Ultimate Power: a more pragmatic approach

[Mountain Sage]

I took the opportunity during my AU207 game (which I played on Monarch) to re-read some ‘old’ threads, compare some strategies and try to fit them to my ongoing game.

Arrian’s ‘Ultimate Power’ thread was of course on top of my list. As my game unfolded, I was tempted several times to give-in to the ‘Dark Side’ and try his strategies. After all, I had the money, I had the techs, I had two weak neighbours (the Germans and the Zulu).
Finally, I did nothing of the sort (Ok, I annihilated the Zulus later on, but only because they attacked me first).
Why? Well, because I felt I could achieve the same goals of UP with a different strategy.

Then I re-re-read Arrian’s thread and compared what my French had achieved vs. Arrian’s prerequisites for a successful UP, and I started to think about a different approach to UP.

Note: just to put things in perspective, this ‘questioning’ is not from master-to-master, but more from master-to-apprentice (disciple?). I would never dream to compare my skills and understanding of the game with Arrian’s. According to Theseus, I can’t even improve terrain correctly yet (and he is perfectly right!). This shows how much I have still to learn. Well, in the meantime, I believe I have improved my ‘digging skills’.

But let’s go back to Arrian’s UP:

QUOTE
For a while now, I have been seeking what I've termed the "Game of Ultimate Power." I have been seeking it on Monarch level (and will continue to seek it elsewhere), Standard Maps, Continents, 8 civs. I began this thread to discuss the game which I decided finally fit my definition of "Ultimate Power."

First, allow me to explain what I mean by UP:

- A large, productive empire
- Huge leads in tech, money, military force
- Just about all the Wonders of the World, with the ones I deem "key" built or rushed myself (not captured)
- The capability to do whatever I wish wherever I wish

I wish to have these things achieved by the end of the middle ages.

I discovered that CivIII, once you get up to Monarch, does not really allow one to dominate the game via "builder" methods. If you try, you will most likely get beaten to various wonders or get attacked because your military is neglected.
Oh, what a difference. I cannot overstate the awesome power of early war - in particular, early war that generates Great Leaders. This is required for Ultimate Power above Regent level (probably above warlord, for that matter).
UNQUOTE

Arrian went later into more details:

QUOTE
"To create, you must destroy. Smash a glass and cry, Too Much Joy..."[/Too Much Joy, a fun band]

Anyway, it goes like this. Going to war, particularly early in the game, provides me with the following:

1) More territory/cities.
2) More resources/luxuries
3) Potential for Great Leaders
4) Tech/gold via peace treaties
5) A better chance of winning the tech & wonder races later in the game, since I'm hurting the AI now.

1 & 2 are obvious. You cannot acquire #1 via trade. You can acquire #2 via trade, but it will cost you, and help the AI (note, there is a central theme here: the AI is the ENEMY).

#3 is heavily dependant on luck. However, the more fighting you do, the more likely you are to get leaders. Leaders have enormous power, particularly early in the game.

#4 is pretty straightforward. You can trade for tech, or sell tech for gold, but again, that costs you and helps the AI. The AI is the enemy. What you give them, give them reluctantly.

#5 is hard to explain/quantify to someone who has never used his military to break the AI. I often destroy several of the most powerful AIs on the map in the ancient & medieval ages. That really hurts the AI's ability to research & trade techs, allowing me to blast off to a huge tech lead. Plus, I've removed threats to my empire's security. A dead AI civ cannot attack you.

Back to the leaders for a moment. Let's just take my current game as an example. Rome, Monarch, standard map, continents. I started on a continent with the Russians as my only neighbor. It's pretty big for a 2-civ continent, and I got off to a pretty good start (I think I got a settler from a hut) so I played it out. Very early on, I whacked a Russian settler team with my one and only elite archer. Guess what? Leader. I held on to him for a long time. I built up my forces and then took Moscow. I used my leader to rush the FP.

The game was effectively over right then and there. I now had well-placed Palace & FP, and pretty much controlled my continent (it took me some time to actually destroy Russia, because I was fishing for more leaders, to no avail).

So what did that early warfare get me? It doubled my territory, gave me a perfectly positioned FP, gained me some tech, and gave me monopolies on the luxuries on my continent (useful as hell when trading). As a result, I'm winning handily.

Now let's look at a Huge Map game for comparison. AU207, for instance. I fought 1 ancient war (Babylon - swordsmen), 5 medieval wars (Germany, Mongols, America, Japan, Vikings), and one industrial war (Arabs). I got 10 leaders, I quintupled my territory at least, and I got my Palace & FP perfectly positioned to cover the majority of a vast continent. In short, I became the world's Superpower. I did trade with the AI, sure. I sold them stuff, sucking their income into my coffers. When one got uppity, I smacked them down & took their luxuries (Arabs) almost without effort (militarily speaking... getting my troops there was actually a bit of a pain).

I think you will find my empire very well developed, with all the appropriate wonders & city improvements. My warmongering led DIRECTLY to my ability to build such a powerful, wealthy & wonderous empire.
UNQUOTE


Arrian’s approach of his UP clearly focuses on early (and near constant) warfare (his ‘Dark Side’) to achieve his strategic goals. Military conquest assures land, resources and luxuries, GLeaders assure Wonders. In fact, warmongering is the ONLY way to achieve UP, since “builder” methods don’t work very well, if not at all (Arrian dixit).

Now, what would ‘Pragmatic Ultimate Power’ be? My definition would be: ‘PUP uses the most appropriate methods for achieving specific strategic goals, which obviously come from the overall goal: to win the game.

These strategic goals are:
- A productive empire
- A lead in techs
- A maximum of gold
- A maximum of happiness

All these goals are of course inter-related: a happy empire is more productive and produces therefore more gold. More gold and/or a tech lead will buy luxuries which increases happiness etc. etc.

In other words, you achieve PUP not only in winning the game, but in winning it in such a way that your civ is simply the ‘best’ in all above aspects, and by far. For instance, a productive empire is one in which most of your cities are on ‘Wealth’ by the end of the Industrial Ages (if played on v1.29, no Commercial Docks etc. )because every sensible city improvement has been built, and maximum happiness is achieved when almost all your cities are on WLTxD.

But these are NOT strategic goals for a PUP win:
- A large empire
- A strong military
- An early ‘domination’
- A maximum of Wonders

A large empire:
Your empire needs only two things: a geographical unity (no scattered cities) and a critical size (number of cities). This critical size, or mass, allows you to diversify the building in your cities (units, cultural, economical, happiness buildings, Wonders etc.). It was mostly the lack of geographical unity that let me to remove the Babylonians from ‘my’ piece of land.
Of course, more land means more chances of getting resources and luxuries, but those can be bought/traded/swapped. In my AU207 game (also played at Monarch level, as Arrian), the French had only spices (in the NW) and later on no aluminium, but the latter was exchanged for a second-handed tech. As for the luxuries, just look at the screenshot posted below.
Therefore, a war of conquest might be necessary to achieve geographical unity and a viable size, but a war of outright conquest of your whole continent is not.

A strong military:
Once your empire is running, you need military units for garrison duty during Despotism (happiness) and against barbarians. Afterwards, a ‘central reserve’ of Horsemen/Knights/Cavalry/Tanks etc should be sufficient. The saved shields go into improvements (strategic goal 1), the saved gold/turn is for goals 2, 3 and 4. This is a kind of ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, or better, a positive feedback: the more gold at your disposal, the faster you can research, then you can switch earlier to a better form of government (I usually just skip Monarchy and go for Republic), which gives you more gold, which pays for building upkeeps (marketplaces and banks for still more gold, temples for more happiness etc). Then you can trade your ‘old’ techs for still more gold and luxuries, and the wheel turns again and again.

An early ‘domination’:
In the early game, military ‘domination’ of the land, which will become your empire is essential, this is why Settler raiding is a perfectly acceptable policy.
A tech ‘domination’ is more difficult to achieve, because you can either trade techs and then everybody will be at the same level, or you can go for for instance for the GLibrary/GLighthouse (depending on which map you play on) and fall behind in techs (40 turns/34-40 turns each). Of course, your tech shortage will be only, well, short-lived.

A maximum of Wonders:
The possession of Wonders has always been a very emotional topic. Some people feel ‘cheated’ if they don’t acquire (one way or the other) all the existing and future Wonders. Fact is that you can win, and win handsomely, with only some of them. Which ones are really ‘necessary’ is an open debate, but I would say that the militaristic ones are clearly not on top of the list in a PUP game. Again, a pragmatic approach lets you choose which Wonders you deem essential, and the lack of some should not negatively influence the PUP score.
IM(H)O, I would say that the Sistine Chapel is overrated (you can compensate it with more luxuries and the luxury slider), and since PTW, Adam Smith looks more critical (no maintenance costs for harbours, airports, banks, commercial docks, stock exchange etc.).

Now, lets look what (almost) constant war brings to Arrian’s empire:
1) More territory/cities.
2) More resources/luxuries
3) Potential for Great Leaders
4) Tech/gold via peace treaties
5) A better chance of winning the tech & wonder races later in the game, since I'm hurting the AI now.

Point 1 is mandatory to get the geographical unity and critical size. After that, one could wonder if the fringe cities really contribute to the well-being of the empire, due to the corruption problem. Our two approaches are radically different: Arrian Palace-hopped twice to have it in the ‘ideal’ position, as tominimize corruption. I left it at the original place and build the FP about 10-12 tiles farther south, and called my most productive cities the CoreLand (see screenshot below).

In terms of resources, point 2 connects with point one: you need a viable empire, which must include Iron and Horses in the early game, for obvious reasons. Later on, the size itself should give you most of the other resources, but the lack of one should not be seen as justifying a war of conquest. In my case, I did not have aluminium, which is critical for the space race (among others), but I was confident I could trade for it. As for luxuries, once you have a tech lead, you can easily trade an ‘old’ tech for them, plus lots of gold.

GL are really useful for speeding up Wonders, the FP and the Palace relocation. I admit that building the FP from scratch takes a lot of time and monopolizes the resources of one city. Now, should you go to war for it? If you were assured to get at last one GL, the case would be much straightforward. But since you are by no means assured to get one, I would question the wisdom of it, if you go to war just for the sake of getting a GL. As for the instant Wonders, you can very well build them brick by brick as my French did. You won’t get all the Wonders, of course, but I already pointed out that you can achieve PUP without all of them.

Now, what about gold/tech via peace treaties? This seems the weakest explanation of all. According to my definition of PUP, a tech and gold lead is an essential requisite for it. Therefore, the whole empire is mobilized for the gold rush, since surplus gold is essential to the 4-6 turn research per tech from the Middle-Ages on. That means a weak military after Despotism (no upkeep), marketplaces and harbours very early on and the GLibrary. After the discovery of Education, the hoarded cash is used to research on a 4-6 turn/tech basis. Most of the researched techs are then immediately traded for another tech (if a civ researches another tech branch) and specially for gpt. If you were to go to war in the Middle Ages and later on, you should be by then at least at parity with the opposing civ in the tech race, and it should have been milked dry before the war. Its military upkeep should then prevent a fast research, whereas your hoarded cash and your running deals should not prevent you to still research techs in 4-6 turns. Therefore, after the war, you won’t be able to get any techs or gold from your ex-opponent.
The only exception to the above would be in the very early game if you have to war for the size of your empire. Since I’m assuming you would be researching Literature and/or Map Making as a priority, the unfortunate civ would be ahead of you in some other tech and therefore would include it/them in its peace deals.

Finally, does hurting the AI early help you on winning the tech and wonder races? Is it true that ‘the weaker the AI is, the stronger I am?’ Well, logically, yes.
But again, I have some doubts, and not only for the sake of an argument. I would even say that a strong AI, or better, some strong civs, are good for you empire. Let’s take an (simplified) example. What would you prefer, the Romans being 4 techs behind you and paying you 30 gold/turn for an ‘old’ tech or the Romans being ‘just’ 2 techs behind you and paying you 200 gold/turn? The 150 gold difference could very well mean 1 turn difference in the tech research for you, plus another ‘free’ city improvement (the cost of the upkeep, that is) in all your cities. As for the tech race, you are winning it anyway.

As for the Wonders, here is Arrian’s impressive list:

‘Built: Great Library, Hanging Gardens, Sistine, Sun Tzu, Leos, Copernicus, Newton, ToE
I rushed: Bachs, Smiths, Universal Suffrage, Hoover
I captured: Pyramids (Mongol), Oracle (Babs)
Other civs built: Colossus (French), Great Lighthouse (Korean), Magellan (French), Shakespeare (Korean).’

I did not get Bach, Hanging Gardens, Shakespeare, Sun Tsu, Colossus, but got the Great Lighthouse and Magellan (critical for me in this game), plus some Modern Times ones. At the end, neither of us had all the available Wonders, so what? We both won the game handsomely.

What are comparisons worth?
Not much. However, below are some figures. I cannot give you some of mine, since I (stupidly) deleted my saves and have only some screenshots left. The whole point of this is for me to show that both playstyles are very effective.

Arrian:
30AD: Despotism, 1196 gold, Currency in 2 turns
+156 gold from cities, +0 from other civs, -35 corruption.
Army: 10 workers, 3 warriors, 22 spears, 10 swords, 1 cat, 1 galley, 10 WC.
F11 stats: 78% approval (2nd), 247,800 pop (1), $156million GNP (1), 83 mgt (1), 38,400 sq. miles (1), 25% literacy (2), 8% disease (11), 27yrs (3), 1 child (3), 6 yrs service (15), $5 per capita (1), 248 productivity (1).

510AD: Republic, 1328 gold, Monotheism in 2, Golden Age.
+687 from cities, +0 other civs, - 115 corruption.
17 workers, 2 warriors, 23 spears, 11 swords, 1 pike, 1 cat, 1 galley, 5 horsemen, 37 war chariots.
79% approval (1), 6,056,000 pop (1), $687 mil (1), 280mgt (1), 48,700 sq. miles (1), 32% literacy (6), 6% disease (12), 30 yrs (2), 1 child (4), 6 yrs (15), $6 per capita (1), 898 (1).

Note: at this point the only war I had fought was vs. Babylon

1020AD: Monarchy, 1543 gold, Chemistry in 3 turns.
+698 from cities, +43 from other civs, -100 corruption.
10 workers (but lots of slaves), 1 warrior, 1 sword, 35 pikes, 5 muskets, 35 knights, 9 cats, 1 galley, 1 army, 5 med inf.
73% approval (3), 14,447,000 pop (1), $698 mil (1), 345 mgt (1), 91,600 sq. miles (1), 39% literacy (4), 2% disease (11), 55yrs (1), 1 child (11), 3 yrs (15), $7 per capita (1), 1002 (1).

1680AD: Democracy, 11,296gold, Motorized Transport in 4 turns.
+5220 from cities, +506 from other civs, -1159 corruption.
30 workers (countless slaves), 5 knights, 60 cavalry, 92 infantry, 24 artillery, 5 galleons, 1 transport, 13 ironclads, 3 destroyers, 7 armies.
99% approval (1), 77,386,000 pop (1), $5220 mil (1), 3105 mgt (1), 230,900 sq. miles (1), 53% literacy (6), 0% disease (2), 1 ton pollution (8), 74 yrs (1), 1 child (9), $11 per capita (1), 7507 (1).
I've moved my Palace again, switched to democracy, built railroads, hospitals, policestations, stock exchanges, and I'm workin' on those commercial docks. The only cities that are slightly neglected are my Scandanavian possessions, and my three small island cities off my west coast. But the $11,296 I had kicking around could easily have changed that at any time.

MS:

1080AD: Republic, 6’276 gold, Theory of Gravity 1 turn.
+857 from cities, +139 from other civs, -121 corruption.

1450AD: Republic, 19’659 gold, Refining 7 turns
+1265 from cities, +486 from other civs, +50 interests, -214 corruption

1555AD: Republic, 29’448 gold, Mass Production 4 turns. All factories rushed.

1715AD: Republic, 32’448 gold, Nuclear Power 7 turns. Almost all cities on ‘Wealth’ (nothing else to build), 4 techs/lead.
Overall military since the Republic: less than 20 units on average (regularly upgraded).
1 Worker/city.

Arrian’s final comment: ‘Warfare made it possible.’
MS final comment on Arrian’s comment: ‘Tending your garden made it also possible.”

So, thanks a lot still being with me. Before some screenshots (I hope Arrian will ad his), just a reminder of a reminder, in capital letters to make it clear: THE PUROPSE OF ALL THIS IS NOT PROVE PUP IS SUPERIOR TO UP. THERE ARE NO ‘BETTER’ WAYS.

MS final comments on all comments: ‘This is why Civ is so interesting’.

[Mountain Sage]

I put the FP quite near my Palace to achieve maximum efficiency in what I called my 'CoreLand'. I did not neet to Palace-hop twice as Arrian.

[Mountain Sage]

The rise of the French economical might, 1080AD

[Mountain Sage]

1450 AD: except for Spices, all other luxuries are traded for. My citizens seem not to mind that they don't 'owe' them

[Mountain Sage]

1715AD: most cities are running on 'Wealth' since everything sensible has been built. The peak of the French economical power.

[Arrian]

"PUP" aka Peaceful Ultimate Power?

Well, one thing to note is that the tech pace in your game was much faster than in mine. I suspect it's at least partly because you didn't do nearly as much damage to the AI, and also because you had very little military to support. I also spent some time as a Monarchy so as to avoid war weariness.

Since AU207 was my first (and most likely only) huge map game, I didn't have a good feel for exactly how my aggressive approach would play out. I underestimated just how long wars can be on huge maps, and the longer the wars take, the later in the game it will be before I have my empire set up the way I want it, which is a problem. The 1680AD stats I listed show my empire as I wanted it, with the Palace way up north in former American territory, and my FP close to my original starting spot. Considering the sheer size of my empire at the time, and the fact that Egypt is not a commercial civ, I had battled corruption pretty effectively. But it took me too long to set all that up.

Knowing what I know now, I would never have even hesitated to make the first palace move to Berlin (I dithered over that decision from 780AD to 900AD). I didn't realize how long it was going to take me to conquer Mongolia, America & Japan, and I also didn't realize how much easier it is to get Leaders when fighting such big wars (I knew logically, that more battles = more elites = more leaders, but there is knowing and knowing ). It's been a while since I did so little fighting in the ancient era. One small swordsman war with Babylon hardly counts as warmongering.

I recently completed a game in which I had UP (Monarch, as usual, playing Carthage). I attained it early on, due to a combination of luck, skill, and some more luck. The first luck had to do with the wierd way the Map Generator built the continents & placed the civs, the second bit had to do with leaders. For the first time in a long time, I built the Great Library and got nothing from it. I held the tech lead nearly start to finish (at which point I was a full era ahead). And that's not even the half of it. It was warmongering that granted me such power. 6 AI civs destroyed, the 7th smacked down but left alive, 14 leaders...

That's a more representative UP game than AU207. Plus, it's a standard map game, which is what I'm more familiar with.

-Arrian

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Arrian
"PUP" aka Peaceful Ultimate Power?

-Arrian

Not really, but after all, why not?

Since it seems I had an unfair advantage in AU207 since I play more often than you on huge maps, what about a comparison when we both play another UA game on standard maps, providing of course that I don't want to play like AU401 of course

Just to keep this thread alive, of course

[Arrian]

I wasn't claiming a big advantage for you in AU207, but I wanted to explain why it took so long for my warmongering to pay off. Huge maps have a different dynamic... and I do think the balance between warmonger & builder may be closer on Huge maps.

We know there will be more AU games, and most of them are on standard maps. So we will get the opportunity to compare.

I think I still have the 4000bc save from my Carthaginian game... hey, it's even your favorite trait combo! Want it?

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Thanks for your analysis, MS. I haven't played AU207 and I haven't played a huge map, but your PUP reminds me of my 'Sufficient Power' (SP) goal on standard Monarch maps - usually pangea but also ok on continents. A notch more passive than PUP, it avoids early aggression in search of the 'Peace Dividend' (economic and diplomatic) - winning territory through industrial rexing (esp Abe, Cleo) or retaliatory conquest. Like PUP it spends the late industrial building either Wealth or as many Tanks as are needed to guarrantee SP and win the game.

Such is the diversity of the game, you can even win with FAP (Fack-All Power) with ultra-minimalist civs - where you need to keep the rivals alive, well, and eventually researching for you. Now that's gardening!

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Arrian

I think I still have the 4000bc save from my Carthaginian game... hey, it's even your favorite trait combo! Want it?

-Arrian

Gladly,

THEN we compare....

[Mountain Sage]

Cort Haus,

My PUP approach (the Pragmatic one, not Arrian's 'Peaceful' jibe one) is different from my PP games (Perfect Peacenik) in the sense that in PUP, war is perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances. In my PP games, UP is attained when I never have to go to war, either an offensive or a defensive one. It is possible, even on Emperor level.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Mountain Sage


Gladly,

THEN we compare....

Cool. I'll attach it here tonight (provided I really do still have the 4000bc save, since I'm relying on the autosave for it).

The only downside is that I do not have a bunch of saves over the course of the game, like I did with AU207. I think I just have the 4000bc and then one save that I continually saved over.

However, I have it saved 1 turn prior to victory (requiring only the use of a settler and pressing "end of turn"), which allows me easy access to the replay. The replay makes for excellent screenshots.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hi! I just wanted to hop in on this thread because it is dear to my heart and looks like it might develop nicely.

What are the wonders, in everyone's estimation, that one considers necessary to achieve UP, or PUP?

I would say that all the medivals EXCEPT the one-city wonders are necessary, and if you have 'em, you'll probably get all the wonders of later eras, as you'll have PUP.

Normally, when someone builds JS Bach's, I get so damn frustrated that I quit the game. In my current huge-map game, a large, advanced neighbor has built it, and by God, I'm going to take it, and drive that neighbor (Babylon ) into the dirt.

But it will be much more difficult as I will be facing a happy empire.

Still, with Sun Tzu's, Sistine's and Leo's under my belt, plus MT, I have PUP, so from here on up it's UP.

On Monarch, what wonders do each of you find essential to build yourself?

[Arrian]

I don't necessarily have a set list.

The ones I don't care about at all:

Oracle
Great Wall
Shakespeares

I never invest in the Lighthouse, but am happy to capture it.

I never invest in the Pyramids, but really want to capture it, preferably early on. I will go out of my way to get Masonry into the hands of my neighbors ASAP. But that doesn't always work, and often an overseas civ builds the Pyramids, making them mostly useless to me. The main problem here is that the AI loves the Pyramids, so it's risky to go after them without maximum effort - which I'm not willing to give. I need to REX (granary in capitol has become pretty standard for me) and build up my military.

I almost always invest in the Colossus. If I lose it, it's not a big deal. I can often change over to the Lighthouse or Great Library (or sometimes even the Pyramids) instead. The reasons I like the Colossus? The AI doesn't go all-out for it, it's a small investment (200 shields) and it has a long life.

I rarely invest in the Library anymore. I will if I feel I can do it easily - why not deny it to the AI? But if I'm doing really well I certainly don't need it. If I capture it, that's fine. I've razed it before, though.

The Hanging Gardens are nice. I like happiness wonders. However, it's a fairly weak one, so I'm not that distressed if I lose it. But capturing it is nice.

Sistine/SunTzu/Leo: the "Big Three" I want 'em all. But I can accept the loss of Sun Tzu if it comes to that.

Bach: excellent happiness wonder. I want it. I'm PISSED if I don't get it.

Copernicus/Newton: I want 'em. But if I lose Copernicus, it's not a tragedy. It probably just means some AI managed to nab Astronomy before I finished off the "big three" and switched over. I'm more worried if I lose Newton, because by then I should be dominant.

Smith: Must have.

Magellan: Want it. More so that the Lighthouse, since it does not expire. Not a tragedy if I don't get it.

After the medieval era, I'd better get every wonder available. If not, it sure as hell ain't UP.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I feel pretty much the same way.

If I get JS Bach's from the Babs, then I'll have PUP. Why not UP? Because I gave gunpower to ALL of Baby's neighbors, to get them to gang up. So, I'll have my wars cut out for me. But, if I get a GL and slap my palace down in Babylon itself, this ought not be a problem. Keep the gunpower away from the Turks and keep the Arabs on my side, and soon I'll have a continent to myself.

[Arrian]

Mountain Sage,

Here is the 4000bc save of my last game. Monarch, Standard, Continents, 8 civs, Carthage.

Enjoy.

-Arrian

[Mountain Sage]

There is a thread about 'the best 4 wonders'.
In respect to PUP, it depends on the map and the civ.
Obviously, on pangea you don't need the GLighthouse.

As my acronym states, P is for 'pragmatic'. I don't have a 'set' list of wonders I have to build.
If usually don't research Sun Tsu since by then I usually have enough barracks but I go for Leo for the upgrades.
I often don't go for Bach since by then my trading for 'old' techs gives me all the luxuries.

For me, a PUP game is one that at the end you are pleased with you civ and your game play and not necessary a collection of wondres or slain civs (without irony). Therefore, everybody will have a different perception of what a successful PUP game is, which is exactly why I called it Pragmatic.

Ok, I must confess, if I can add 'pacific' to it, it looks better for me.

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Arrian
Mountain Sage,

Here is the 4000bc save of my last game. Monarch, Standard, Continents, 8 civs, Carthage.

Enjoy.

-Arrian

GOTCHA!

I'll play it asa I finish my current game: archipelago, huge map, 16 civs, Monarch.
I feel a bit crowded. Therefore, the Romans (again!) are no more, the Babs and Koreans will also shortly follow the road to extinction.
Not a PUP game, the British are collecting the best wonders, and are of course far, far away. Ah well, C/C combination soon (cavalry on caravels). Let's see.
P.S. I even have a GL! FP or Smith? The choices were much simpler when I didn't go to war...

[Arrian]

FP!!!!! Capture Smith.

-Arrian

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

[insert rant here]

Damn RNG... no GLs in my current PUP/UP game, not a single one! Of course, only two wars, but the second one has been bloody enough... oh well, more wars are on the way.

[off-topic rant END]

[Arrian]

I'm playing what could be a PP game. Started it last night. I'm the Babs, and have my own continent (island). It's pretty darn big. I researched pottery & build a granary right off the bat, while getting a settler from a hut (plus several sets of barbs, 1 map, and 1 tech). My Rexing has been ridiculous.

Babylon had two wheats (on grass), so I was able to set up a crazy settler pump. I had two barracks towns pumping spearmen and could barely keep up for a while.

Continent settled, FP nearing completion, Great Library done (was building Colossus, lost it insanely early to the AI - coastal capitol), in Republic. My culture is through the roof, of course.

I have met 4 AIs. America and Russia share a continent to my north. I just snuck a town on their coast to try and steal furs (hoping to flip an American city. I lead the Babylonian Cultural Masters, after all). The Vikings and Japanese are to my west, I believe they each have an island of their own.

Now I *could* play this totally peacefully. But then again, I think I'd be out of my mind if I just sat there and waited for the Vikings to drop Beserks on my coastal cities. Plus, they built the Pyramids, they're close... so many reasons.

I'm about to start my Sistine prebuild. I MUST have it. With only 1 luxury (possibly 1 more w/o war or trade), I'm gonna need it. Plus, with the GL, it will trigger my GA.

-Arrian

edit: game's in the bag, though not PP. I just couldn't resist "liberating" the tiny island nation of Spain. Then the evil Russians attacked me, so I had to wipe them out. And now I'm thinking of alleviating the suffering of the poor, oppressed peoples of Scandanavia.

Even as the Babs, I end up warmongering. Once you begin down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

[Mountain Sage]

I managed to play till the middle of the Middle Ages. I'll post some screenshots by the end of this week or early next week.
The outcome will be, well, interesting.
In the meantime, the early game was just crazy. I got attacked by the Germans, then by the Persians, then by the Japanese and finally by the Russian. And all this several times still in BC!
Is it always like this on standard maps? I understand the crowding, but still...
Or was it Arrian's influence, since it's his game?
Anyway: I'll post detailed screenshots & comments asap.

[Arrian]

In the meantime, the early game was just crazy. I got attacked by the Germans, then by the Persians, then by the Japanese and finally by the Russian. And all this several times still in BC!
Is it always like this on standard maps? I understand the crowding, but still...
Or was it Arrian's influence, since it's his game?

Well, those are some aggressive civs. There was actually a fair amount of land to grow peacefully, so it wasn't overcrowding.

Still, when I saw my immediate neighbors were Persia (with iron) and Germany, I knew I was going to war (having started a game as Carthage, aggressive warmongering was not originally my intent).

-Arrian

p.s. The Russians actually managed to capture a core city of mine, something that hadn't happened to me in a good long time. They landed a regular horseman next to my city, which had a regular swordsman in it (size 12). Despite attacking across a river against the fortified sword in a city (5 defense), it won. I took the city back the very next turn, but had to rebuild the temple, cathedral, library and university.

When I got around to dealing with Russia, I removed them from the planet. I brought my own settler with me. I razed every single one of their cities.

-Arrian

[Konquest02]

I played a little bit of your Carthage game tonight and I think this is a very good candidate for a peaceful UP game. There is good land to expand to and Carthage is great for the Ind/Com combo.
It has Num. Merc. too, so I don't get bullied around in the BC as it sometimes happen.
I have a 1 tech lead over Germany and Persia and a couple over Japan. I am beelining for Republic and have over 800 gold in my safe, all this while in despotism.
I have lost the Colossus though (by 10 turns), but the GLib is almost secured (traded Literature 2 turns too early...)

More updates on this later!

--Kon--

[Mountain Sage]

Originally posted by Konquest02
I played a little bit of your Carthage game tonight and I think this is a very good candidate for a peaceful UP game.
--Kon--

In YOUR game maybe...

[Arrian]

Kon,

You bring up a point I hadn't considered before I played this game: the Numidian Merc (which I don't particularly like) does have the advantage of making you look military strong to the AI. The AI is less likely to try to bully a civ it doesn't see as weak.

I don't know what happened to MS, but the AI didn't mess with me at all (until I dropped 10 swordsmen on Persia).

-Arrian

[Konquest02]

I haven't had any demands from the AI since the beginning of my game, and I'm near the end of my REX phase... I think I will attack Germany first... We'll see.

--Kon--

[Arrian]

Germany first, huh? Watch your back, Kon. Xerxes and Bizzy are both nasty SOBs, but Xerxes has a Immortals.

-Arrian

[Konquest02]

Exactly, I'll be friend with Xerxes so that he does not send his immortals visit Carthage and Utica...

[Konquest02]

What kind of city spacing do you use to achieve (P)UP?

I usually use a 3-tile pattern (C-T-T-C) but I went a little looser this time to turn some of my cities in big thriving metropolis. I went a lot closer in the desert though, almost ICS. I have mostly 3 or 4-tile spacing pretty much everywhere in my empire...

--Kon--