Emperor level needs a rethink.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Jeem
It seems to me that a lot of players are quite happy to give their thoughts on Emperor/Huge map without trying it for themselves. I've already stated that Emperor level on a normal map isn't that difficult - having played Emperor on a huge map in well over 200 games I think I know what I'm on about by now.

Jesus, that's a lot of games. BTW, the game I posted above is an emperor-huge-archipelago map, so there you go, a huge emperor game.

Originally posted by Jeem
I'd love to hear your views on the Celt save game. That might not be indicative of the normal Emperor/Huge map game I have, but I see it more than I should. Pray tell me how you'd have played that game differently and kept the unstoppable Russkies at bay...

Dominae's suggestion of posting the 4000BC save is a good one, its hard to judge what to differently when the game is halfway in the bag (or further in this case) I'll take a peek at your map and see if I can spot anything obvious myself.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jeem

That's just not right. The higher the level and bigger the map, the stronger the AI gets. Their cities are simply better than yours, and they probably have many more of them.

I felt huge maps games were harder under early versions of Civ. I am now convinced that huge map games are easier than smaller maps.

That's not it. Emperor level forces you into a certain way of doing things. The GL becomes a must have, and you will always end up opting for a militaristic game because you HAVE to in order to survive.

That's simply wrong, on many levels. The GL is by no means a must-have. In fact, I build the GL only occasionaly now, and I play Emperor more often than any other level.

And opting for a militaristic game remains, just as the word "opting" implies, an option. I've played many Emperor-level games without any real offensive warfare, and I've playedseveral games in which I avoided warfare entirely.

Visit the Apolyton University forum here and check out the AU History thread for detailed After-Action-Reports of numerous players' games on the same start-up -- you'll find plenty of examples of no or limited warfare. Be sure to check out the "Give Peace a Chance" game in which the human player could not build a single military unit, offensive or defensive -- winning that game has a lot to do with luck because if the AI comes after you for wahtever reason, you're probably toast, but that said several players won it, even after being attacked.

Considering the recent moves by Firaxis to change the combat system, I'd say that archer rushes were not in their grand plan when the game was developed.

Actually, looking at their stated reasons for exploring the change, it seems to be primarily based on minimizing the occurence of units from widely disparate timeframes within the game enjoying or suffering through seemingly odd battle results. When the designers tested the experimental changes using "same age" units with similar battle stats, they concluded that the proposed change would substantially alter the intended game balance, particularly in the ancient age. I can't see any evidence that it had anything to do with archer rushes as a tactic.

Catt

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Dominae
How about we start a new comparative game (Large size or smaller) on Emperor to see if Culture is truly a bad strategy.

I can't confirm that Culture is bad on large maps or smaller. I can confidently state it's nigh-on impossible on Huge though, or at least choosing culture as the preffered method is. Make sure you aren't confusing choosing the cultural victory as the option just because you removed all the other civs...

Incidentally, just because you poprushed all the time to get cultural improvements up does not mean you deserve to be first in Culture. What it may indicate (among other things) is that poprushing is not such a great tactic on a massive scale.
Dominae

That could be true. It's the first time I've ever tried it, and it seemed to work very well. I choose the Celts for this reason - Agricultural lets them expand (more cities for more temples), and rush building doesn't hurst so bad because most cities grow faster. It seemed logically sound, and looking at the comparitive Culture levels against my nearest neighbours (Aztecs and Vikings - both in awe of my culture), it looked like it was working. Until I met the Russians who were more than double my culture...God knows what the Vikings must have thought about them...

[DrSpike]

Why is a cultural victory hard on huge maps? I confess I've never tried it, but I bet it's as easy as pie.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Cultural victory on Emperor can be achieved without military, you just have to know win to pick your spots. Frankly I got tired of winning that way (accidentally, though there was conquest, much )and usually play with it turned off, not very rewarding to me. For every game that you show me where you can't, I can show you where you can.

Check out this save , its an OCC game, about 3/4 of the way to cultural victory on Emperor. Granted it was a tremendous opening, the one I used in another thread in here (which led me to try it ) but I've done it on worse (slightly worse )

I don't like to brag, so I won't post screenshots, but the game is probably my proudest Civ3 game yet, though again I had a tremendous start. The GPT bug hasn't hurt either

C'mon asleep - let's be reasonable here. With 9 Cattle in my immediate work zone I reckon I could win OCC on Sid level.

Hitting 20,000 in one city is actually easier than the full blown version of cultural victory. Especially with a start like that - I'd be devastated anytime I didn't build a wonder.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


Wow, since it takes me over a week to finish on a Huge map there is no way I could have played that many Huge games.

I've generally got two games running at the same time. One on my own PC (which I play during the day because I'm currently unemployed - or maybe that's WHY I'm unemployed ) and one on my mate's PC (hotseat) which I play when he gets back from work. On average, 5-6 hours a day seems about right.

Also, I've won and lost a lot of Emperor games well before the 'end' so I don't see them all the way through sometimes.

[Dominae]

Jeem, please post a Large map Emperor-level game (4000BC), so that we can all play it and compare notes. That's really the only way to settle this (unless you find some brave souls to play a Huge map game with you).


Dominae

[asleepathewheel]

Hey, hey, no need to rag on my "accomplishments"



I agree that its easier to reach 20x1 than 160k nationwide. A bit dicier, but probably easier.

That said, I'm looking at your save.

1. Some maps just don't lend themselves to a cultural victory. Not sure about this one, as its hard for me to judge this late into the game

2. There's an island between you and the big continent, perhaps an early curragh and galley were in order, it would at least reduce the tech prices.

3. related to number 2, a gamey tactic that I have, ahem, occassionally used involving the Great library. I sometimes take all the cities but the GL city, then when I find myself far behind, or approaching education, I nab it, getting way past education in techs. Gamey yes

4. palace placement-out in bfe, could use in the center more, around gergovia or something

5. Forbidden palace-broken today, might be useful tommorrow

6. Despotic GA-avoid like the plague

7. more mines-all I see is irrigated land, I know most of that might be flood plains, but try to boost production

8. Don't sacrifice your own citizens, its rarely worth it. You need people power. You are way behind in population, which can be remedied by:

9. Build more compactly-your cities cover the land, but need aqueducts and hospitals to use each tile. Remember-more cities=more opportunities for culture.

Thats the stuff off the top of my head. Probably the last point is the most important in my personal games. CXXC spacing is usually what I try to do, maximize early tile usage. Far better to have a little overlap early rather than huge gaps in cities. Plus its much easier to defend.


Hope I've helped even a little bit.

[asleepathewheel]

Oh, one more thing. If you had selected more rivals, then your enemies would not be as large, you know

[asleepathewheel]

Also, you've been beaten to every decent cultural wonder. Why not time some palace prebuilds to help?


What govt were you going to select? I picked Republic and man am I being crushed by the unit support costs. I see that marketplaces are being built. you might try to get those up before the switch to republic.

I'm not sure if you use it, but you might try the luxury slider to help out, I prefer using it to entertainers-keep the food and shields coming in.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt


I felt huge maps games were harder under early versions of Civ. I am now convinced that huge map games are easier than smaller maps.

Every Civ, I've always played the largest map available. Civ3 Emperor on a Huge map is by far the most difficult. The main reason is because the AI expands aggressively in Civ3 and it didn't in the previous two games. The aggressive expansion of the AI was only brought in with Civ3 because the players of Civ1 and Civ2 wanted to see it. It's also the main reason why many previous Civ players hate Civ3 - they think the AI expands too aggressively.

That's simply wrong, on many levels. The GL is by no means a must-have. In fact, I build the GL only occasionaly now, and I play Emperor more often than any other level.

Try downloading my latest save game and then tell me that with a straight face Catt. The GL got me around 15 techs. If I didn't capture it, I'd still be struggling at 40 turns towards construction and the Russians would be in the Industrial age. I'm not lying - it's there to see in the save game!

And opting for a militaristic game remains, just as the word "opting" implies, an option. I've played many Emperor-level games without any real offensive warfare, and I've playedseveral games in which I avoided warfare entirely.

As I mentioned earlier Catt, I erred in assuming most players played the game on a huge map. My comments on Emperor level should probably be taken as meaning 'Emperor on a huge map'. Try it, and keep trying it - you'll soon see just how horrendous it is.

BTW - here's the 4000BC save :-

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jeem
Builder strategy isn't feasible at Emperor level on a huge map, so it's hardly going to be feasible on a smaller map is it? Playing on a smaller map will prove what exactly? That military strategies are even more important? Yes....

I have to disagree with this, but agree with some of what you've alluded to more frequently.

I think the game is harder on larger maps especially with more civs. That goes doubly right now with the gpt and corruption bugs.

One of the biggest things the human has going for him/her is a more sophisticated ability to conquer corruption in parts of the empire by wise choices in FP placement and palace relocations. That is pointless right now (the FP bit, the Palace bit is actually more critical).

The gpt bug with fewer civs (like the standard 8) is not as big a deal as it is with more (like 12 or 16). That is because the AI will be able to generate more trades for more gpt with more civs that have uncorrupted cores.

I was slogging through large maps with 12 civs and getting jobbed by resource distribution time and again (well, not that many since a game takes me a long time even if I'm losing because I try not to just quit). When I went down to standard with 8 civs, not only were the resources and luxuries within managable reach, but getting the tech lead on the AI has been significantly easier. This is especially true when the AI winnows itself down from 7 to 2 or 3 contenders by killing each other off.

At any rate, right now I am of the opinion that any type of victory would be more feasible on smaller maps with fewer civs than the larger map normal or maximum. At Emperor level, at least.

[notyoueither]

9. Build more compactly-your cities cover the land, but need aqueducts and hospitals to use each tile. Remember-more cities=more opportunities for culture.

Thats the stuff off the top of my head. Probably the last point is the most important in my personal games. CXXC spacing is usually what I try to do, maximize early tile usage. Far better to have a little overlap early rather than huge gaps in cities. Plus its much easier to defend.

Ahhh, and here's a critical bit. I have been trying also to play a looser city spacing and to avoid the use of camp cities. That may be another reason why I can see Jeem's POV.

[Jaguar]

It's easier to win on smaller maps on the greater difficulty levels, under almost any circumstances.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

That said, I'm looking at your save.

1. Some maps just don't lend themselves to a cultural victory. Not sure about this one, as its hard for me to judge this late into the game

2. There's an island between you and the big continent, perhaps an early curragh and galley were in order, it would at least reduce the tech prices.

I kept getting sunk by barb galleys. If you look at the map closely, you'll see that I did at least attempt to get out there with my curraghs!

3. related to number 2, a gamey tactic that I have, ahem, occassionally used involving the Great library. I sometimes take all the cities but the GL city, then when I find myself far behind, or approaching education, I nab it, getting way past education in techs. Gamey yes

Well, seeing as the Russians were already in the Industrial Age, I think I didn't do too badly out of the GL!

4. palace placement-out in bfe, could use in the center more, around gergovia or something

It doesn't make that much difference on such a huge map really. Entremont was not perfectly placed, but my main cities were doing ok.

5. Forbidden palace-broken today, might be useful tommorrow

I only started building that because I was going to switch to a proper wonder. Did you mention 'gamey' before?

6. Despotic GA-avoid like the plague

I was a Monarchy at the time. I held back until I got it then switched immediately. Same turn I declared war on the Aztecs.

7. more mines-all I see is irrigated land, I know most of that might be flood plains, but try to boost production

Everything that can be mined is, except for deserts. With Agricultural, there is no point in mining deserts because you lose out overall.

8. Don't sacrifice your own citizens, its rarely worth it. You need people power. You are way behind in population, which can be remedied by:

I'm not that far behind in pop. The Russians and Aztecs are miles AHEAD in pop - bit of a difference there.

[quote]
9. Build more compactly-your cities cover the land, but need aqueducts and hospitals to use each tile. Remember-more cities=more opportunities for culture.[quote]

But they also leave you devoid of major 'game-winning' cities later. If I'd placed my cities closer, I wouldn't have been able to throw out those 40-odd Gallic Warriors so quickly because all my major cities would have been competeting for the best resources.

Thats the stuff off the top of my head. Probably the last point is the most important in my personal games. CXXC spacing is usually what I try to do, maximize early tile usage. Far better to have a little overlap early rather than huge gaps in cities. Plus its much easier to defend.

If you want to win by military means, that's the best way for sure. If they land is good throughout your empire it's also a fair tactic - in this case I had mostly a desert, a bit of plains and a jungle to expand into. I wasn't competing for anything particularly good so I thought I'd stretch out a bit and use the influence. Rush building temples and libraries helped to increase the influence further. I don't think I could have increased my culture any faster than I did.

At Emperor level on a huge map, I find it more important to fill up the space than anything else. If you don't - they will.

Hope I've helped even a little bit.

Good comments, and I hope you see my PoV with my replies!

[asleepathewheel]

Indeed, I'll have a go at that 4000BC save and see what I come up with.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Also, you've been beaten to every decent cultural wonder. Why not time some palace prebuilds to help?


What govt were you going to select? I picked Republic and man am I being crushed by the unit support costs. I see that marketplaces are being built. you might try to get those up before the switch to republic.

Every decent cultural wonder was already built before I had the tech to do it.

Marketplaces were already being built because under a Monarchy I could only support 50 units and I had 100...I only managed it for so long because I was in a GA. However, had I not built my army, I wouldn't have been able to take on the Aztecs and capture 6 of their main cities (including the GL and SoZ).

12-man archer squads don't work on huge maps - you need 30-40 at least. I was putting 5-6 Swordmen into the Aztec cities and it was taking a couple of turns for them to stop resisting, even though I had double thier culture.

I'm not sure if you use it, but you might try the luxury slider to help out, I prefer using it to entertainers-keep the food and shields coming in.

Rarely use it. Even in Civ1 and 2, I managed fine without resorting to luxuries. If I need all the production in a single city (for example I'm in a close contest for building a wonder), then I'll up the luxuries

[notyoueither]

I think that keeping your population working is critical. You spend 1gpt on that city, but you get food, shields, and more than 1cpt for the 1gpt cost. The trick is to make sure that multiple cities will benefit.

I live by the axiom population is power, but only if it is productive.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jeem

Try downloading my latest save game and then tell me that with a straight face Catt. The GL got me around 15 techs. If I didn't capture it, I'd still be struggling at 40 turns towards construction and the Russians would be in the Industrial age. I'm not lying - it's there to see in the save game!

Jeem - I am taking issue with your blanket statements that "the GL is a must-have" or "militaristic approach is required." In some certain specific maps / set-ups, those statements might tend towards the true. But relying on your one presented game is not determinative of the principal issue I challenge - whether your broad statements are true about Emperor level (whether or not they are modified to apply only to Emperor on huge maps). One game does not a rule make.

Furthermore, taking this one game as an example and using your position vis-a-vis the Russians would be as likely to tell us as much about your play, or advantageous AI starts, or even how the Celts are as a civ, as it would about the difficulty level per se - maybe you didn't exploit early advantage in a solid way (and maybe you did - but again one game isn't determinative). Just because the Russians established a large tech and cultural lead over you doesn't mean that this is likely to occur in all, or even most, Emperor-level huge map games.

As I mentioned earlier Catt, I erred in assuming most players played the game on a huge map. My comments on Emperor level should probably be taken as meaning 'Emperor on a huge map'. Try it, and keep trying it - you'll soon see just how horrendous it is.

I don't like to play huge because it really slows down on my computer. And I'll freely admit that you have undoubtedly played more huge map games than I. But in the four or five huge map games I've played since PTW came out, all of them struck me as easier than a typical standard map. I'm not sure why exactly, but I suspect one main culprit is an enhanced human tech-trading ability when there are multiple civs avalable as tech purchasers. Establishing a tech lead on a huge map game has always struck me as either "game over" or nearly so.

Take a look at an AU game played on a huge map -- click here for AU 207 -- many players played it, some went a' warmongering and some played peacefully. My game was one of almost no aggression -- I didn't even build enough cities to put up an FP initially, and when I finally did take aggressive action it was only for two distant cities to put an end to the aggressive war started by others. My detailed AAR appears in the thread with a bunch of other great AARs as well as thoughts on huge map games -- check it out for an alternative view of "the GL is a must-have" and "militaristic expansion is required."

BTW - here's the 4000BC save :-

Good to post the 400 BC save I almost certainly won't play it since I'm too excited for the patch and a "fixed" Conquests game later this week and play-time is limited. But I will try and give it a shot if I can find the time at least up to contact with the other continent, just to see how the game develops compared to yours. Perhaps others will give it a shot too.

Catt

EDIT: Fixed link to direct to AAR instead of game download thread. [/b]End Edit[/b]

[Dominae]

Are you making gpt deals with the AI (I mean, you give something for their gpt)? With the gpt bug, an increase in the number of civs increase the amount of Gold in the game (dis)proportionately. So if you're letting the AIs mint Gold and you're not doing it yourself, I can see this as at least one good reason you're behind.


Dominae

[Jeem]

Catt - Agreed that statements like 'the GL is a must have' aren't particularly helpful, but you've got to admit that without it in this game I'd have been soundly crushed.

Of course it can be done in other ways - for example had I been seafaring or commercial I'd have started with alphabet and most probably got to philosophy first (getting me Literature and then the GL...oops!)

I cannot reiterate this enough - I erred at first in assuming most people played on huge maps. However, my comments ARE valid on Emperor level on huge maps. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the uber-powerful Russians are indicative of what I normally get on Emperor/Huge, but it does happen quite a lot. The main reason for this is the Expansionist trait, but I don't want to go into that here.

BTW - it's quite possible that the Russians will not be so far ahead in the same game played by somebody else. That's expansionist (on huge maps) for you.

I also realise that conquests is pretty badly bugged. If you think the trading and FP bugs are bad on a normal map, try to consider what they must be like on a huge one!

There isn't much left to say. Perhaps Emperor level doesn't need a rethink, but Emperor level on a Huge map does. As I seem pretty rare in playing almost exclusively on huge maps, it's unlikely that anything will be done about it unfortunately.

[Theseus]

Hmmm...

Jeem, you are clearly a very experienced player, and a thoughtful and articulate person.

Some suggestions:

* Don;t make blanket statements.... ask *why* instead, as you started with.

* You are dealing with some expert players here, and please know that the 'poly Civ3 forums have a history and philosophy of mutual help... when some of the posters here tell you that ALL metagame strats are available at a given difficulty level (in this case Emperor), don;t shoot back that it doesn;t apply as you are playing Huge. It all applies, trust me.

* You MUST join and play the AU games!! You are too good not to!

Welcome aboard!!

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Dominae
Are you making gpt deals with the AI (I mean, you give something for their gpt)? With the gpt bug, an increase in the number of civs increase the amount of Gold in the game (dis)proportionately. So if you're letting the AIs mint Gold and you're not doing it yourself, I can see this as at least one good reason you're behind.


Dominae

I had no trades for absolutely ages, then I gave horses to the Aztecs after making peace. I figured that they weren't my main rival after seeing the Russians!

No money for anything. I never had any to give away. The whole reason I'm switching government is because I can't actually survive on a 90% tax rate under monarchy (because of my relatively big army, which was required to slap the Aztecs around). Talk about a catch 22!

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Hmmm...

Jeem, you are clearly a very experienced player, and a thoughtful and articulate person.

Some suggestions:

* Don;t make blanket statements.... ask *why* instead, as you started with.

Sorry, that's just me. I'm not doing it through a desire to be antagonistical (although I can when I feel the need, as you no doubt have noticed by now...). I like this style of 'debate' as it often gets to the crunch points quickly, and attracts the attention of....

* You are dealing with some expert players here

Yes, I understand that. I have no doubt that many of the posters in this thread are far more accomplished players than I am. However, I never argue a point unless I'm convinced I'm right. I am also quite capable of admitting when I'm wrong.

BTW - I'd better admit that the AI probably doesn't get a combat bonus at Emperor level before I forget.

and please know that the 'poly Civ3 forums have a history and philosophy of mutual help... when some of the posters here tell you that ALL metagame strats are available at a given difficulty level (in this case Emperor), don;t shoot back that it doesn;t apply as you are playing Huge. It all applies, trust me.

Sure. My PoV is that I'm not like most players in that I've got a very definite expectation of 4X games. I am not however, attempting to change the game to suit me and me alone - I'd just like a bit of recognition that maybe, perhaps, there is something a bit wrong with Emperor level (on a huge map).

* You MUST join and play the AU games!! You are too good not to!

Welcome aboard!!

Thanks. I might just do that. BTW - if you check out my joining date you'll see that I've been on Apolyton for quite a while! Didn't post much originally, and even then it was only a few rants on SMAC - still the best 4X game ever created IMO (controversial?)

[Theseus]

And you are in fact Scottish, yes?

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
And you are in fact Scottish, yes?

Nah, that was just a lie.

OT - I'd like to see the Scots making a comeback. If we can have the Sumerians and Portuguese then I definately want us back in the fold!

We'd be Scientific/Religious with a 2-1-3 horseman 'Mounted Noble' special costing 30. The reason they're so fast is because they're so used to retreating from battlefields...

[vmxa1]

Jeem, I do not want to pile on here, but I have to disagree with most of your points.

GL is a good thing, but I rarely build it as it is too big of an investment.

I find that all TBS games are easier on the biggest maps.

Some where here I posted a game in response to a complaint that England could not be used to win and you could not keep up in research at EMP. In that game I had no wars in the first two ages and held the tech lead almost from the first day.

I would not choose the Celts to play on a huge map, but it is not impossible. If you are having trouble, try an exp civ. American is good as it is industrious. Use your scouts to pop huts very aggressively to get those techs and free settlers.

Culture is problematic at higher levels as you tend to not get many of the ancient wonders. Once that 1000 years has past, they will be kicking out lots of culture. If you do not capture a few, then you need lots of cities to offset that culture.

Eventually you can get some of the wonders after the ancient age to kick in culture and lots of cities with a 1000 year old temples. This is even more of a problem in C3C with all the additional ancient wonders.

You are correct that sometime an AI will get very huge on a far way land mass, but you do not have to take all of their cities to win and they will not be able to invade you.

I am not a fan of huge maps either, it just seems that the fun is gone after you stop your inital expansion. I look up at all the cities I am going to have to conquer and think of all the units I will have to move around and get depressed. The worse part is all of the rails you need to build, what a pain.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Catt


Yup - that's the main post (and a very important one) on probability with respect to huts, but there have been several others referring to hut probabilities and difficulty levels, if only obliquely. One prominent example is Soren's post in "The Best of the Best" thread available as a topped thread in the "Must Read" thread. Click HERE. It's about 10 posts down from the first. The same message appears elsewhere in other threads, but this is the one example within easy reach for me.

Catt

I read that thread and Soren mentions goodies would be level related, but it was never mentioned or explained again.
I have not seen anything that makes it clear what or how.
In fact there is not much that could be done, other than alter frequency of this or that outcome. IOW make settlers more or less likely for a given level. I don't know, it is not clear to me.

[Catt]

Originally posted by vmxa1


I read that thread and Soren mentions goodies would be level related, but it was never mentioned or explained again.
I have not seen anything that makes it clear what or how.
In fact there is not much that could be done, other than alter frequency of this or that outcome. IOW make settlers more or less likely for a given level. I don't know, it is not clear to me.

Someone, can't remember who, did some large tests and posted the results over at C3C. The search function is disabled, else it might be easy to find.

Since the publication of the test results, several Firaxians, (Soren & Mike B, at least) have mentioned it in passing here or at CFC -- I don't have anything definitive in terms of probability changes, but I'd submit that even the mention Soren made in the link above confirms that goody hut results vary according to difficulty level.

Catt

[Catt]

****** Spoiler – Game Details Follow ******

I hesitate to post this since it will appear that I am driven by less than pristine motives. Nonetheless, since I actually invested time in this, and given the delayed patch I actually went back and played it as far as I said I would earlier, I’ll share my impressions.

This really isn’t much different from any other huge map game I’ve played. This one is challenging for three reasons: (1) relatively poor terrain; (2) starting positions that greatly favor a continent-mate (in the absence of warfare); and (3) landmass shared with only 2 AI civs, whereas the other landmass(es) have the remainder within curragh contact (even for an AI). The key to success in this game for me (‘till now) was relentlessly suiciding galleys until contact could be made (and I sank between 15 and 20 galleys, maybe 1 curragh).

It’s about 550 AD in my game. I did not build the Great Library (by design, though I doubt I could have if I had wanted to); I did get to Philosophy first and took Code of Laws as my free tech, proceeding from there to Republic; I have not been at war yet – pure peace. I have a tech lead over all civs, except for the Azetcs – they have Astronomy (I don’t) and I have Music Theory (they don’t). I’ll get either Bach’s or Copernicus (I want Bach’s, obviously) for my first wonder. The Aztecs have pulled ahead because they just recently concluded their GA (triggered by wonders). They’ve been a wonder monster, building the Pyramids early (1000 BC), the Mausoleum of Mausollos (650 BC), the Statute of Zeus (190 AD) which triggered their GA, and then in fairly rapid order Hanging Gardens (210 AD), Temple of Artemis (230 AD), Knight’s Templar (350 AD), Sun Tzu’s (410 AD). I had the culture lead until the Aztec GA and the Temple of Artemis effects – there’s probably little chance to secure an empire-wide cultural win in my game unless I or someone else trims the Aztecs significantly – but that’s going to be true on any number of maps; I don’t think every map and every starting position should offer every choice of victory condition at the player’s discretion.

If I were to play the game out, I would beeline to Navigation which would allow me to trade outdated techs to some of the overseas civs for luxuries (between the Americans, Byzantines, Russians, and French, there are at least 3 excess luxuries available for which I can trade using techs – all I need is the ability to trade over oceans, and I must potentially gift MM to the Americans soon to allow a harbor build) – with resource trading available, I could further extend the tech lead by easing off the luxury slider (routinely running either 20% - 30%). If the Aztecs attacked me right now, I’d be hard pressed to turn them back and would take some losses. I have several core cities building Celtic swords and soon bombard units (after rushing universities) – in a few dozen turns I suspect my border would be finally secure. To guard against an Aztec surprise, I’ve maintained excellent relations with them and have, on multiple occasions, traded them my sole source of horses, which they have lacked. I haven’t had my GA yet; when ocean travel becomes widespread, I expect someone will foolishly land a longbowman on my shores and allow me to trigger my GA – that or the Vikings will foolishly attack and offer the same opportunity. My GA should be “game over;” absent a GA in the Middle Ages, the late Middle Ages and early Industrial should seal it. The turns are starting to bog down on my computer and I feel I’ve given it a fair shake to this point.

Sorry, but the posted save doesn’t do anything to convince me that huge maps are different, in terms of difficulty, from other map sizes – I haven’t played this one out, obviously, but I’ll still stick by my view that in general huge maps are easier on the human than standard maps. Maybe the game gets a lot different later (with only 8 Civs in the game, I have very little experience on which to rely), but so far, it has played out about how I imagined. I would have played the early game quite differently had I known it was an 8-civ huge map – I would have had a lot more scouts to pop huts. I’d say it is easy to get behind significantly in the tech race from this start (one long river for the taking – nothing more), especially sharing a landmass with a “quasi-expansionist” civ like the Aztecs, but it is still just a matter of securing a tech lead in one fashion or another. Once a lead is secured, there seems to be little additional challenge other than an incredibly determined, focused, and intelligent attack from the Aztecs (chances of that?); and even that eventuality should represent limited risk by the late Middle Ages. As I said, I don’t see how this start makes either the GL or early offensive warfare a requirement to win. An entirely peaceful win certainly seems within reach, although a culture win, in my game, would require some significant “anti-cultural” actions against the Aztecs.

Screenshots and saves upon request.

Catt