The Virtues of being Industrious....

[alexman]

Originally posted by Arrian
That upgrade bug sounds like an earlier version of the game

I could be wrong, but I think Txurce has the Mac version, which is still 1.17g.

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.

Nope, sorry. War Chariots now upgrade to knights. That's so you can still build them (they are cheaper) after you have discovered horseback riding. I like it this way better, actually. You can still build both, you just can't upgrade WC to horsemen.

[Arrian]

Damn, that's annoying. Hmm... may have to play around with them anyway, just accepting the early golden age.

Greece can be a serious problem, though, because of those damn hoplites. I have to hope I have a number of soft neighbors to hit first, and then round on Greece at the end with Knights.

But I think I ought to finish off my Japanese and Chinese games first, huh? The Japanese one has been sitting for a while... and I ought to just charge for domination because I don't have the patience to really "milk" it. Same with the Chinese game, I suppose.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

There's another upgrade issue I've seen: While MW's upgrade to Knights, after discovering Chivalry you still can build both in the same city.

A few months ago I was thinking of new hardware, and I was unsure for a while if it will be a Mac or a better PC. I think, with a better PC I decided well, at least what concerns Civ3 gaming. Similar lucky I was, when I decided not to buy the localized version of Civ3. The German gamers are still stuck with 1.16f, because In-frog-games is not able to release localized patches.

[Harovan]

Arrian, one more thought about Greece (damn, that's completely OT..., sorry), but I think it's wise to attack them early, with one warrior, then defend and make peace. That will fire their GA, the extra hoplites they build will be used up in city building and you haven't to face it when you attack them with knights and they have much more and well-developed cities.

[Txurce]

Alexman, you're right - I'm still awaiting the Mac 1.21 patch. I'm starting to get a little restless, by the way.

Sir Ralph, that's a good strategy against Greece, assuming those peace negotiations don't drag on forever. One of my more satisfying Egyptian games started in a grass-less peninsula, and the Greeks invaded. I took one of their cities with the only offensive guys I had, and the pussies agreed to peace, even though they had me.

Arrian, I can see how Greece would be a problem if you're playing one of your "leave no witnesses" games. Otherwise, leaving them for later isn't a big deal, because the Romans or Persians are usually around, and you want to polish them off fast before they build too many super-swordsmen. But as Egypt, you can't beat finding yourself next to Germany, England or France... even Babylon. Any two of those give you a guaranteed biggest-nation status by the early middle ages, and you can put the game on cruise control.

[Arrian]

I love taking down religious civs first (Babs, India, etc.) because it is likely that most of their cities will have had a border expansion, which means I get to keep them. Then it's on to the industrious civs who have expanded well and have had time to build up some population while I'm wailing on the choir boys. That way, even if they whip units, I can still capture cities intact.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by Arrian
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.

After playing Egypt many, many games in a row, I decided to start playing random civs, random maps, etc., and altering my strategy as dictated by my civ traits, my neighbors, geography, etc. I wholeheartedly agree on a couple of points -- I still can't get used to 60 shield temples (and 160 shield cathedrals significantly alter my perception of Sistine's utility).

There are alternative tactics, though. When I'm not a religious civ, I will tend to focus on building a library before the temple -- the 20 shield cost difference isn't that great, and you generate 3 culture points instead of 2 (faster border expansion). You have to watch happiness a bit more, but on the upside, you also get the university as the "next step build" which generates 4 culture to the cathedral's 3. Industrious workers do allow you to set up high production cities quickly, and the ability to produce mobile units, move them across your industrious road network, and disband them in order to speed library construction (assuming you don't have the cash to hurry them) is a very helpful tactic (though not complete solution) to counter the cost of your religious improvements. (Do some view the unit disband method as an exploit? I've mixed views myself -- but that's for another thread )

The anarchy is what really hurts. It turns the decision whether to change governments, both on tech advances and war / peace time, from a no-brainer to a challenging tactical problem, and, for me, significantly heightens war weariness concerns (as I often want to be in Rep or Dem as soon as available) and therefore alters my war-making goals / ambitions.

I sympathize with your attachment to religious, and I consider it right up there with industrious, but I still favor industrious (for the many reasons on this thread!).

Catt

[Txurce]

When you say border expansion, do you mean they've probably built temples? Is this why some size-1 cities survive captures, when others don't? Am I learning something here?

[Catt]

Originally posted by Txurce
When you say border expansion, do you mean they've probably built temples? Is this why some size-1 cities survive captures, when others don't? Am I learning something here?

Your units will automatically raze a captured city unless:

1) population is 2 or higher when you capture it (it drops to 1 on your capture), or
2) the city has accumulated at least 10 culture points (i.e., its broders have expanded once.

Catt

[Txurce]

Thanks, Catt.

Your library gambit is interesting, and could work if you rack up two early luxuries and you don't let your cities get too big while you warmonger.

The government switch is a big deal, and I guess your first choice is whether you hope to win peacefully or by domination. If it's the latter, I'd just go for monarchy and take the good with the bad. If it's the former, going into republic again seems like a no-brainer, but your behavior as a republic will be constrained by your inability to switch governments at will. But if you're going for a space-race win, for example, haven't you expanded all you need to by the time you're ready to switch from despotism to republic?

[Arrian]

Catt,

Good point about the Sistine. It's sooooo wierd when coloseums are cheaper than cathedrals. Oh, well, I just made sure I got Bach's too. Actually, I got (or am presently building uncontested) every middle ages wonder except for Shakespeare.

I don't usually disband units to help with building construction. The exception is veteran (not elite, of course) Cavalry once I have Tanks. I've been using my rather substantial treasury to rush things with gold. When I finally switched from despot to republic, I had something like 3800 gold saved up. The first things I rushed were temples, then courthouses and marketplaces. The latter two significantly boosted my economy, which allowed more rushing. I do it in a sort of haphazard way, generally refusing to pay more than 300gold for any one rushed building (the exception was a university in Beijing at more than 500 - I needed to get going on Copernicus).

Bottom line: gold is easier to come by than uncorrupted shields. That is the basis for my whole gameplan, actually.

In the end, like you say, it's the anarchy that's a killer. That's the final straw for me.

-Arrian

[Catt]

Originally posted by Txurce
Thanks, Catt.

You're welcome (I just beat Arrian to the question since I had been drafting my longwinded answer in the religious / industrious discussion).

The government switch is a big deal, and I guess your first choice is whether you hope to win peacefully or by domination. If it's the latter, I'd just go for monarchy and take the good with the bad. If it's the former, going into republic again seems like a no-brainer, but your behavior as a republic will be constrained by your inability to switch governments at will. But if you're going for a space-race win, for example, haven't you expanded all you need to by the time you're ready to switch from despotism to republic?

Well, I generally favor a builder approach (or, as I like to say, NYE's buildmonger approach) unless circumstances dictate otherwise; I like to win via diplomatic, spapeship or cultural (I used to turn these off as a newbie!). If I am warring a lot, I definitely favor monarchy (over despotism or communism).

But even playing a builder-style game, there is always the chance that I will need to make war to: 1) secure a chokepoint or other highly valuable real estate; 2) secure a luxury which has simply become too expensive to trade for; or, of course, 3) secure a strategic resource (must have rubber - must have oil - must have aluminum ). And if one or more of these situations don't occur, you can bet that one or more AI will declare war during the game. As you say, I may have expanded enough for a space-race victory by the time republic is available, but some warmongering AI (Zulu, Germans, anyone?) will have fought many wars, have many more militray units than I (even if less advanced) and will therefore believe I am a patsy. Largely defensive wars (even very successful ones) can make negotiated peace a challenge -- if I have to build a large expeditionary force and then move it to the AI's perhaps distant territory before I can scare him/her into peace on reasonable terms, war weariness can cause problems.

I have also played builder games where I got far enough behind early that I couldn't seem to ever build enough units of sufficient power to effectively take out a powerful neighbor. When subsequently attacked by such a neighbor (as I'm closing in on the UN or have achieved a two or three tech advantage, either of which seems to do it) I have had to fight grinding, defensive wars that last 20+ turns. A revolution in my democracy at that point is a painful thing indeed if not playing a religious civ, because not only do I suffer the revolution, but when the war concludes, I probably need to go through it again to get back to my democracy!.

Originally posted by Arrian
I don't usually disband units to help with building construction. The exception is veteran (not elite, of course) Cavalry once I have Tanks. I've been using my rather substantial treasury to rush things with gold. When I finally switched from despot to republic, I had something like 3800 gold saved up. The first things I rushed were temples, then courthouses and marketplaces. The latter two significantly boosted my economy, which allowed more rushing. I do it in a sort of haphazard way, generally refusing to pay more than 300gold for any one rushed building (the exception was a university in Beijing at more than 500 - I needed to get going on Copernicus).

Bottom line: gold is easier to come by than uncorrupted shields.

I agree -- but I may disband when, for whatever reason, my treasury is low. And disbanding a unit just to knock the first shields of a building project (to be completed with gold) is very helpful (i.e., cost of the build in gold is doubled if not one shield had been accumulated towards the build).

Catt

[Arrian]

Oh, yeah, I never rush something from scratch - that's just dumb. If I'm desperate, I'll rush a worker (80 gold) to jumpstart things and then rush what I really want.

You get 1/4 the shields it took to build the unit, rounded down. 7 shields for a horseman... 20 shields for Cavalry. Rushing costs 4 gold per shield, doubled if from scratch. Therefore - in order to rush a temple (non-religious civ) you need:

4 Cavalry units
or
1 turn wait, 236 gold.

It all depends on what you can spare. In my case, my cities were all busy building improvements or wonders, but I was raking in cash. Therefore, I went with option #2.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
...
A few months ago I was thinking of new hardware, and I was unsure for a while if it will be a Mac or a better PC. I think, with a better PC I decided well, at least what concerns Civ3 gaming. ...

Especially since Brad Oliver seems to be doing Civ3 updates without further pay from MacSoft (see below), it seems that a Mac would be playing the patience card. Brad also has other projects on his plate of course, and is supposedly doing Civ3 for Mac stuff for the love of it.

I am glad that I got that Windozer back in October (but only for Civ3). Civ3 has cost me about 1,400 clams, overall.

See Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION III > Civ3 - Macintosh > New Mac patch soon? (not a link)

[High Lord J]

you do realize that other civs can use the roads you bulid too right?

[Ethelred]

Only AFTER they take your cities and ther roads are no longer yours.


Unless of course you give them a Right Of Passage agreement.

You can't move on their roads either without a ROP or conquest.

If they take all your roads you have allready lost. If you don't have roads you will lose. Even on Chieftan.

[King of Rasslin]

An industrious civ can make a road in 2 turns instead of 3. Big deal. The true power is being able to make a mine in 3 turns. This means early productive power. An industrial civ can easily get the Great Library or another wonder very quickly because it can make mines so quickly. This actually helps you get a cultural victory. If I was going for a cultural victory, I would choose Eygpt. I think it's really cool, because Eygpt is the most cultural nation of all time in real life

[alexman]

You are right about Industrious Wonder-producing capabilities. On Monarch and below, you can get just about every Wonder in the game if you want to. CivFanatics most recent tournament game demonstrates Egypt's awesome cultural power. Try it if you haven't already!

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
An industrious civ can make a road in 2 turns instead of 3. Big deal.

How about capturing (or buying) foreign workers? If you use one of them plus one of yours, you're back to building roads double speed, just like mines.

[Travathian]

Not sure if someone mentioned it or not, but dont forget that double speed workers also chop down trees faster as well, meaning you can build those temples and courthouses in distant lands much faster.

[Velociryx]

I agree that the ability to crank out a mine quickly is a hugely important advantage of Industrious civs, however, I must disagree where roadbuilding is concerned.

The benefits gained by being the first civ in your vicinity to have an operational military road network are *enormous,* as it speaks directly to your ability to project your power.

Such an early road network allows you to make lightning strikes with a mixed force of, say, warriors and archers on civs who are barely starting their own road networks....and the power is magnified even more once you get mounted troops (essential for projecting your power on huge maps, and absolutely devistating in combination with the road network on smaller maps).

-=Vel=-

[King of Rasslin]

Vel, I just realized the power of industrious in a few special cases. Although other traits are better in most circumstances, imo, I just started a game in a jungle. I quit, of course.

But you can't just quit a game if you are in a lousy starting position. Industrious is actually great if you start in a big jungle or forest. Of course, I play to win, and even industrious isn't going to save me if I have an awful start.

Roads give commerce and mobility, and I can't see why you can just connect your cities while ignoring gold and research for a while. When another civ gets an advance, that makes the advance easier to get. This lowers the importance of roads for trade. Because of this, you really don't need a lot of roads for mobility.

Industrious is most useful in the industrial era, of course. Its nice to cover your whole empire in railroads in a few turns when they are first available. This results in a huge increase in power more quickly than non industrious civs. Unfortunately, I have already won the game by then. Its a good trait, but I like others more, depending on how my starting location is. It isn't going to be useful in an island map because you are isolated. In a huge pangaea, expansionist would be useful. Industrious is good when you want some really fast mines, not a trade advantage. It isn't as flexible as religious or scientific, but its good.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
When another civ gets an advance, that makes the advance easier to get. This lowers the importance of roads for trade. Because of this, you really don't need a lot of roads for mobility.

Huh?

[King of Rasslin]

Ok, roads that are not for mobility either give you gold or science. Both decrease in value as time goes on. A comp will sell you a tech cheaper if it has been around longer. Gold isn't as good later on because buildings and units are more expensive. Therefore, you can get away with making less roads than normal early on. The trade isn't as important as the speed at that point. Even a non industrious civ can make the roads quickly enough for military use.

[Harovan]

Quick roads also connect luxuries earlier. That increases happiness and makes larger cities effective, because they work without entertainers.

[King of Rasslin]

True, but happiness isn't an issue early in the game when you are pumping out settlers and workers. I don't let any of my cities get bigger than size 4. 2 warriors and a temple is perfect, luxuries come into importance later when the land rush is over. By that time, I will have them connected without the help from industrious.

[Theseus]

I think I got it. You're saying that non-industrious civs can build roads as quickly as is needed or can be utilized.

I actually sort of agree, but the exceptions, where high-speed workers make a difference, are what makes the trait valuable to me:

* High-speed roadbuilding to a specific military objective.

* Clearing jungles.... especially those directly adjacent to my cities and at the front.

* High-speed forts.

* High-speed railroads... both connecting all cities / forts, and for the productivity boost.

Also, regarding your last post, luxuries have become more important to me in the early game, as I have recently been building fewer but larger cities early on. 7 pop in despotism, with only a temple for happiness, requires luxuries to maintain full productivity.

[King of Rasslin]

Making fewer but larger cities is a big mistake in this game. Having a lot of small cities is a long term investment, plus it means you will get more resources. Expanding comes first, the infrastructure can wait. You won't have luxury issues if you are big and have more luxuries in your borders.

I haven't really used forts that often. I am more offensive, but I would probably use forts in a deity game where the AIs would all team against me at the start of war

I am considering making forests on top of forts for an additional 15% defence bonus. Is this worth it? I haven't tried it yet. I might choose to leave some jungle standing at the border for the defence advantage.

Although not a game changing quality, industrious is also useful when you are bored as **** moving around 40 workers every turn!

[High Lord J]

wait a sec... so if you are in your terriorty and you are at war with your enemy your roads won't improve there speed just as much as yours? what about in neutral terriorty?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by High Lord J
wait a sec... so if you are in your terriorty and you are at war with your enemy your roads won't improve there speed just as much as yours?

Correct. The enemy can't use your roads and you can't use his.

what about in neutral terriorty?

There both sides get the road movement bonus.

[Theseus]

King,

Hmmm.

There is no spoon.