The Virtues of being Industrious....

[Nakar Gabab]

Your workers can never become "too fast." Even with replacable parts, democracy, and industrious, there are still a COUPLE tasks one or two workers can't do instantly (impatient, aren't we? ). Just because I can lay down railroads across half a continent in two turns does NOT mean I can afford to slow down. There's a whole other half a continent, and it'll take two whole turns to rail it! And then there's all the pollution those super-producing cities are going to be cranking out, and that little patch of jungle I never got around to clearing...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Nakar Gabab
Your workers can never become "too fast."

I agree with that. There are two reason I usually go for Republic and stick with it.

It takes a lot of turns of anarchy to change governnment. Those turns set back research more that the added worker speed can usually justify. It may even cost me a Wonder.

The Republic is much more resistant to War Weariness. Sticking with the Republic can save many turns of anarchy and much money spent on entertainment due to War Weariness.

If I am playing a Religous civ I only lose one turn to anarchy and that is worth switching to Democracy.

[Harovan]

I finished my egyptian tournament game yesterday. (Who participates in the same tournament and didn't finish his game yet shouldn't read this post)

Being industrious helped a lot in my early wars. I was alone with the English on an island, large archipelago map. I did not want to trigger my GA too early, so I attacked the English first with archers, then with swordsmen. Quick roads helped in maneuvers, even tough I used only slowmovers. I chased their capital 2 times, making peace for tech and gold after each time. The 3rd time I finished them off, since they had nothing to give. I lost over a dozen units in 3 waves to an elite spearman... bad battle luck . Next time I need to buy m&m's before I play .

Overall I performed poorly. I conquered another island with Japan (swordsmen, horsemen and WC's --> early medieval GA) and India (knights). Despite of far over 60 elite victories I got not a single leader in the whole game and had to build my FP the hard way... Well, WLTKD made 2 shields, Democracy later even 3... But that didn't help much. My empire was crippled for a long time, and I constantly lacked money, because I had a large number of cities with cultural improvements to support, in a 2/3 corrupt empire.

I think, if I try an industrious civ next, it probably will be China.

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph, having to build the FP without a GL makes the difference between a potentially stellar game, and an average effort. It's seemingly an argument against the Egyptians, although your 60 elite victories counters it. (Tough luck, guy.)

I just played a space-race game with the Egyptians on Emperor that I won in 1750... one turn off my best. I got one GL, which became an optimally placed FP, and built only two wonders: Bach and the Theory of Evolution. (Later a second GL got me a quick SETI.)

If I want to speed up my finish time further, I have to make more of an effort to get at least one of the two early science wonders in these space-race games. I tend to miss them because I'm behind in tech, busy becoming the #1 land owner, and don't exhibit the forethought to start building a palace early, to have it in reserve for quick wonder building.

Apart from this obvious improvement, I've been wondering whether there is any limit as to optimal civ size when pursuing a space-race win. I tend to limit my civ size in these games, but mostly to speed them up. An argument could be made that even totally corrupt cities contribute something, and they're worth having as long as I maintain a fully focused tech effort in my healthy ones.

Any opinions on this?

[Harovan]

Totally corrupt cities can help you to make money for research and other purposes. If they have no improvements and you let them size 1 with 1 taxman, this are net 2 gold per turn. Have 50 such cities, dense built, makes 100 gpt, not bad. These cities also increase your sphere of influence and can secure you valuable resources.

For space race victories, such cities are not needed though. In my experience, for this type of victory it's enough to have a core of, say, 5-7 cities on a standard map, maybe 10 on a larger. The former case is probably the minimum, if it's really a race, i.e. there are other participants and the AI's are not reduced to 1 city at this point. In this case you have to secure peace and probably can't afford any warfare while building the ship.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Totally corrupt cities can help you to make money for research and other purposes. If they have no improvements and you let them size 1 with 1 taxman, this are net 2 gold per turn. Have 50 such cities, dense built, makes 100 gpt, not bad. These cities also increase your sphere of influence and can secure you valuable resources.

True. And, if it's near good food producing squares (especially if you've got railroads) and you have some luxuries (and if you're to the point where you're building totally corrupt cities but don't have luxuries, god help you), then you can let then city grow a bit and have even more taxmen.

[King of Rasslin]

Industrious is decent, but very,very overrated. The shield bonus is nothing, and the fast workers only help out early.

I tried to expand with industrious workers, but forgot to build military too. Half of my cities were lost to the computers, and a ton of workers were lost to barbarians (I set to raging hordes.)

Plus, the cities I did get were hogged with corruption. In the long run, the culture helped, but not as much as the early temples available with the religious trait.

As for resource grabbing, I found it useful. Getting military resources would help rushing, but I didn't need the speed for getting luxuries, which aren't needed early on because I make settlers and workers so quickly. But a large map with a ton of resources would favor commercial more. You will get the same effect as industrious if you just make more workers. In fact, the real benefit of industrious is saving money from worker payments. And, yes, the super slave workers are more useful too

But workers at double speed isn't as helpful as temples at half price, plus fast revolutions. I think militaristic is useful too, but only for leaders. Scientific made me rich by selling the bonus tech, and cheap libraries isn't bad either. Commercial is only useful in huge maps.

I would place industrious at around militaristic's usefulness, behind religious and scientific but ahead of commercial and expansionist.

[Txurce]

I meant whether it's worth expanding limitlessly as a way to win the space race more quickly, assuming this expansion doesn't take away resources from maxing tech research. So once you have a solid core, is it worth (for example) to beat up on a weak civ with your existing units and pick up a few proabbly-corrupt civs? It sounds like it is, although the advantage may be so small that it's not worth the effort (in a real-world sense).

[Adm.Naismith]

I'm happy to see you back Vel!
Now with your help I have some new "food for my brain" to start a new game.
Well, I'll lost some more sleep hours too, so you'll have some fault if I'll fall asleep on my desk and I'll be fired

[Catt]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Industrious is decent, but very,very overrated. The shield bonus is nothing, and the fast workers only help out early.

Helping out early is the key -- your early start is critical in many games, and is always crucial if you want play a builder style (limited wars offer less expansion through conquest opportunities). And I disagree that fast workers only help out early -- when steam power (and thus railroads) and factories (and thus pollution) come along, those fast workers shine again -- industrious workers building RRs to the front lines of industrial / modern war (which frontlines are expanding outward from your empire ) can be a decisive tactical advantage.

I tried to expand with industrious workers, but forgot to build military too. Half of my cities were lost to the computers, and a ton of workers were lost to barbarians (I set to raging hordes.)

I would humbly submit that this is "user error" rather than an inherent lack of utility with the civ trait .

Catt

[Txurce]

I agree that "early" is when I went any help I can get, be it industrious workers or cheap temples (hence: Egypt). This is the point where the AI has a start-up numerical advantage at the higher levels, and their instant tech trading leaves you in your deepest tech hole. The later in the game, the less help I need.

[Harovan]

I made a metamorphosis in that matter. Former, I called an "early" war one, that's fought with horsemen/adequate. Now I call an "early" (better: "ultra-early") war one, that's fought with units at most one tech away from your civ dependent start advances. Means, mostly elite warriors, archers and (for scientists) swordsmen. These are slowmovers, and as soon as you discovered your victim, you should build a road in this direction, for the attack force and reinforcements. Every turn counts. Being industious helps a lot! Classic example: Be Persia, build immortals and a road! Kaboom!! Or be China, build archers and a road. And so on.

[Arrian]

Yeah, the start is the key to the game. Industrious really kickstarts things, and that's why it's powerful. The advantages of a quickly built RR net and fast pollution cleanup are nice, but hardly crucial.

I chose militaristic (religious isn't a choice for me... it's a must) over industrious in a deliberate gamble. Great Leaders are immensely powerful (overpowered? quite possibly) and militaristic gives you your best shot at getting them when they count the most (early). The power of 3 or more great leaders in the ancient through early medieval era is incredible, and trumps the advantages of industrious workers. Plus, as a warmonger, you are going to capture a large number of slaves.

That being said, militaristic civs do not always generate tons of GLs. There are many other factors which can screw things up... whereas the industrious trait is something you can count on. There is no luck involved in knowing your worker will build a road in 1 turn. There is a lot of luck involved in producing a bunch of GLs. And if you only produce 1 or 2... well, industriousness might have been a better choice.

Egypt is the #1 builder civ. It can also be used as a hybrid or even warmonger civ, but you will most likely still have to build things the hard way (sans leaders). The whole point of being militaristic, for me, is getting to do things the easy way.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

I think the charm of being industrious in the later game is, to have free workers. I (industrious warmonger) can have 50 captured workers, which do the same like, for instance, 50 Japanese workers. But Japan pays 50 gpt, while I pay zero.

[Txurce]

Si Ralph, Egypt seems to fit you ultra-early warring strategy, since they're only one tech from their fast-moving UU. But more to the point, how about the Aztecs? No fast roads, but nobody creates problems more quickly!

Arrian, that's a very good comparison of the early benefits of militaristic vs. industrious... it's a matter of which approach best suits your mood or personality. I've had my best warring results with Egypt, but I haven't spent enough time with Persia to compare.

I know it would seem as if Persia is much better than Egypt for a domination game, but I suspect that early on, cheap units are better over-all than expensive ones - especially if they're fast and can live to fight another day. On the other hand, I have no experience building up a big enough Immortal force to withstand my biggest early fear: a run of bad luck that decimates my offensive force. Another argument against Persia is that you need to build an all-new army sometime in the middle ages, whereas with Egypt (or Japan or China), upgrading carries you from your first mounted units all the way to cavalry. Rebuilding could make all the difference in slowing a strong domination effort. I would think that the key with Persia is to put yourself in a position where the Immortals are effective for a long time, while you steadily build horsemen and knights for tomorrow's wars. But that's a lot of unit building.

I skipped Japan and China because if early is better, I estimate that momentum will be with me in a domination game, and I won't need the samurai or rider to carry me through to the cavalry end-game. I include China in this discussion even though no one seems to play with them, because if you're going for a domination win, pop-rushing temples is still doable, and you'll likely only need one government shift (to monarchy or republic, depending on the likely nature of your future wars).

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Txurce
Si Ralph, Egypt seems to fit you ultra-early warring strategy, since they're only one tech from their fast-moving UU. But more to the point, how about the Aztecs? No fast roads, but nobody creates problems more quickly!

I made good experience in my tournament game with Egypt what concerns warfare. But I did attack with archers and swordsmen, because the puny English weren't worth to fire my GA and there was nobody else at my island. And attacking with slowmovers RULES if you are industrious! But I made BAD experiences what concerns leader generation.

The Aztecs are the Civ3 terrorists, no doubt. Jags and Archers from the beginning, plus cheap barracks. And religious! But they are not industrious and therefor not a matter of this thread.

[Txurce]

Sure they are: they argue against the need of industriousness' virtues!

[Velociryx]

I would contend that the Aztecs make a strong case FOR industriousness...can you imagine anyone wanting to play any other faction if they could keep their UU AND have industrious workers?

I can't....

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Txurce,

I have experienced bad runs of luck with swordsmen (which put me off them, and convinced me horsemen are far superior) which decimated my attacking force, but Immortals are another thing entirely. Immortals eat anything short of legions or hoplites for lunch. My first Monarch win was as Persia. I attacked the Babs with Immortals. I took three cities before losing a HIT POINT. 4 versus 2, vets versus regulars... you're not gonna lose many while attacking. Counterattacks are another thing, though. Bring some spearmen.

For those who view ancient warfare primarily as a way of gaining room to grow, plus resources, Industrious rocks, for the aforementioned reasons which I will not repeat. However, if you see ancient warfare primarily as a method of generating Great Leaders, with the territory/luxuries/etc. as secondary objectives... well, then you're me, and you play Japan.

Ok, "secondary objectives" might be an exaggeration. Clearly, I fight to grab my neighbor's cities and all that comes with them (territory, luxuries, resources, any wonders they have built). But I view those conquests are hollow without Great Leaders. The effort required to build up overwhelming force in ancient times (yes, I know it's easier if you go with an ancient UU) prevents you from building wonders (*disclaimer - I often take a shot at the Colossus, but that's a comparatively low-shield wonder*). As a "builder" I would build one ancient Wonder of the 400 shield variety, so I want that back. That's 1 leader. I also want an optimally placed forbidden palace... that's 2 leaders. Also sacrificed during my Mongle Horde buildup and the subsequent rampage is the development of my core cities (by this I mean construction of a library, marketplace, cathedral or colosseum over time... instead of acquiring the tech for all of them at once and immediately being catapulted in the middle ages). I need the marketplace at the very least to properly pursue the medieval wonders (need to keep people happy as a republic - despot/monarchy only until war over, then want tech lead... must be republic). Accordingly, I need another leader to rush the Sistine while my core cities catch up in their development. That's three leaders. After that, they're all gravy.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Better yet, Vel, imagine industrious Iroquois. Yeah, a little long to get them going, but OMG, the PpppppoOoooOooowwWWwweeer!

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Good point...either way, the combination of Religious, a strong UU and Ind would make the civ an absolute wrecking ball....nobody would ever play much besides the iroquois or aztec if they were Ind on top of their other advantages...OUCH!

WRT to your points on the GL-generation....very true re: the conquest being somewhat hollow if you don't generate a goodish sum of GL's from it. It's been a while, so this may not be exact, but is not the difference between militaristic chances of generating GL's something like 4% (12% for non-mil vs. 16% for mil?) Or, as you have been playing the Militaristic Civs more often, has it been your experience that the percentage is a good deal higher than that?

If it's just a 4% increase in chances of getting a GL, then cheaper barracks aside, I think I'd still throw in with some other trait, but if it turns out to be a pretty significant jump, then I would have to agree....given the power of GL's and their "insta-build" function, that would put Militaristic right up there at the top of the charts as traits go!

-=Vel=-

[alexman]

Vel, the chances of generating a GL are the same for militaristic and non-militaristic. The militaristic trait helps generate elites more often. That's the trait's only advantage in combat.

Edit (to make this post a bit more constructive): This IMHO by no means makes militaristic civs useless. I still think it's up there with industrious. To get a leader with 95% certainty, you need to win something like 50 elite battles. That's quite difficult to do in ancient times with a non-militaristic civ.

As a statistically significant example, consider the first two CivFanatics veteran tournaments. Playing the Romans, the norm seemed to be to get a conquest victory with 5-6 leaders along the way. Playing the Russians, people were lucky to get 3-4 on the way to a domination victory.

[Harovan]

A small illustration about ultra-early industrious warfare. Both Gandhi and me have 2 cities... well, a few turns later I have 3 and he 1 . It's 2230BC, about time for some trouble .

[King of Rasslin]

Early warfare with industrious rushes is suicide in the higher difficulties. All of the comps will hate you for the rest of history, so I try to stay peaceful when there is a civ bigger than me. He could be a potential enemy if an alliance is formed, and that usually happens in my (very unlucky) experiences.

On the other hand, crushing the only other civ on an island would be useful for industrious. But it's easy enough to win a 1v1 fight anyway, so I wouldn't see it as such a big deal. I avoid war until I get to use my UU for a republic golden age. Those stupid Eygptians get their golden age so early it is wasted. Now, the Chinese are a much better civ...

I like India a lot on small maps. Even though industrious is most useful on small maps, I find that the elephant's advantage of not requiring strategic resources is worth the world if I don't get iron.

The only worthless trait is expansionist. Unless you turn off the barbarians, half of the scouts are ambushed by a horseman that just *happens* to be 2 spaces away. Yep, that happens with my workers too. And when they outnumber you 3 to 1, you can't always rely on warriors. I wish Firaxis made barbarians easier to kill! Ahh!

Sorry... I have had too many bad experiences with barbs killing my first worker. Vel, do those barbarian ships have unlimited settlers in them? The barb villages appear too quickly to be destroyed.

[Jaybe]

.... Unless you turn off the barbarians, half of the scouts are ambushed by a horseman that just *happens* to be 2 spaces away. Yep, that happens with my workers too. And when they outnumber you 3 to 1, you can't always rely on warriors. I wish Firaxis made barbarians easier to kill! Ahh!

Sorry... I have had too many bad experiences with barbs killing my first worker. Vel, do those barbarian ships have unlimited settlers in them? The barb villages appear too quickly to be destroyed.

Perhaps it is because you are playing on a small map, but I have not had your bad luck with barbs and being Expansionist. Can make for having to rebuild Scouts on occasion, though. As far as that goes, I play Raging Hordes and I turn off all combat advantages against them (as if you are playing Diety) on all levels.
I prefer Large/Huge maps, lots of land, Regent. Very long games.

JB

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph, I have one question: what have the Indians been up to while you built two size-3 cities and an army of archers?

Maybe they're at war with someone else. I don't know how to otherwise explain their only having two cities, with the second one being a size-1. Presumably they don't have a huge army, since you soon took their capital.

That said, great image!

[Harovan]

I haven't seen any battles around the indian cities, although I spotted Americans, English and Germans nearby. I think, the Indians built very slowly, because the terrain around Delhi is quite poor. Floodplains give no shields, maybe Gandhi needed full or nearly 30 turns for the first settler? We all know the AI preferences, when it comes to the placement of citizens. It's btw only a short test game on Monarch, my first try with the Chinese. I rushed Delhi and soon after took Washington too, with the same army. Delhi made me 3 workers (I captured the next settler), so the road towards America was instantly ready.

[Arrian]

I gave China another shot last night, due to this thread. And whattya know, things worked out rather well.

I did my usual hunting for a good starting spot, and got one (river, two cows). The surrounding terrain was ok overall, and I almost quit thinking I was alone on a smallish island... until I noticed that little sliver of land leading away to the southwest. Anyway, I built up in my normal fashion (ala my Japanese games), and started my attack with 22 horsemen and 11 swordsmen. I had four neighboring civs. Babylon was first. They were reduced to 1 city in short order, no leaders. Persia was second. They were reduced to 1 city fairly quickly, 2 leaders (forbidden, Great Library - damned Iroquois beat me to the Pyramids). India was third - destroyed, 2 leaders (Sun Tzu, Sistine). I then polished off Persia and Japan, 2 more leaders (army, leo's). Japan and Babylon managed to make it onto a couple of islands up north, and I couldn't get to them in time to prevent contact with the other civs, so I have let them live.

A couple of things regarding religious vs. industrious:

-60 shields for a temple is brutal. Especially when you want to rush temples in captured cities. Yikes.
-Anarchy sucks. I endured a despotic golden age in the early middle ages rather than switch to republic (I probably would have had mass riots once I got to rep) or to monarchy, only to switch to republic soon after.
-160 shield cathedrals suck.
-Fast workers rock. You can set up a number of high production cities really, really quickly.
-Overall.... I still prefer religious. The workers set you up nice and quick for the bare essentials, but paying full price for temples/cathedrals/libraries/universities... it adds up.

Other, random thoughts: my God, do you know what a 3-rider army does to cities defended by spearmen?

I planted my forbidden palace in the dead center of a really, really big continent in this game. The immediate surroundings decent, not great (though there is a lot of gold... mmm). But the number of cities within its radius... wow. 1.21 definitely toned down corruption. My economy is insane now that I have courthouses everywhere.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Sir Ralph, those flood plains proably do explain what The Indians were fiddling while you prepared to burn them.

I tried a non-religious, industrious game myself (Persia) only to discover that the bug I wonce mentioned (horsemen don't upgrade to samurai) applies to Persia (warriors don't upgrade to immortals). Maybe now I can get the bug fixed... but in the meantime, I'm sticking by default with my usual civs.

Arrian, building expensive temples would seem to be much more of a problem than cathedrals, because it can directly impinge on your primary goals. Did building temples hinder your rush?

[Arrian]

Building temples in the core cities wasn't too much of an issue, though my rush did get off to a late start (300bc, as opposed to the more optimal 500bc). The temples weren't really the reason, though. I just took my time about things, and made sure I had enough troops. Plus, I built the Colossus in my capitol just prior to launching my attack on Babylon.

EDIT: I should add that I was aided by the fact that Babylon and India were fighting each other (to an apparent draw) when I hit the Babs.

That upgrade bug sounds like an earlier version of the game (was it pre-1.17 that you couldn't upgrade to UU's?). Wierd.

Here's another issue... with 1.21, can you still upgrade war chariots to horsemen? Or do they now go directly to knights? I liked using the upgrade to prevent an ancient, despotic golden age. If I can still do that, I may well give Egypt another chance.

VEL,

About militaristic leader generation: alexman is correct. The GL generation rate is constant (unless you build the HE), but the promotion rate is jacked up. In my experience, however, that translates into many more GLs for militaristic civs. I had that run of 3 games as Egypt where I destroyed 2 AI civs per game (6 total) without a leader. I counted something like 8 promotions. Now that was probably some bad luck, but still...

-Arrian