Effects of 1.21f changes?

[Txurce]

Excellent strategy, Ralph. I've never bothered to do the palace jump, mainly because it seemed like a bother and I have a romantic attachment to my original city. But the way you did it - racking up workers who made up for the pop loss - is probably enough to make me do the pragmatic thing in my next game.

Theseus, the different views on tech trading is why I keep asking questions - it never occurred to me that we may actually have some options again. I can't wait to actually consider researching in the ancient era again. My early game had become extremely rigid strategically, so I've been screwing around the last few games with pacifism, but it seems hopeless on Emperor. I then tried to go back to warmongering, but building temples first. No dice - by the time my bowmen were ready, the other guys had plenty of swords. So much for creative experimentation. It's back to warriors and settlers until I run into borders, then barracks and UUs until I'm ready to attack. (At least until they make 1.21 available for Macs.)

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Txurce
...
My early game had become extremely rigid strategically, so I've been screwing around the last few games with pacifism, but it seems hopeless on Emperor. I then tried to go back to warmongering, but building temples first. No dice - by the time my bowmen were ready, the other guys had plenty of swords. So much for creative experimentation. It's back to warriors and settlers until I run into borders, then barracks and UUs until I'm ready to attack. (At least until they make 1.21 available for Macs.)

You're not completely right here, IMO.

Two weeks ago I had stated on a thread that deity would be easier on a large map (compared to standard). I had never won (or seriously started) deity games before. Three times I had to quit early on, but the fourth time it was bingo:

on deity I hadn't fought a single war until one stupid (and very distant) civ (the Egyptian) landed one cavalry on my continent and declared war. But before that: never experienced such a long peace time in any of my games before.

The AI civs just left me alone, I was playing the Japs in a Macchiavellistic way (setting them up against each other and paying for it) and never used any military before infantry!

As to building temples: I'll usually wage war early on too, but my first priorities are settlers and temples. When my land grab phase has finished, temples are number 1 on my building list.

I've always succeeded in warmongering and building culture improvements first (temples).

AJ

[Arrian]

Yeah, build city, build temple, build workers or settler, build barracks, built units. That's what I do as Japan. Temples first, always. Early culture is great for locking up your borders and preventing cultural reversion. The AI's culture is pathetic early on, so having a few temples blows their culture away. Besides, they keep my people happy while I go off conquering.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

AJ, with regard to a straight builder approach, I play on a standard map, and agree that this may make much of the difference. It sounds as if you were able to build a large enough civ on a large map to research decently before you encountered hostilities. My experience on standard maps is that the six or seven cities I tend to build before usually running into borders... handicapped by the 20% Emperor production penalty... aren't enough to give me a chance to compete on tech. Hence, early warmongering.

Arrian and AJ, I build temples when my cities reach a certain size, but not as a matter of course in the early stages. For example, the size-two soldier factories never get a temple until after the warmongering era is over. On Emperor, I feel I need every shield dedicated to building settlers at first. I am very weak at this point, but require this sort of extreme approach to stay within range of the AI in number of cities. I then switch to barracks as a priority, since my UU is usually early enough that I can't risk (for example) the Persians building a bunch of Immortals before I'm ready to attack. Sometimes I have the option to wait and build temples before invading, but often the clock is ticking on my UU.* I have had the occasional city flip as a result, but if it happens, it's usually as I'm about to go on the offensive, and I get it right back.

* This is obviously a point in favor of a UU with more longevity, but I still can't get around my sense that the human player is never at a bigger disadvantage than at the start. An early UU helps to mitigate this, and by the time it's obsolete, I'm powerful enough to defend myself with standard units.

All that said, I can see an argument within my own for using a civ like Persia, given that the UU isn't ready until I'm ready, and the option of upgrading warriors at that time with the gold I save on research. Starting a relatively late offensive with a civ like Persia will at least rip away some of my cobwebs. I'll try it.

[Arrian]

It appears that Emperor and Diety kinda limit your options, due to the huge AI bonuses. This would have been true in CivII as well, if only the AI had the faintest idea of how to use the bonuses.

I think that Txurce is right in choosing an ancient era UU to gain parity. As a matter of fact, if you think about it, the ancient units have the longest heyday: from the time you get your UU online until feudalism (and even then certain UU's are still useful... MW's and Immortals come to mind).

If you wait for a Chivalry-based UU, the AI will have gunpowder in the blink of an eye - especially on Emp. or Diety. Same goes for Cavalry. The AI will have nationalism in no time, and start drafting those g-damned conscript riflemen whose purpose in life is to kill Cavalry. No, if you're going to fight, the ancient era is the time to do it on the higher levels. As much as I hate blowing a golden age in despotism, it makes sense.

Regarding temples... well, I understand scratching and clawing for shields on the higher levels might cause one to leave the temples for later. I just can't stand those size1 borders, though, and have been building temples first since I was playing down on warlord level. Getting those temples down early not only locks up your borders, but allows you to blow the AI away in culture early on, making keeping AI cities a piece of cake. The only city I don't immediately build a temple in is my capitol (usually I get 2-3 settlers out before plunking down a temple). I always play religious civs, which means temples are 30 shields. That's 10 turns and a poprush for a corrupt town.

One of the reasons I love playing as Japan is that I can build temple & barracks for 50 shields, and then start building my army. That's speed. Religious saves 30 shields, militaristic saves another 20. Persia, for example, would need 100 shields to do the same, and would need to research of buy ceremonial burial.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Arrian,

Playing as Japan, do you bother with Warriors at all?

[Arrian]

Yes. Build orders in capitol: warrior, warrior, warrior, settler, warrior, settler (if enough food, otherwise maybe temple here), temple, barracks, settler, spearman, settler, chariot, chariot, chariot, chariot... or something like that.

My cities are garrisoned by warriors - one to start, two units later. Sometimes two warriors, sometimes a spear and warrior combo. The warriors are regulars, never meant to fight. They are there for early exploration and crowd control.

Later, during the buildup, I may build a few veteran warriors so I can upgrade them to swords. Can't afford many, but I find having a few is useful.

-Arrian

[jshelr]

Suppose you take a city you want to raze but you don't have your settler ready yet. Now, you can hold the city a few turns and then abandon it when your settler finally shows up!!

[Txurce]

I started a game with the Persians, in between Germany and England. Babylon got a nice corner all to itself. By the time our borders touched, I had temples, barracks, and a few Immortals. They had a lot of bowmen, as well as swords, and started pushing me back. When the Germans piled on, I bailed out. What could I have done differently? Built more warriors early - vets, right? - to upgrade to Immortals with the gold I was hoarding. My honor demands that I try it again... but that Japanese ancient-essentials shield advantage sure sounds tempting. They're on deck.

Arrian, I usually try to build settlers every other build at first - every build if the food supply allows it. This is in all cities. It's a risky strategy that rarely leads to disaster, and gets me up and running as soon as possible. I can see taking a less extreme approach... but you effectively build settlers on your fourth, sixth and ninth builds? How many cities does this leave you with in your initial peaceful expansion?

[civman2000]

my city order:
1. defensive unit (if not brought with settler)
2. temple or library if I'm scientific
3. early in the game, settler. Later when ICS isnt very important, I skip this one.
4. depends-sometimes courthouse, sometimes library, barracks, but usually an improvement. Once I get to here I stop really having a system

[civman2000]

Originally poster by Sir Ralph
I use a printed out form with columns of 20 turns each. See attachment, it's quite comfortable if you choose a small font and print it on A4/Letter.

WHat is this about??? I downloaded the attachment and it seems to be meaningless...

[Harovan]

If you don't figure it on the first view, I will probably fail to explain it. Just delete it and never mind.

My build order (although a bit off topic) is settler, settler, settler, if the city has a good food supply (like an irrigated bonus tile), and the same with warriors and/or scouts mixed it, if it has only a normal (+2) food surplus. I almost never build any improvements till the landgrab phase is over. Since I build my cities 3-apart now (instead of formerly 4..5-apart), there are seldom gaps to close, so no primary needs for a temple. Building settlers keeps the number of citizens low, so happiness is not an issue. In one-shield cities with a +2 food surplus I may build a few workers (10 turns each), and then switch to settlers too. As soon as the landgrab phase is gone and I built my FP in a core city, I switch all but one city to workers to reduce their size and perform my palace jump. The workers quickly build my tile improvements and are re-added to the cities later. Then I fire up the culture, building (or poprushing) a temple, marketplace (for happiness) and cathedral in every city at once. Since I have twice or thrice as much cities at this point like the next AI has, my culture jumps from the least to the highest in just a few turns. Usually, nobody beats me in culture from this point on.

[Arrian]

Txurce,

It all depends on the food situation, of course, but I generally want 3 warriors off the bat - 2 for exploring and 1 to garrison the capitol. Then I'll punch out a settler. Then, if there is enough food, I'll build another. Otherwise a quick build like another warrior, then back to settler. Usually there is a lull in there when I can't build a settler right away, and that's when I build a temple.

My initial land-grap is truncated when I play the Japanese. I'm just not that concerned about staking my claim - my horsemen will do that. The AI is building cities for me. I will often halt at 6-8 cities on a normal map. Small, huh? Well, the key is that a city that can't at the very least muster up 2 shields of production is worthless to me. At least a 2 shield city can put out a spearman in 10 turns.

The idea is to build a relatively efficient core, connect up the vital resources (horses/iron), build large numbers of chariots, upgrade & kick ass. Thus, the land-grab is unecessary, because when the dust settles, my civ will be the only one standing on the continent.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

You completely switched to warmonger, didn't you, Arrian?

Well, if I get boxed in, I also switch from settlers to horsemen and go for a raid. Thing is, the AI often has no culture and poprushes defenders till size 1, so I don't capture but destroy a lot of cities. That's not a big deal though, because I build cities more dense than the AI does. Which means, I have to switch to settlers again after the raid and fill up the captured territory, while my surviving horsemen block the other AI's settlers. Settle, raid, settle, raid, till all land is settled. At this point I decide, whether I will continue my snake style raids, or settle down and be a peaceful builder.

As I am in my current game. I killed the Aztecs and Americans early on and settled the whole continent. 49 cities + 1 at a distant island. A 1495AD savegame is in the 1.21 bugs thread. The wars I fought while none of the other AI's had discovered us yet, so nobody knows of my atrocities anymore. I'm strong but peaceful now, everyone's buddy, #1 in approval rating (just like in land area, productivity etc.), have a solid lead of about 4 techs (discovering Flight in 1510AD), am allied (MPP) with the 2nd best civ (peaceful France) since many turns and going to build the spaceship this evening. That's good, cos tomorrow starts the new tournament over there at CivFanatics.

[Arrian]

Yeah, though I call it "warmongering builder" since the warmongering is simply a means to an end (building). Kinda like the game you described - kill off your neighbors, and settle down to build. I probably will try out a Babylonian or Egyptian builder game with the new patch... but I fear I'm now addicted to the power of the dark side.

I don't generally have a problem with AI cities getting autorazed because my attack actually starts fairly late. I need time to build my attack troops and accumulate the money needed to upgrade them. I could destroy a civ or two earlier than I do, but instead I hold off for a massed attack that can take down everyone on the continent, one after the other. Therefore, most of the AI cities are either size 2+ or have expanded culture borders. Sure, I end up having to fill in a few gaps, but for the most part, the continent is settled for me.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Arrian, it's nice to see someone else "pushing" the Japanese so strongly; next to the Egyptians, they're my favorite civ, for the reasons you mention (cheap Temples and Barracks), and of course the simply amazing Samurai.

One question: have you tried building Horsemen straight up, rather than going through the Chariot upgrade? It seems to me like you're never going to use those Chariots as is, and Horseback Riding comes pretty fast. Personally, I use all the money you're using to upgrade to get to Horseback Riding ASAP, plus I have some left over for early trading (now somewhat useful with 1.21). I tried the Chariot upgrade path, but quite unsuccessfully. Any tips from an expert?

Also, I have to mention that the Samurai, besides their great stats, have the advantage of coming at the perfect time for any warmonger on Monarch+. Horsemen rushes on Emperor sometimes fail, but holding out for a bit and raining fire on your enemies with Samurai later is guaranteed to tip the balance of power. It doesn't matter that the AI has a lot more units (due to production advantage): pound for pound, the Samurai trumps any unit the AI can spit out.


Dominae

[Harovan]

The Japanese are on top of my wannatry list. Have heard awesome things about them, and already had some test games, although ancient age only, no samurai yet. On Marla's (dunno if it is 1.21-playable yet) I am going to give the Russians a try. Let's see if I can prevent the European civs from settling my Siberia .

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Dominae

One question: have you tried building Horsemen straight up, rather than going through the Chariot upgrade? It seems to me like you're never going to use those Chariots as is, and Horseback Riding comes pretty fast. Personally, I use all the money you're using to upgrade to get to Horseback Riding ASAP, plus I have some left over for early trading (now somewhat useful with 1.21). I tried the Chariot upgrade path, but quite unsuccessfully. Any tips from an expert?

Dominae

I started out buiding the horsemen straight-up. I have decided the chariot upgrade is better. A chariot is 20 shields. A horseman is 30. Early in the game, ten shields is significant. Money, meanwhile, is easy to horde as a despot. The goal is to generate a large attack force quickly, and I think this is the quickest way to do it. And no, the chariots never see action.

I do not trade with other civs when executing this strategy. I have nothing to say to them. I will take what I want, when I want it, and there isn't anything they can do about it.

I deliberately hold off on horseback riding so that I have time to build my cities, temples, barracks and chariots, while building up the treasury. That's why I research warrior code (well, that's a pre-req), bronze, iron, masonry first. Masonry is just there in case I get a really early leader - then I can rush the Pyramids right then and there. Masonry could easily be cut out, and sometimes is.

The Samurai is a very well-timed unit. Though I'd say the Rider is more powerful (3 moves in the middle ages?? If you have a bunch of horsemen lying around "it's-all-ov-er, *clap, clap, clapclapclap, it's-all-over..."). Particularly for a civ that has spent the ancient era building temples, barracks and troops, a medieval golden age is a beautiful thing. I normally trigger it with wonders, though (Sistine/Sun Tzu).

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Didymus
Now your tanks can actually attack a defended city twice in one turn!

I thought Modern Armour & Panzers (never tried 'em) were the only units that could attack more than once. Could anyone clarify?

[Cort Haus]

When do Egypt's war-chariots become obsolete?

Not with horseback-riding in my last 1.21 game. I was able to build them deep into the middle-ages - maybe because the host cities were on pre-harbour islands with local Horses, but missing Iron & Saltpetre. This was handy as I could build WC in cheeseball cities, then ship them to the mainland to upgrade to cavalry, allowing the core to get on with universities & banks. Eventually the build auto-swiched from WC to Cav and I couldn't build WC any more - must have been when the harbour was complete.

If the UU chariot doesn't obsolete as quickly as the standard one, presumably Arrian's strat doesn't need to avoid horseback riding if playing Egypt.

[civman2000]

I thought Modern Armour & Panzers (never tried 'em) were the only units that could attack more than once. Could anyone clarify?

This is how it was before. Now attacking units that do not move into the attacked square are only charged 1 movement point, so blitz units with under 3 moves can attack multiple times

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
When do Egypt's war-chariots become obsolete?

According to the 1.21f README with Chivalry like it should be, as upgrading them to Horsemen brings no benefit far from the ability, that they can now move over mountains and jungle (at the cost of 10 more shields). If you decide not to research Chivalry (which is optional), you can build them till Military tradition then.

[Theseus]

Arrian, a suggestion if I may...

Since you are waiting all the way to Chivalry before you really go at hard-core warmongering, you might want to try building some more Warriors very early on, then enough Spearman to act as defense, and do some smallish oscillating attacks as soon as you can upgrade to Swordsman.

I know you are saving your shekels for the big Samurai upgrade, but I suggest that this approach will provide the following benefits:

1) VERY early war, even if limited, has tremendous relative strength implications. If you have 1-2 strong civs nearby (and IIRC, you usually do on standard maps), taking / razing say 2 out of 4-6 cities is very damaging.

2) Following the above, your extortion for peace treaties will provide some of the techs you otherwise research, (e.g., masonry), and, most importantly, re-stock your gold reserves for the later Samurai upgrade.

3) If you're very lucky, you just might get a GL.

I've been playing Persia and Rome mostly lately, but I'm going back to Japan this weekend, and will certainly play this way. Going to try Standard, Emperor, BTW.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
If you decide not to research Chivalry (which is optional), you can build them till Military tradition then.

I think that was it - no-one had researched Chivalry untill the end of the age.

[Harovan]

Won my game by culture, 13 turns before the spaceship launch . Gah, didn't check F5 for long. Heck, who cares. So, next free game will be with Japan too. I must finally try those Samurai.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Theseus
Since you are waiting all the way to Chivalry before you really go at hard-core warmongering, you might want to try building some more Warriors very early on ...

rpodos, I mean, Theseus I know this was a suggestion for Arrian, but I feel the need to throw in my two cents.

I've found the Warrior rush on Emperor really really difficult. By the time you get enough Warriors to do a good job, the AI has a couple of Spearmen in each city, and those aren't very good odds. The earliest rush that I think works on Emperor is a Horsemen rush, which is why Arrian is pre-buidling Chariots. You also have to consider the fact that Warriors upgrade to Swordsmen, which aren't really useful to Japan (the way I play Japan, at least).

So, if you can get your the Warrior Gambit to work on Emperor, I'd love to hear your secrets. I agree with you that early war is crucial, and the earlier the better. Since the Warrior is your first unit, anything that works with those little dudes has to be good!


Dominae

[notyoueither]

Funny thing is that a couple of times when a distant AI has declared war on me early in the game and I have had a single Warrior exploring near them, I've taken a few cities defended by lone Spearmen. Raze. Heal. Move on. Funny as h*ll. On Emperor.

"Give us X, or we'll declare war!"
Shove it.
"OK, it's War!"
OK. Did you need this city?

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph, great game. Your early pop manipulation is interesting, but as I review your culture track, I have to ask... when do you go to war? Don't tell me you played straight builder. Not with this bunch reading these posts.

Arrian, I also build 6-8 cities, then ramp up for war... but rarely as a matter of choice. That's about as many as I ever have room for, employing peaceful means. And of that core group, at least a couple max out at pop-2; these are the ones where I build a barracks, no temple, and start pumping out the UU du jour. In my games, the turning point is almost always whether I have the time to build that first force; then again, I never try a horseman rush, but rather an early UU blitz. I obviously agree with Theseus that there is no reason not to wage war early on, as nothing negates the AI's handicap faster. (I draw the line at warrior rushes of the Jaguar variety, however.)

Like everyone else it seems, I'll be trying Japan this weekend as well. I am a little curious as to why their defensive edge over knights makes them so ferocious - the rider seems more useful, given that the human is usually on the attack, and that extra move is what a successful blitz is all about.

I'm playing the Persians right now, and should win the game via space race. It has been almost all war, with the Immortals lasting all the way to cavalry. I had a tough starting spot, sandwiched between the Germans and the Zulu, with the Babs and Russians below them. It's been almost all war, switching from one front to the other. Along the lines of what Dominae said about research, I learned iron working first, naturally, then turned it off until metallurgy. (Military victories got me everything in between.) After military tradition, it was 10% science again until I beat everyone on my continent into second-rate parity. Selective research.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Txurce
Sir Ralph, great game. Your early pop manipulation is interesting, but as I review your culture track, I have to ask... when do you go to war? Don't tell me you played straight builder. Not with this bunch reading these posts.

I wiped out 2 civs (Aztecs+Americans) early and indeed decided not to warmonger anymore in this game. After having almost exclusively bloodthirsty games with 1.17f, it was nice to have a builder game again, after a warmongering ancient age though.

But it wasn't meant to happen. My MPP with France lead to a common war with Russia (Joan being the bad girl). I landed only 2 transports with 8 tanks, 4 infanteries and 4 artilleries and supported them with 4 carriers full of bombers and a fleet of battleships and destroyers. I met mainly pikemen, with few riflemen and spearmen (the antitank spearman wasn't among them). That was enough to capture (not raze!) the Russian core land. I didn't lose a single unit and didn't even have any trouble with flipping back cities or excessive russian drafting. Not at all! This short war (about 10 turns) gave me my first and only leader in this game, who became the UN.

Overall it seems builder strategy is applicable again, although from a very strong position, after it was severely hurt by the 1.17f changes.

PS (Edit): When the game ended, the world was in a huge MPP driven war. All nations but me were fighting. I had cancelled the MPP with France during the Russian campaign (it had expired long ago) and didn't have any trouble researching and building the spaceship, while all other nations fought each other. Every turn I had 2-3 alliance or MPP requests, which I politely declined, offering my worldmap as gift instead.

[Ethelred]

My MPP with France lead to a common war with Russia (Joan being the bad girl).

Joan undergoes some sort of transformation in the Modern Age. She stops being peacefull and begins to start wars. Not a good choice for an MPP if you don't want a late war. I suspect the picture of her for the Modern Age influenced her behaviour.