Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Theseus · November 12, 2002, 19:50

Yeah, I know, an awfully grandiose title… I lifted it from T.E. Lawrence’s biographical account of his time in Arabia (and he got it from the Book of Proverbs: “Wisdom hath builded a house; she hath hewn out her seven pillars.”)

Q: Theseus, what the heck are you talking about?

A: A new strategic framework for playing Civ3.

Q: Why bother?

A: Well, there are a couple of reasons.

First, I’m want to try to point out how I think success in Civ3, at higher levels, is fundamentally different from Civ2, and, interestingly, different from the approach programmed in the AI civs, and even different from what “common sense” might be for a world game. Yeah, we all know that, but I think I can verbalize it… and it ain’t just warmongering versus building.

Second, there have been a bunch of concepts thrown around over the last month or two that just hit me as, hmmm, non-optimal. The one that really triggered this line of thinking was 1) my own mistake (I think so, at least) in AU 106 of betting the ranch on the GLib, but I’ve also been chafing at the strats of 2) 0% research and buying all tech, 3) gasp, the ‘traditional’ approach of a REX land grab to the geographic limit, followed by infrastructure building, resulting in a productivity crossover and then a military build-up and attack, and 4) the FLAMING that has been going on since PTW came out, which, for SP at least, I suspect is due more to a lack of understanding how to play than anything else. To label the group of concepts that I take issue with, I’d say they are mostly “Catch-Up Strategies.” Especially at Emperor and Deity, they make me very uncomfortable.

Also, in a way this relates (I think) to Vel’s earlier discussions about the “meta-game” and “cracking the code” of how to win. I’ve always thought that he gave up a little to soon in fleshing out his ‘worldview’ of Civ3, having developed a fairly rote approach to winning typically standard games (I know, I know… HERESY!! But I’ve made this point before). It also relates to Aeson’s SVC, which I continue to consider the most sophisticated game I’ve seen.

The whole point of AU, for me at least, has been to explore non-standard situations, and understand the different strategic levers that can be used to take control of the game (e.g., when, for instance, military strength is non-relevant in the early game, or how important it can be to properly manage your own reputation and the AI civs’ attitudes). I also see this in the discussions of OCC games, as well as in the dissections of certain of the game mechanics.

So, coming out of all that playing, thinking, and discussing, here’s my view of the Seven Pillars: the 3 Strategic Advantages, the 2 Key Enablers, and the 2 Infrastructure Requirements.

Theseus · November 12, 2002, 19:51

This is my top-shelf focus. At higher difficulty levels, the AI civs have the edge on you in each key area. What’s most important? How do you ‘break a cycle’ so that you can take control of the geo-political landscape, and not be stuck catching up?

I consider these the imperatives… gaining Strategic Advantage in any of the three can hand you control of a game:

1) Warfare – All the things we know… oscillation, trimming, extortion, GLs, chokepoints, etc… warfare is the most powerful tool that the player has to shape the outline of the game. It is the most direct ‘cycle-breaker’ and the easiest to learn. The key to warfare as a strategic advantage is gaining and applying relative strength, based upon either unit-level strength, number-of-units strength, or simply the human’s ability to more greatly leverage concentration of force (and bombardment, terrain, etc.) BTW, I think that the ‘traditional’ approach is fundamentally a warfare-based strategic advantage, often played out through building up production to achieve relative strength via number of Cavs, Tanks, or MA. Play more, however, and you realize that there are other strategic advantages that can be just as valuable, although they don’t have the ancillary benefit of GLs.

2) Research – For whatever reason, 0% research as a concept just drives me crazy. Yeah, I know, you sorta can’t go wrong buying techs when they are so much cheaper, but does that give you control? No. If you haven’t done so, getting a branch lead is literally the most powerful thing you can do… better than money, better than luxuries, better than a strong military, better than infrastructure. I often refer to the ‘industrial corridor’… gaining a branch tech lead here, where the path is constrained, is a cycle-breaking, game-over strategic advantage. Research has changed somewhat with PTW, but the principle still applies.

3) Trading & Diplomacy – Invaluable. Forget General Electric… trading brings good things to life. Whether that’s tech brokering or selling a tech lead, contacts, maps, resources, whatever, trading can also be an cycle-breaker, impoverishing your opponents and setting you up for the good life. Diplomacy, such as buying alliances or selling ROPs, is a related power generator too, with the same aspects (good for you, bad for the other guy). I suspect that this is what should get the most blame for less experienced players’ problems, and this is also probably the most difficult of the three strategic advantages to gain and leverage into a win, with the issues inherent in managing your own reputation as well as the AI civs’ attitudes.

And I think that’s it… the three ways to gain Strategic Advantage, and to win. Obviously, they are typically used in combination throughout a given game, but usually there is ONE that “breaks the cycle,” and sets you up to pursue the rest.

Theseus · November 12, 2002, 19:52

Q: Theseus, your poor deluded bastard… WTF??!! What are your TALKING about?? This is Civ3, man. Uhhh, ever heard of building!! What about exploration, resources, culture, government, happiness, money… what about a spaceship victory, fer Chrissake!!

A: Errr, let’s calm down here. I’m just saying that those are the key strategies that set you up to win, however you choose. Of course, all the other stuff that you do contributes, but they are all subsidiary / contributory to gaining one of the three strategic advantages.

[Sidebar: There is one more way, gaining a production strategic advantage and ending with a diplo / SS / histographic win, but I maintain that above Monarch that is highly unlikely, even given superior tile-working decisions, unless starting terrain is significantly better than that of any of the AI civs… thus, a win ultimately driven by luck, and not by control. Yeah, I expect this will be a major point of contention, but what’s life without a little spice?]

Theseus · November 12, 2002, 19:52

To add fuel to the fire, I suggest that the the most direct support for the three strategic advantages is one step removed from what I consider the ‘traditional’ strategy (i.e., build a kick-ass empire and then go kick butt). This is one of the key differences from Civ2. The next most important aspects to consider are what I call “Key Enablers,” and there are just two of them:

4) Happiness – It took me a looong time to understand how important happiness is to success, and only recently did I finally have a personal breakthrough and understand how happiness is the key to “breaking cycles” and achieving any one of the strategic advantages. I used to give Arrian grief over chasing down the eighth luxury… he was right, and I was wrong. It comes down to the number of tiles worked, with a bonus from WLT?D. Forget food… how much shields and gold can you produce, net of waste and corruption? This will dictate your perfomance in each of the three arenas of strategic advantage. Every citizen that is pulled off of productivity is a DOUBLE drain. At the first level, especially earlier in the game, I’m not so much focused on happy versus unhappy, just how many entertainers are around. Later, WLT?D has a significant impact. No matter how much of a builder you are, if the citizens ain’t working or ain’t happy happy happy, you are missing out.

5) Gold – There hasn’t been an awful lot of discussion about this, but I think we are all taking gold for granted. I WANNA BE RICH!!!! AND I WANNA SPEND IT!!! Whether that’s massive Knight / Cav upgrades, buying alliances with every AI civ that I can against my enemies, getting that last luxury or two, researching at a massive deficit… I have a feeling all of the best players manage their bank accounts a lot better than has been discussed. Enough gold can enable one or more of the Strategic Advantages in a hurry!!

Theseus · November 12, 2002, 19:53

Q: Okay okay, Theseus, I think I see where you’re going with this… but I STILL say WTF!!! You have left out like half of what we DO in the game!!

A: Bear with me… I know I gotta talk about cities, and building, and working land, and exploration, etcetera. But I’m MAKING A POINT HERE!! The middle layer, the Key Enablers, must be considered as the bridge between building and winning!

Theseus · November 12, 2002, 19:54

This is probably what everybody’s been waiting for… whether you are a “builder”, “REXer”, or a Civ2 graduate… or you are even just a newer player. I mean, isn’t this what newbies get yelled at about?

Heck, I even contributed, with the “Winning Early” thread… but it was that, as well as some other great contributions (such as [EDIT:] Cracker's insanely great work on the early game), that got me started in thinking through this whole framework!!

Now hear this: BUILDING IS NOT WINNING… but if you don’t develop your empire properly, you’ll never work your way up through the Key Enablers to the Strategic Advantages!

Thus, the two Infrastructure Requirements:

6) Tile Working: What can I say? When I look at some new player’s game, and I compare what I would / could do with the land to the woeful production I see, I sometimes want to post back: “Forget this game… you’ve lost way too much production already.” (I let [EDIT:] Cracker do it for me

). But even beyond that, there are subtleties that I think most people, myself included, are still not up to speed on, like minimizing food waste at 6 and 12 pop, or re-irrigating when appropriate. I also lump all the discussions about exploration, REXing, and city spacing in here… again, going back to Happiness, the name of the game is to get as many and every citizen possible on a tile, and to make sure you’re getting the most out of that.

[Edit: Further in the thread, Arrian, Catt, and others point out how this is actually a broader subject, which I then re-labeled "Production Efficiency", addressing not just tile usage but also means to manage corruption / waste, proper unit building, etc. Now, in Feb-03 and having recently played AU 501, I would further add such techniques as Settler / Worker Pumps, city placement, specialists, etc.]

7) Building: (I can hear the sigh of relief: “Finally!”) How many towns / cities and when… what buildings and when (and what order to research techs clearly interacts with winning with research)… what units and when… etc. Well, DUH, I’m not an idiot, this is where the game starts! But I maintain it is NOT how you win! My more primitive version of this concept is / was reflected in the many times I’ve said a great warmonger (only ONE of the Strategic Advantages) has to be a great builder. I always want a great empire, built out to the max… the games I’ve played, and won, where I didn’t do that were hollow (can we say 1337?). Further, the ‘quality’ of what you build, especially in your productive cities, reflects up through each of the other six Pillars to achieve your goals, whatever they may be in the unique circumstances of each individual game.

Theseus · November 12, 2002, 19:55

Q: OK, Theseus, I understand (I think)… but what about all the OTHER stuff, like UUs, and GAs, and GLs, and which of the GWs are important (and all the other acronyms)?

A: They all fit into the framework… in summary, I think winning in Civ3, and doing it enjoyably, is about taking control of some aspect of the game… and everything else you do is in support of that. That’ll vary, obviously, for the situations and resultant strategies you find yourself with in each game, and as according to your own style… heck, many of us don’t even finish games (i.e., win), because we know when we’ve NAILED the Infrastructure Requirements and the Key Enablers.

But when you’re playing, and playing well, I think this is the framework, the Seven Pillars, that you are progressing through.

Dominae · November 12, 2002, 20:33

Theseus,

Let me be the first to say that this is a great meta-strategy analysis for Civ3.

As an OCC addict, I just have to point out that experience with fully six of your seven pillars is essential to OCC mastery. Consequently, OCC games are guaranteed to improve your normal games by forcing you to rethink most of the pillars.

Dominae

vmxa1 · November 12, 2002, 21:14

Good job, I especialy want to support your tile working. I have long said that producting food you do not need instead of shields is a bad thing and you need to watch those workers and citizen, they are evil and like to ruin your game.

DaveMcW · November 12, 2002, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
I consider these the imperatives… gaining Strategic Advantage in any of the three can hand you control of a game:

1) Warfare – All the things we know… oscillation, trimming, extortion, GLs, chokepoints, etc… warfare is the most powerful tool that the player has to shape the outline of the game. It is the most direct ‘cycle-breaker’ and the easiest to learn. The key to warfare as a strategic advantage is gaining and applying relative strength, based upon either unit-level strength, number-of-units strength, or simply the human’s ability to more greatly leverage concentration of force (and bombardment, terrain, etc.) BTW, I think that the ‘traditional’ approach is fundamentally a warfare-based strategic advantage, often played out through building up production to achieve relative strength via number of Cavs, Tanks, or MA. Play more, however, and you realize that there are other strategic advantages that can be just as valuable, although they don’t have the ancillary benefit of GLs.

2) Research – For whatever reason, 0% research as a concept just drives me crazy. Yeah, I know, you sorta can’t go wrong buying techs when they are so much cheaper, but does that give you control? No. If you haven’t done so, getting a branch lead is literally the most powerful thing you can do… better than money, better than luxuries, better than a strong military, better than infrastructure. I often refer to the ‘industrial corridor’… gaining a branch tech lead here, where the path is constrained, is a cycle-breaking, game-over strategic advantage. Research has changed somewhat with PTW, but the principle still applies.

3) Trading & Diplomacy – Invaluable. Forget General Electric… trading brings good things to life. Whether that’s tech brokering or selling a tech lead, contacts, maps, resources, whatever, trading can also be an cycle-breaker, impoverishing your opponents and setting you up for the good life. Diplomacy, such as buying alliances or selling ROPs, is a related power generator too, with the same aspects (good for you, bad for the other guy). I suspect that this is what should get the most blame for less experienced players’ problems, and this is also probably the most difficult of the three strategic advantages to gain and leverage into a win, with the issues inherent in managing your own reputation as well as the AI civs’ attitudes.

And I think that’s it… the three ways to gain Strategic Advantage, and to win. Obviously, they are typically used in combination throughout a given game, but usually there is ONE that “breaks the cycle,” and sets you up to pursue the rest.

I totally agree with the first two... wipe out your opponents by force or turn them into cash slaves for your research machine, then win as you see fit. But #3 is not a winning advantage, IMHO. It is definitely a key enabler though.

Good diplomacy gets you better profits from your techs, mainly because you can't sell to civs at war with you but also because gracious civs pay more. And good diplomacy allows you to sign any ROP or MPP you want, boosting the effectiveness of your army. But good diplomacy won't win the game for you unless you're going for the UN (cheese win).

Brizey · November 12, 2002, 21:42

I also agree on the land/worker/citizen management. One of the best things a newbie learns is how to time resources to builds, especially early settlers.

One more thing I would add: invest early to collect late. This applies to almost every aspect of the game. The whole mathematical model of the game is based on leveraging earlier actions. This inlcudes preventing your opponents from making similar investments.

Konquest02 · November 12, 2002, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus

2) Research – For whatever reason, 0% research as a concept just drives me crazy. Yeah, I know, you sorta can’t go wrong buying techs when they are so much cheaper, but does that give you control? No. If you haven’t done so, getting a branch lead is literally the most powerful thing you can do… better than money, better than luxuries, better than a strong military, better than infrastructure. I often refer to the ‘industrial corridor’… gaining a branch tech lead here, where the path is constrained, is a cycle-breaking, game-over strategic advantage. Research has changed somewhat with PTW, but the principle still applies.

3) Trading & Diplomacy – Invaluable. Forget General Electric… trading brings good things to life. Whether that’s tech brokering or selling a tech lead, contacts, maps, resources, whatever, trading can also be an cycle-breaker, impoverishing your opponents and setting you up for the good life. Diplomacy, such as buying alliances or selling ROPs, is a related power generator too, with the same aspects (good for you, bad for the other guy). I suspect that this is what should get the most blame for less experienced players’ problems, and this is also probably the most difficult of the three strategic advantages to gain and leverage into a win, with the issues inherent in managing your own reputation as well as the AI civs’ attitudes.

I too, just can't buy 0% research. I have been playing on regent and have not managed to do it, because I tend to research faster than the AI, even in the early game. But you can research one branch then trade it for the other branch, which is highly recommended. IMO, 2) and 3) always go together, especially at higher levels...

--Kon--

ducki · November 12, 2002, 23:12

First, let me say that this is a very, very good post. Well done, and quite inspirational. I shall increase my meditation on these points.

However, there is one timespan in the game - and only one - where I will and have set Research to 0%; from the completion of the Great Library until - and only until advancement to the Middle Ages. This doesn't really make it a full-blown 'strategy'; more of an investment in my bank account, and very temporary.

I can get a nice little boost of cash from Literature to Currency, especially if I ensure that I know all the AI Civs and that they also know each other.

But other than that very short time period, I just can't stand the thought of standing still.

Harovan · November 13, 2002, 05:07

Outstanding strategic summary, Theseuciryx

. Your work for the community is highly appreciated. This nicely sums up all means and handles we have to play this game successfully. Especially I agree with your statement about building vs. warmongering. I also use to say, that there are no builders and warmongers, only good and mediocre players. A good player must be good in all seven mentioned matters. Some people think of Aeson as the best "warmonger". But he's also the best "builder" I know.

I think the differences between the playstyles come from the order of attention the players pay to the different "pillars". I, for instance, evaluate research the most important, then come happiness, gold and only now comes warfare and the rest. Other players may think about warfare first and later the other themes. Different players, different flavors, but one game. Who sucks in one of the "pillars", will probably fail to play the game successfully. What use does it have to build a perfect empire, if I'm not able to defend it or to go for the needed resources and luxuries? What use does it have to be a great tactician, if I'm unable to pay support for my troops or lack the roads to make them maneuver quickly? What use does it have to be loved by the other nations, if my own people hate me, i.e. are unhappy?

The key is being good in all seven themes. I have analyzed my own playstyle several times and know, that I especially suck in tile working and may be diplomacy. This has to be quickly improved, or I probably will fail in MP games vs the other players of this board.

Arrian · November 13, 2002, 11:03

Theseus,

That must have taken some time. Good stuff, though. I love threads like these - they tend to force me to rethink my approach to the game, which is good.

On research:

I do not buy tech from the AI. Well, that's not quite true, but close. In the beginning, I will set research to 20% or so, and gather the military basics (bronze, iron, wheel, warrior code) while I expand. Then I will most likely click on Monarchy and jack up my science rate to 70% or 80%.

I will trade tech (such as polytheism, if I get there first) to stay at least close to the AI, and sometimes I will be giving tech and gold for tech, but I will never flat-out buy tech from them. The simple reason is that I intend to beat the tech out of them, so why would I pay for it? The trades where I throw in cash will be for techs I feel I need sooner rather than later. I like to try and keep the AI as poor as I can (even if they're smarter than I am), for the simple reason that this helps prevent them from upgrading their units when I hit them. If I hit them hard enough, fast enough, they will often not be able to upgrade at all. That's crucial in the ancient age/middle age switchover, when I'm praying every turn that the AI doesn't have pikemen yet.

Happiness: I could not agree more, which ought to be obvious, given our earlier discussions re: luxuries. WLTKD is a powerful waste-fighting tool, and specialists are wasteful (except when starving captured cities. Then I'll use taxmen - death and taxes, baby). I have, on occasion, managed to get a former AI city (usually the capitol) into WLTKD, bought a courthouse, and built the FP manually. Without WLTKD, that city would produce 1 shield. With it, and the courthouse, it may increase to 4 or 5, and all of a sudden you can a viable 40-50 turn build instead of 200 turns. Add in a GA...

After some reflection, I would argue that there is an 8th Pillar: Efficiency. This would be a strategic advantage. In fact, it is my opinion that, after warfare, this is THE key advantage the human has over the AI. Now let me explain what I mean by efficiency, which has two parts:

a) understanding corruption & waste and how to fight them (see Alexman for details). This includes WLTKD, which I know you touched upon in your "happiness" pillar.
b) understanding how to squeeze optimal benifit from your Palace/FP axis. This varies from game to game, depending on your original capitol location, but can absolutely make you or break you. It is something the AI is utterly mindless about.

In the end, Civ comes down to production and tech. Production is straight-forward: work the land properly with as many citizens as possible, and keep waste as low as you can. Tech, on the other hand, comes from a couple of different places: wealth, which is the most straight-forward (if you have lots of commerce, you can research faster), Warfare (beating tech out of the AI), the Great Library (this is either a function of production or of warfare, depending on how you get it), and goody huts (small factor except on certain maps).

Fighting corruption and waste will produce more shields and more commerce... in other words, more production and more tech. Accordingly, I think "efficiency," for lack of a better term, qualifies as a Pillar.

-Arrian

jshelr · November 13, 2002, 13:22

There is so much great stuff here that it seems bush to argue. Thanks

On with the argument

"For whatever reason, 0% research as a concept just drives me crazy. Yeah, I know, you sorta can’t go wrong buying techs when they are so much cheaper, but does that give you control? No."

Yes. It does give you control. Much more control and much more reliably, IMO.

You can successfully reach a future tech goal in the most rapid manner possible if you use a combination of zero research and warmongering to extort tech. At some point you will find yourself with four things

1) the tech you would have researched yourself
2) the gold that you didn't spend on research
3) weakened neighbors
4) and an infrastructure that enables you to overcome the initial tech cost advantage given to the AI

Usually that last element is after universities are in place.

When your research infrastructure is ready to hum on its own, then, and only then, would a policy of zero research drive me crazy.

So, remembering that the only reason I'm writing is that I loved the discussion, T's concern about zero research reminds my of Woody Hayes -- Ohio State's football coach in the good old days. He not only insisted on beating Michigan, he insisted on doing it by running off tackle on every play. He was so good that he usually won, even on his own terms. However, for most mere mortals, it's just easier to do it the easy way.

By the way, in answer to Arrian's question, it is sometimes helpful to buy tech so that you are only "one tech level" behind the civ you are planning to attack. Otherwise, I agree. Why spend gold on early research?

BTW, I think the beeline for GL, if you don't start with Alphabet, is a very bad bet. This is because the extortion method is relatively safe and the shields spent for the GL get in the way of building an offensive force.

Jawa Jocky · November 13, 2002, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I like to try and keep the AI as poor as I can (even if they're smarter than I am), for the simple reason that this helps prevent them from upgrading their units when I hit them.
-Arrian

Is this a factor for the AI being more likely to attack you? You have money and they don't.

jshelr · November 13, 2002, 14:21

If the AI is smart, it will attack the poor. The rich can bribe for alliances -- which is a good reason to be rich, rather than using gold for research.

Arrian · November 13, 2002, 15:41

The AI will demand things from you if you're rich, and I suppose will be more likely to attack you, but I don't really fear that. Being attacked too soon can be a hinderance, but so be it. I need that money, because I use mass upgrades (warriors -> swords, chariots -> horsemen, etc). Later in the game (mid-middle ages) I do my best to never dip below a 1000gold treasury. That's partly because of Wall Street, and partly because a surplus is a good idea, so that if you really need to run a serious deficit to get a tech in 4 turns, you can.

-Arrian

vondrack · November 13, 2002, 16:18

EDIT: deleted parts not relevant any more (a name mismatch in the original posts - promptly corrected by Theseus).

Very fine reading.

punkbass2000 · November 13, 2002, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus [Sidebar: There is one more way, gaining a production strategic advantage and ending with a diplo / SS / histographic win, but I maintain that above Monarch that is highly unlikely, even given superior tile-working decisions, unless starting terrain is significantly better than that of any of the AI civs… thus, a win ultimately driven by luck, and not by control. Yeah, I expect this will be a major point of contention, but what’s life without a little spice?]

As usual, I will defend those who choose not to defend themselves, the peaceful builders

. I strongly disagree with your assertion that this is unlikely above Monarch, as I've played many random warless games at Deity without mediocore starting positions and nothing particularly special or important occuring (I point specifically to a game I posted a few months ago). I don't restart and I play random civs and win consistently via diplo/SS, though, oddly enough and perhaps unexpectedly, I haven't got any cultural wins in this manner. I must admit that I haven't played anything out at SVC caliber in this regard. I will say that diplomacy/trade is a indeed a vital and game dominating strategy that I employ to ensure victory in these situations. I don't know if everyone always does this, but I always grab every possible cent out of every deal, especially early on, when one gold is especially valuable. It is also important to note how the AI regards gpt. In my experience, the AI considers 1 gpt to be equal to 18 gold up front. This can easily be taken advantage of by selling items (typically tech) for gpt while buying with straight gold. That said, it is still generally worthwhile to use what should be a (relatively) large gpt income to buy whatever you need to catch up.

Theseus · November 13, 2002, 17:39

Fixed... apologies to BOTH parties.

Quick thought:

Arrian's right about efficiency... I would probably re-label #6 to "Production Efficiency" and consider tile working, corruption / waste management, and Palace / FP placement to be subsidiary topics, with a connection to #7 (as everything does) in terms of Courthouses, Police Stations, and the FP.

I'll deal with you crazy 0% research people later.

Catt · November 13, 2002, 17:56

Theseus - great thread

Trying to digest it all and identify where, if anywhere, my view of the game differs from the one you've laid out.

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Quick thought:

Arrian's right about efficiency... I would probably re-label #6 to "Production Efficiency" and consider tile working, corruption / waste management, and Palace / FP placement to be subsidiary topics, with a connection to #7 (as everything does) in terms of Courthouses, Police Stations, and the FP.

And add in "proper" unit building as a subpoint to #6. Not building infantry in 42-shield cities, for instance.

Catt

nbarclay · November 14, 2002, 01:51

Quote:

Originally posted by jshelr
If the AI is smart, it will attack the poor. The rich can bribe for alliances -- which is a good reason to be rich, rather than using gold for research.

Oh? My usual routine (assuming I have a tech lead) is to offer techs as bribes, and get whatever gold or other goodies I can as change out fo the deal. That way I can bribe allies without undermining my own research rate.

Nathan

wilbill · November 14, 2002, 03:39

Thank you, Theseus, for a very cogent and lucid description of what I'd begun to think of as the "balanced" approach to Civ 3. Early on, I tried all the extreme approaches and found them either mindlessly repetitive (kick their butts early and often) or mindnumbingly dull (grow, grow, grow, build, build, build).

A lengthy excursion into OCC forced me to actually think about what I was doing vis-a-vis the AI and it dawned on me that balance in all areas of the game is the best approach - while waiting for the point in the game where an advantage becomes available (usually an advantage of my own making, but sometimes one I didn't expect) and then using that advantage to leverage a win via whatever victory condition the situation dictates.

Civ 3 is a much better game than a lot of us allow it to be. Certainly better than I allowed it to be. It's not really a war game, although it can be played as one. It's not a diplomacy game even though diplomacy is a very important aspect. And it's not an empire building game - if it was OCC wouldn't work. It's all of those and more. And the more I explore all those aspects of the game the more I enjoy it.

There's a lot of "common knowledge" around that the AI is stupid, repetitive, incapable of winning and so on. I've discovered that if I play the same game, the same way every time, the AI is , in fact, repetitive. If I vary my approach the AI is not only less predictable but capable of some occasional surprises. I'm fairly sure that players who restrict their game to REX-Build-Attack never let the AI move into some of the behaviors it's capable of.

Thanks again for a thought provoking thread. Especially one that didn't ask "Is PTW worth $30?"

vondrack · November 14, 2002, 04:29

Very well said, willbill!

I find especially your point with the AI repetitivness being tied to the "repetitivness" of the human player very good.

jshelr · November 14, 2002, 08:36

Nathan writes, "Oh? My usual routine (assuming I have a tech lead) is to offer techs as bribes, and get whatever gold or other goodies I can as change out fo the deal. That way I can bribe allies without undermining my own research rate."

Nathan, this point is accepted without objection on the assumption stated.

If, however, you don't have a tech lead, in the ancient era particularly, and don't have the research horsepower yet to get such a lead, I'd advocate patience and gold accumulation and eventual war over beating your head against the AI's research cost advantage. (Probably this is an emperor-and-above idea.)

Once you have a tech lead, I agree that one of the most fun responses to an attack is to give the attacking civ's neighbor an old, out of date tech or two in exchange for an alliance. This is particularly satisfactory if the ally is geograpically between you and the attacker.

Arrian · November 14, 2002, 10:16

Theseus,

Where would Wonder building and GA's fit in to your Pillars? They are probably "subsidiary topics" but they're very important ones.

-Arrian

Orcin · November 14, 2002, 10:18

I just wanted to say that this is one of the best threads that I have read on Civ3 strategy. Often, tactics are confused for strategy, but this strategic framework gives players a concept to guide their actions and choices during the game as opposed to following a "recipe" for winning.

Excellent job, Theseus

Jawa Jocky · November 14, 2002, 10:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Theseus,

Where would Wonder building and GA's fit in to your Pillars? They are probably "subsidiary topics" but they're very important ones.

-Arrian

Wonders seem to fit into the various pillars. Happiness, Gold, Research, and military advantages are common benefits from them.

I have found that Wonders also provide momentum. However this is probably a "chicken and the egg arguement", since its easier to build wonders if your already doing well. It seems like even the not so important wonders can add up to 'more than the some of their parts' when you build a lot of them.