The Virtues of being Industrious....

[Txurce]

No question you could do it on Emperor, with a good start and a break on GL generation... pretty much what you had here. The AI edge effectively disappears in the middle ages. Once you hit 1000 BC, about the only difference between monarch and emperor is the aftermath of a narrow strategy (due to those first 3000 years not researching), and that research goes faster... which is the main reason I've won games sooner at the higher level than at the lower.

[Arrian]

Sir Ralph,

That makes a certain amount of sense, but I do not build my cities close together. I build them with minimal overlap, and they get big. Thus, cathedrals are a must, and 2x cathedrals is worth building the wonder for. But of course my goal is to have both the Sistine and Bach, along with every other M.A. wonder besides Shakespeares (which strikes me as particularly useless in CivIII).

Txurce,

One would need a bit more luck to do it on Emperor. The main reason is the tech speed. My ancient attack force is extremely potent right up until feudalism. At that point, my horsemen become useless. I have to wait for chivalry before undertaking further offensive operations.

On Monarch, with a good start, I can usually waste 3 civs before that happens. By #4, I often run into pikemen. It's really nice when #4 doesn't have iron. Otherwise, it's Samurai time. On Emperor, I would has less time to kill more AI units.

The rate of tech advancement is one reason I don't really have much desire to play Emperor yet. I don't like the idea of hitting the middle ages in 300BC, or whatever.

-Arrian

[alexman]

Originally posted by Arrian
The rate of tech advancement is one reason I don't really have much desire to play Emperor yet. I don't like the idea of hitting the middle ages in 300BC, or whatever.

This is getting off the thread topic, but I couldn't agree more. It's too bad there isn't a tech rate per diffuculty level, like there is one per map size.

[Velociryx]

You could sorta fake one, Alex....the main reason, IMO, that research is so fast in the higher level games, is cos of the AI's built in advantages (advantages that give them boosts in both production and research). If you wanted, you could go in and double or triple the cost of techs, which should undo most, if not all and then some, of the AI's bonus. They'd still have the production bonus and freebie units, but tech would be slowed down across the board.

Might be kinna coolio, tho my impression would be that the game would essentially become one of resource denial. Ironworking and Horseback riding would become more important than they already are (given the extension of the ancient era), and essentially, those two resource types would decide the game.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Hmm, just thinking about it, what I'd probably do is abandon my "early golden ages suck" mindset and use the Iroquois. Mounted Warriors are to Pikeman as Horsemen are to Spearmen. My early gains will be easier. The downside, of course, is the lack of militaristic, which will cut into leader generation. Hmm... tough call, actually.

Also, play an expansionist civ means you run the risk of popping horseback riding from a hut. Man, would that suck!

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Good points: on Emperor I can carve out enough land to win in the ancient era, but at best knock off no more than two civs off the continent... and usually don't quite do that. And then you are indeed forced by others' advances to abandon your warring ways and catch up technologically. I don't mind being forced to shift gears, but hitting the industrial era before 1000 AD is obviously out of whack. In a way there is a tech rate per difficulty level, which is the AI's production (read research) advantage; unfortunately, this method of handicapping screws up verisimilitude.

[alexman]

It just occured to me. It's really simple to balance the tech rates for all difficulties.

All Firaxis needs to do is to multiply all tech costs by the ratio of the Regent-to-CurrentLevel AI cost factors.

Right now, the cost factor for Emperor is 8 (For Regent it's 10). So if you multiply all the tech costs by 1.25 (10/8) it should make the Emperor timeline about the same as for Regent.

This is not 100% correct, because at higher difficulties the AI trades more aggressively, but it should account for most of the tech acceleration.

[King of Rasslin]

The Iroquios are religious, so the early golden age isn't a problem. Aim to get religious as early as possible, and switch immediately. Ditto.

As for unhappiness, wars usually don't last too long when you have mounted warriors

[Arrian]

You mean republic, I assume.

Yeah, that's a possibility if you have enough luxuries hooked up. Otherwise, shoot for Monarchy. Better sometimes, because of military police... especially on Emperor.

-Arrian

[King of Rasslin]

I'm not getting enough sleep

Monarchy is good. But how do you keep up in the tech race without being in republic? On emperor? You are just hoping that your war will win you a few techs. The tech advancement is too fast for higher difficulties...

Hopefully the early war will get you a leader to rush the Great Library.

[Inverse Icarus]

one of my favorite things with industrial is when you plop 2 workers down to do a job it's always done in 1 turn. you can road/mine/irrigate an entire city radius in 40 turns max.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
I'm not getting enough sleep

Monarchy is good. But how do you keep up in the tech race without being in republic? On emperor?

You don't have to stay in Monarchy forever. You can usually switch to it earlier than you can to Republic and if you are a religious civ it only costs one turn of anarchy. Then you can build faster make use of mines get more money and then switch over to Republic when you get the happiness improvements you need to no longer need the military police.

Yes it works on Emperor even as a builder. You do have to time things carefully as a builder though. Have to build enough units to keep the other civs from extorting you so much you don't have any money. Monarchy helps with that.

[Txurce]

Once you can afford republic, the only reason to be in monarchy is because you intend to be constantly at war. Keeping up with advances isn't so difficult in this case, as you are likely beelining for cavalry; a combination of high research rate, trading, and buying of techs should get you there ahead of the other civs, since they almost never go straight for it.

That said, the more luxuries you gain as a result of conquest, the more you can stick with republic as your wartime government. Keep in mind that the bigger you get, the more corruption slows you down while in monarchy. Republic allows you to keep pumping out units and maintain a high research rate, without devoting too much of your income to keeping your people happy... as long as you've corralled enough luxury resources.

[Ijuin]

One advantage of the double-speed Workers that everyone seems to have been overlooking is that, if you only need to build half as many workers, you only pay half the MAINTAINENCE on them. This means that having, say, fifty Workers instead of one hundred means you save:

50 pop points (which can then be devoted to Settlers, pop rushing, or working land)

500 shields

and 50 gold per turn!

Note that if the 50 pop points saved are used for pop rushing, then the value you save is equal to 1500 shields! And if you have the 50 Workers built soon enough, then you can save over 10,000 gold on the maintenence! Compare the shields and gold saved here to the shields and gold saved from the cheaper buildings under Militaristic, Scientific, or Religious civs!

[punkbass2000]

50 * 20 = 1000

[Ijuin]

punkbass2000

Yes, fifty times twenty is one thousand, but I was adding in the additional five hundred shields (50X10) that would have been spend on building the 50 extra Workers as well. This means that there would be a TOTAL savings of 1500 shields.

[punkbass2000]

oic. Sorry

[King of Rasslin]

Good point, Ijuin, but not exactly precise. Border cities have great growth but poor production. Workers are cheap. See what I mean? You just have your far away cities make workers. You really aren't wasting pop points or shields unless it is early in the game and you haven't established the border cities yet. That is a short period of time. Trust me, cheap temples will save you a lot more shields than super workers will.

As for unit costs, that is actually the best benefit of industrious. 20 workers over 100 turns is 2000 gold saved, but...

Try choosing scientific instead. The minute you enter a new age, sell off the new tech to all of the AIs. I bet you will easily get 500 gold at the start of the middle ages, 3000 at the start of the industrial era, and 6000 at the start of the modern age. And if you don't sell the free scientific tech, you get a tech tree lead. That is possibly a lead on a great wonder like Hoover Dam or the Sistene Chapel.

More workers is not as expensive as some people think, but I can see where it would be useful, like on huge pangaea maps. But I don't play a map that would take weeks to finish.

[Artifex]

tag

[King_Gus_Man]

That is a good point. my dad says i'm a good player , And i never won untill i started playing as the french. Even though there are other indutrous civs Somone please explain that

[Theseus]

So you play culturally linked? You then avoid any early UUs as France.

Also, Com / Ind is for some reason a verrry strong combo... I haven't quite figured out why yet.

[Ethelred]

Also, Com / Ind is for some reason a verrry strong combo... I haven't quite figured out why yet.

Actually it isn't even though I like playing as France myself. The big advantage for France is that the UU, which otherwise is crap, comes at the ideal time for a Golden Age. Comercial is improved with the 1.129f patch but it still doesn't help much. A little extra money in the larger cities and a little less corruption from the number of cities. It used to one more good city for a standard map now its closer to three. Not quite three and it depends on the dificulty level since greater difficulty decreases the number of cities that are usefull.

Comercial-Religious is a better combo but Egypts UU isn't much better than the Musketeer and it comes very early making it hard to get a well timed Golden Age. Persia is nearly as good and has a much better UU but the ability of a Religious civ to change goverments quickly more than makes up for the greater number of cheap improvements that Science gets.

I just don't like playing Religious civs but it sure does help on Emperor.

I really miss industrious workers when I don't have them. I am playing as Rome now and I have a lot jungle to deal with. I sure do miss the fast workers.

I tried Babylon once on Emperor. I didn't like the loss of industrious. Egypt is better for a builder at that level. Warmongers can just use a lot of slave labor instead.

If you play France turn off cultural linkage. Getting stuck between the two wicked witches gets old fast. I hate Liz and Cathy these days from playing so many games as France. Vile pernicious devious covetous leaches. I am so glad I got to hamstring Liz in my present game.

[Theseus]

Egypt is great for warmongers too. That's the virtue...

I dunno, there's something about France, and I suspect it's more than a well-timed UU.

And you didn;t mention Bizzy-markcy, the most evil b-stard in the game!!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Theseus

And you didn;t mention Bizzy-markcy, the most evil b-stard in the game!!

Bismark slits his own throat so often he isn't as annoying as he could be. Untill panzers show up he is all noise and little oopm. Gets in fights with the other civs and wrecks his development. Worse than Liz that way.

He is a pain if he survives till the industrial age though.

The idiot tried extorting me for economics in my present game as Rome. I said buzz off because he was pretty far from me. I thought it was a bluff. His troops finally showed up about 15 turns later just a few warriors and bowmen against my legions. I destroyed a city of his with a warrior that had been out exploring in the area when Bismark declared war. Took a city for the peace treaty when I had a stack of six legions a few turns from one of his cities.

Unfortunatly I had a hard time getting the stack back home and I had no interest in Bismarks much too distant land. I had to cross Liz's land which had expanded just as the war ended and instead of letting me through my troops kept getting sent to neutral tiles on the wrong side of Liz.

So Liz is now down to two little cities. What else was I going to do with my stack if she insisted on making them fight to get home. Legions are hard on warriors and bowmen and she didn't have any horsies. I took eight cities and NOT ONE STINKING GL. Legions just aren't as good for that as horsies are.

[Mellian]

I am just wondering... what is an ideal combo? Industrious/Religious, Sciencetific/Commercial, Expansionist/Militiristic, etc?

just wondering what people think.... i haven't read the entire thread yet... but just wondering, as the beginning only deals with a single thing... and just makes me wonder what two civ traits works well together?

me, so far... i say Industrious/Religious... but i haven't playedf civ3 since january and haven't really played enough games....or even pass the medieval age. :/

-Mellian

[Ethelred]

I think that religious-industrious is extremely good for a builder. That allows you to go the monarchy route instead of going straight for the Republic. If your not religious a single change of government in the game, to the Republic, saves a lot of turns of Anarchy. If your religious though you can make use of Monarchy earlier and when needed for longer wars then use the faster workers of Democracy. If you aren't religious sticking with the Republic for the rest of the game is a good way to go. Just three or four turns of Anarchy and greater resistance to war weariness.

For war mongering religious-militaristic is going to help a lot especially on the larger maps where militaristic will help generate a lot of GLs. Religious-industrious isn't bad either as early on you won't have a lot of slave workers and can use the rapid road building of your industrious to launch early strikes in the Ancient Era via the road network.

Aeson was playing the Iroquois when he got his 60,000 plus high score on Deity. Relgious-expansionist. I am pretty sure he chose them for the UU as much as the attributes.

[Lord Merciless]

Don't count out Chinese:
- militaristic and industrious, 2 deadly war-mongering combos.
- well timed UU with the Rider.

As for Bismarck, he got way too often in uncessary fights. In my current game, the Germans were leading in cultures and second overall in power chart. But Bismarck pissed off too many of his neighbors so they joined to beat the crap out of him. It was amazing to see how the other AI civs reduced Germany to ashes in just 20-30 turns.

Also the Persians should not be underestimated. They are industrious, and they have the Immortals. It's pretty easy for them to conquer a large continent before any other civs start fielding the Musketman.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Bismark slits his own throat so often he isn't as annoying as he could be. ...
Gets in fights with the other civs and wrecks his development.

If he has lots of neighbours, Bismark's not a problem. If you are his only neighbour, he's a real pain. You can't do anything till he's slapped down, but if you're short on culture his cheap libraries can make holding his cities tricky (cue Coracle ).

You're right though about France's revolting neighbours on culturally linked games. Get stuck btw Catherine the Snake & Bismark the Bellicose and you get a real feel for being Polish!

[Anglophile]

Read this thread for the first time - all the way through - today, so I am going back to the original post by Vel (whose absence is one of the reasons I've spent so little time here and so much time on the other site). I agree that industrious is a really great trait; to the point that I traded commercial (which is clearly the weakest trait) for industrious with the English. Now before every complains, I gave every other civ an additional trait - so they have three and I have two. I can actually only remeber two of the adds - expansionist for the Romans (duh) and industrious for the Germans (unless they already had that, in which case it was either militaristic or scientific - now there is a powerful triple combination).

Now where I differ from the majority view on the thread is that I use industrious to play a peaceful builder style on very large (240x226) maps. 10 civs, max land, continents and recently deity after Emperor got too easy. There is a long way between civs (min 40 tiles) so early conquest is really tough, especially on Deity with the unit and production bonuses that the AI gets. So I have to outexpand 'em and I couldn't do it without those industrious little workers.

The other big thing about really big maps is that neither strategic or luxury resources have a map size multiplier so they get pretty scarce on a big map (240x226 has more than 5 times as many tiles as a standatd map, 14 times as many as a tiny map, and no more resources). All the expansion strategies laid out in Vel's and others' threads are required, you just have to keep doing them well into the ADs. And you can't do them nearly as effectively without industrious workers. The scouts find the resources and the workers build the roads to get the settlers there in a reasonable time; and while I don't use roads to move my conquering armies, they are critical for troop movements to defend what is generally a large, low density empire for a very long time from barbarians and jealous rival civs .

So for a number of reasons and a number of playing strategies, industrious rules (and commercial sucks for, well it just sucks).

[Theseus]

Anglophile,

Vel was gone for a while, but he's ba-ack!!

Question: I would predict that given your settings, you see some awesomely dangerous killer AI civs... true?? Any chance you play at 3B years?

Also, commercial may be a lot better post-1.29f... jury's still out.