at if I want to play Builder. The question is: is pure Builder on Emperor a viable strategy?

I would be inclined to say no, regardless of civ, unless you get really lucky in the early-game (i.e. seal off a huge chunk of land by fortifying a few choke points). At some point you're going to have to grab some more cities, because, all other things being equal, the AI out-produces and out-researches you hands down. I just finished a Emperor game where I had about three times as many cities as any one civ, and still they were beating me in the space race (I was Japan, but I was basically playing a builder game...Samurai rock!).

So, if anyone has any tips on how to beat Emperor as a Builder, fill me in! Most of the tips I've heard of mostly involve AI exploits and effective combat. Can you beat Emperor by being clean and nice?

Dominae

[Aeson]

I can expand faster than the AI at Emperor level, on larger landmasses. Expansionist and Industrial are the most important traits in keeping your number of cities high. Expansionist is almost always worth a Settler or two on a Huge/Emperor game. One Settler from a hut will keep you about even with the largest AI Civ if used right. It also gives you a large early tech lead. Industrial just means you can get your cities connected and your mines built faster.

I am playing a Monarch game as the Americans. It's 270 BC and I have 90 cities that I aquired through "peaceful" means. I did fight a short 4 turn war with France, taking 3 more cities. That was very recently though, and those cities haven't helped at all with building the other 90. The next largest civ is the Zulu, with 17 cities. The Zulu had about the exact same starting location as me, and I haven't hampered their expansion in any way.

I was building Scout, Warrior, Settler in most of my cities. A few cities had high food sources and just produced Settlers. Other cities had lower food sources and built Warriors almost exclusively. On turn 8 I got a Settler from a hut, but no others. I built in an ICS type style, just to get my Settlers building more Settlers faster. It sped up expansion a bit, but could easily be done without.

When I made contact with the other Civs, I had more cities than any of them, about a 2:1 ratio. I was able to demand cities for renegotiated peace treaties from all but the French and Zulu. About a third of my city count is from these demands that I make every 20 turns. So far the Japanese (Smallest Civ) have given the most, with 7 cities.

My Scouts also got me every Ancient Era tech, along with about 10 warriors and 300 gold. I'm currently on my 2nd Middle Ages tech. I have withheld contacts and haven't traded any techs at all, to keep the tech rate as slow as possible. Also I sold my map every single turn one of the AI's had cash, to keep their ability to trade among themselves as low as possible. I bought every worker I saw, usually for the price of my world map. My Scouts are also "holding" every single Iron source on the map, I just felt like being a complete bastard to the AI. My HOF submission for last month over at CivFanatics was deemed "not applicable" because I intentionally lost with 37k+ points. Kind of got me in a bad mood.

I haven't done much "building" other than on the city front. I probably have more city improvements than in most builder games, just they are spread out between so many cities. I plan on eventually wiping everyone else out and building up to the domination limit, but not until I've claimed as much land as possible through peaceful means.

I am going to jump my Palace to the newly captured Paris very shortly, have to build up my own population there first though. I just finished my Forbidden Palace about 8 tiles away from Washington. My overall production should just about double once I have that done, along with my expansion rate.

This was extremely easy to do on Monarch, I could have done it even without the Settler. I can do this on Emperor almost every "Huge" game, and even did it once on Deity. The Deity game was a fluke though, 3 Settlers in my first 5 huts, plus a couple of the AI that I used for power "stepping" had been geographically limited in their expansion. The key is to limit AI expansion through demanding their cities for peace treaties. These cities will be completely corrupt, but can build up a worker force and claim far flung resources and build Settlers of their own every 30 turns. This is the one use for the Americans that I've found, and they do it extremely well.

[Arrian]

Ok, tried the Egypt horseman rush last night.

I didn't exactly work the way I had hoped.

First try:

Russia declares war on me before I've built a single horseman, because I wouldn't give them writing. I don't see a single unit, although there is just empty land in between us. I eventually muster up about 6 horsemen and ride down to Russia. That's all I needed. Russia destroyed, three cities gained, 4 furs gained, no promotions. Well, I did get one elite horseman by taking out a barbarian encampment.

I continue building my attack force, and hit India. Result: India knocked to 2 or 3 cities, I gain about 8, 2 furs & 4 spice gained, 1 unit promotion.

No leaders... falling behind in tech... world hates me...

Second try:

I build up maybe 10-12 horsemen and attack Japan. I knock them down to 1 city, gaining several cities and a bunch of furs. 2 promotions, but one of those gets killed.

I continue to build up, including several swordsmen, and attack Rome (had iron, but it wasn't hooked up to their core yet...which I find inexplicable ). I had destroyed half their empire, gaining 3 or 4 promotions, when I quit... due to the fact it was now well into the AD years and the AI's on the other continent had built the Great Library, Sun Tzu and the Sistine.

The key to this whole thing is getting at least one leader, so you can rush the Forbidden Palace and double your productivity. But Egypt, being non-militaristic, isn't very good at generating elite units, which in turn must generate leaders.

Man, last night was frustrating. I think I will keep trying... maybe I'm launching my attack too soon. Later = more units = more battles = more promotions?

Aeson,

First of all, that SUCKS about CivFanatics' Hall of Fame. That's ridiculous! I thought giving away all but one city on the final turn was hilarious. Morons.

Second... any tips for my Egyptian idea, or do you think I'm wasting my time with a non-militaristic civ?

Dominae,

Well, to be honest I haven't tried Emperor yet. I like Monarch, and want to pretty much master it before moving on up (and who knows what the next patch will do). I guess it could be viable - there are those that have played and won peacefully on Diety (I think it was Solo - SS victory without firing a shot).

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Aeson, your example game has definitely given me food for thought. One question though: How are you able to grab their cities every 20 turns in return for a Peace treaty? Most of the time the AI just laughs at any offer that involves one of their cities. I'm suspecting it's because of the size of your empire (you mentioned not having a decent military), but you'll have to confirm this.

Arrian, sorry to hear you had a bad night yesterday with the Egyptians...I haven't tried your idea of upgrading War Chariots to Horsemen, but I would think it's a tad too slow. I try to capitalize on the AI's trust by rushing ASAP (basically be a Warmonger). Typically I manage to disrupt my closest neighbor enough to set myself up nicely for a pure Builder Middle Ages.

By disruption I mean grabbing Workers, pillaging roads (this is especially important around their big production centers) and denying Resources. After this its usually child's play to mop up their few units left in the open and finally attacking the cities. Most of this needs to be done within 15-20 turns or the AI will mount a defense and slow you down considerably. I try to end my offensive toward the end of the ancient era (Construction, Currency, Monarchy).

If you 've every played Age of Empires 1, I play the early-game Egyptians in Civ3 just like the Assyrians from AoE. A quick Chariot Archer blitz (coincidence that the units are the same in both games...?) with sole purpose to kill off a few workers was usually enough to put you well ahead of your neighbour.

Good luck in your next games!


Dominae

[Aeson]

Arrian -

It sounds like you did everything right, sometimes those promotions just don't come, Militaristic or not. If you are playing with higher barbarian levels you can train up your Horsemen to elites on the barbs, then go invading. Otherwise you could just have a large stack moving around enemy territory, killing units in the open. This way the AI keeps producing more military for you to train on. Maybe take a few spearmen and set up a "base" on a hill or mountain just outside the AI's territory. Keep the AI without Iron though, Swordsmen are too much of a hassle to let the AI keep throwing at you. Even with a non-Militaristic civ the leader should come sooner or later.

Dominae -

First of all you have to make sure that you aren't offering anything in exchange for the AI's cities. Because of earlier city trading exploits, the AI has been programmed to automatically reject any compensation for it's cities other than peace treaties.

The AI will almost never give up a city which is size 2+ or has expanded borders, at least not until you are much (~5 times on the histograph) more powerful than they are. Even then it's rare unless you have actually been waring with them. The AI can see resources without the required techs too. Those "worthless" size 1 jungle and desert cities that they won't part with have unseen resources. The top 2 AI civs on the powergraph will almost never deal. The least powerful ones will often part with 2 or even 3 cities at a time.

I usually don't demand cities exactly every 20 turns. I try to wait until the AI has just built a city or two. If their only size 1 cities are jungle, it's usually better to just wait until a nice grassland city is available. Grassland doesn't have resources naturally, so the more grassland in the city radius, the better the chances that the AI will part with it. Take note of which cities are size 1 without expanded borders before negotiating. If they "would be insulted by such a deal" for those cities that means there is a hidden resource there. If its "I don't know if they would accept such a deal" you are just not powerful enough, or the AI is one of the top 2 in power.

I'm going to include a sav from my game. It is 70BC, time to renegotiate with the Indians and the Persians this turn. The Persians are the 2nd most powerful AI, they won't deal (even though their powergraph rating is about 1/5th of mine). The Indians on the other hand are willing to part with 2 cities. I think it is an interesting .sav because it shows how the AI is willing to part with a very nice, mostly grassland, size 1 city (Dacca), but not with a size 1 jungle city (Kolhapur), or a mostly desert/jungle city (Hyderabad). The other size 1 Indian cities both have visable resources near, and can't be demanded. I'm willing to bet that both Kolhapur and Hyderabad end up with resources, while Dacca doesn't. I'd check with the multi.sav "feature" but I'm playing this for a HOF submission and that would be cheating. I don't need to check anyways, I've used the multi.sav "feature" to check several other games where this has happened, and the cities always have a resource. It's pretty nice of the AI to tell me where to find it, even if they are a bit vague about what "it" is!

[Arrian]

Aeson,

Hmm, since I normally play builder I normally play with "roaming" barbarians. But if I'm playing warmonger anyway... perhaps a higher setting is in order. That might help train up the lazy louts that call themselves my army. I'll give it a shot.

You're absolutely right about the AI knowing if a city of theirs has a hidden resource or not. I'm not sure it knows until the city is built, as the AI generally expands in a fairly standard pattern, but once the city is in place, they will not part with it unless you have thrashed them in war.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Aeson, thanks very much for your detailed explanation; you've certainly figured out some of the inner workings of the AI. I'll check your game later, but I'm sure everything is correct.

Another question: are you demanding these cities "peacefully" (re-negotiating treaties), or are you suing for peace after war? I usually can't mention the idea of trading cities unless I beat a civ into submission (at which point, I'm pretty powerful...at least to them). I you can do it peacefully, I guess you could just perpetually grab a city or two every 20, keeping their empire nice and small compared to yours, without ever going to war again. Obviously this would be a great Builder strategy.


Dominae

[Txurce]

Dominae, your "reformed warmonger" approach pretty much mirrors my philosophy. But then I read about Aeson's 90 cities by 270 BC and somehow suspect that there just might be other ways to skin this cat. My God.

Arrian, do you think that you could have won that Egyptian game as a builder, even though you had already fallen behind in techs and lost those GW's? I ask because I get few GL's, and so wind up with few GW's, but manage to parlay a mid-game builder strategy into the tech lead by game's end. I think this is due not so much to ingenuity as single-mindedness of purpose, wheras the AI is too much of a generalist to excel in any one area.

[Aeson]

Almost all of the cities I demanded were for re-negotiation of peace treaties. The French were the 2nd most powerful when I went to war with them, I was hoping to just knock down their power a bit so they would start giving up the cities as well. I ended up getting 1 city (size 4) for an end to the war. From that time onward the French were small enough to give up cities peacefully, but the Persians (the new #2) stopped parting with theirs.

If I wanted to switch to a pure builder strategy now I could. Just disband about half the cities by building Settlers and add them to the remaining cities. Right now I have 221 cities in 340AD, with another 30 settlers in transit.

ps. Does the mini-map look sorta like woody woodpecker to you? Or am I just seeing things after looking at it so long?

[Arrian]

Aeson,

"This is Woody Woodpecker... this is Woody Woodpecker on drugs!" That is hideous. Impressive, but ugly as hell. Talk about suburban sprawl! You're doing a decent job of recreating the USA.

Txurce,

I'm sure I would have won... but I don't know how much fun it would have been. My empire was a mess. I'm still a builder at heart, and a disjointed sprawl of crappy cities just upsets me. Plus, more than half were totally corrupt because no leader = no forbidden palace.


I continued to try the Egyptian rush and continued to fail. I destroyed empire after empire... getting almost no promotions and no leaders. I even caved in and used war chariots in one game (yeah, ok, that's a pretty powerful rush if you're willing to blow the golden age). I destroyed Japan and England, to no avail. I was left with a bunch of useless cities.

It seems I may have undervalued the militaristic trait. If you're gonna warmonger, it definitely helps. Funny, I've gotten as many as 8 leaders in one game as Egypt, playing "builder." Now, I deliberately pick fights and get none (4 games played, 8 AI civs destroyed, no leaders).

I think I'll switch back to Japan and see if my first experience with them was a lucky fluke, or if militaristic really does help *that much*

-Arrian

p.s. Woohoo! They're lettin' us out of work early b/c of the snow. I would've killed for snow in February, when I wanted to go skiing, but nooooo, we get it in March. Bizarre winter.

[Dominae]

Arrian, I think you and I may be disagreeing on the best way to play an early Egyptian rush because we have different goals. I'm trying to harass my nearest neighbour in order to gain more territory and more cities (hopefully faster that I could build them myself). You're looking to eliminate your neighbours, gaining military supremacy and (hopefully) a Great Leader.

My approach is more of a surgical strike in order to gain tempo (I know I'm being vague here). I'll end the war ASAP if things aren't going well. Even though I may not have obliterated the nearest civ, I'm ahead enough that I'll be in a good position to switch to Builder. The earlier you rush, the earlier you can start building, which is where the Egyptians really shine.

That's why I think "reformed Warmonger" is the perfect term for this strategy (I don't know who named it first); you're a Builder at heart, but you have to be a Warmonger early to give yourself some elbow room.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Aeson, your sample game is a good example of when and why the AI is willing to trade cities, but is a better example of how ICS is still the best strategy in Civ. No matter how hard I try, I don't think I'll ever be able to be quite as powerful by 300AD without resorting to ICS...It's kind of annoying because I think ICS looks pretty bad, and the AI has no way to cope; at the same time, I would like to get better and it *is* a great strategy. I might just settle on Vel's "training camp" idea...it looks to be a good hybrid.

Your game is still very interesting; thanks for posting it. Here's another question (I'm a student, you see): do you think ICS would work as well on smaller, non-Pangea maps on Emperor or Diety?


Dominae

[godinex]

France is the builder civ by nature

[Aeson]

ICS is very powerful. In the early game, a city only needs a few workable tiles to be productive and help with expansion. Once the corruption threshold has been passed, there really isn't any use for big cities. The size of a corrupt city doesn't matter, just the numbers of them. Even from a scoring standpoint it is easier to keep a size 6 city happy than a size 20. Plus you don't have to build the Aquaducts, Hospitals, or Mass Transits, which saves you cash.

On smaller Deity maps there really isn't much room to expand peacefully unless you get a very lucky starting position. ICS of some sort is almost required if you want to get 5-10 cities built before going to war. I like to build my initial cities with some spacing, and then fill in the gaps. The initial cities claim as much territory as possible, and later cities fill in any unused space to speed up military production. Once I've carved out some room with my military, the temporary cities are disbanded and relocated.

I think ICS can fit into a hybrid builder strategy in much the same way that an early military rush does. A bunch of tightly packed cities can really crank out the Settlers until enough land has been claimed. Then the "inbetween" cities can be disbanded and added to the main cities population. The radius of productive cities will expand as interior cities are disbanded, as will the populations of your main cities. On any difficulty other than Deity this could replace the need for a military rush.

The difficult part is the Forbidden Palace. In my game I was able to build the FP close to my Capitol (took 25 turns to build), then jump the Palace to a more corrupt location. I waited too long to do this though, and missed my target city by about 12 spaces, but it was still a huge improvement in overall production. The key is to do the Palace jump early, when all other cities are still building Settlers. Once the FP is built, starve down the FP city and time the disbanding of your capitol for a turn where only your target city is size 3+. I tried my jump when my target city was 9, but it jumped to a size 4.