Strategy Notes From Vel - The Early Game....

[Badtz Maru]

I have found that there are many situations where relocating your capital is extremely beneficial. One is when your first city starts out at one end of the continent, or on a peninsula as mentioned above. Once your empire has grown enough that the cities on the side away from your capital are experiencing heavy corruption, build a palace in your most central location.

Another time when relocating your palace is good is when your empire ends up being split over two continents. As you know, on the new continent corruption will be so high that it would take forever to build the Forbidden City - so what I do is build the Forbidden City in a central location on my home continent, and then build a new palace on the new continent - it doesn't take nearly as long as building the Forbidden City. This has the added benefit of having your capital closer to your borders with other civilizations, which makes it more likely you will gain cities from culture.

[stiel]

Thanks for your answer VEL!!

Not bad for a first post, isn't it.....


I'm expermening with this strategy but I would like to know if you used it already.

If you used the 'Isolating Capital' strategy tell me how it worked out.

I would like to know if other players have already tested this strategy and what you comments are....


STIEL

[kptb]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Velociryx
Capitol/Forbidden Palace placement on a standard sized map:

Under the following grid layout, you'll find your empire to be VERY productive!!!

Key:
F = Forbidden Palace
P = Palace
_ = Nothing (space marker)
0 = City

0____0____0____0____0
0____0____0____0____0
0____F____0____P____0
0____0____0____0____0
0____0____0____0____0

Note that with that general layout (adjusted for terrain) *everything* winds up being pretty close to your capitol/forbidden palace.

[/ENDQUOTE]

Actually you can out another column of cities between the palace and the FP without getting too much more corruption.

[Arrian]

Thus far, I've done most of my fighting in the late medieval/early industrial time period. Basically, before people come up with Infantry. Infantry can REALLY cramp your style. Cavalry are an awesome unit for quite some time (all the mobile units are good, but it's got 3 moves and solid attack power). Plus, you finally get bombard units with some actual punch (particularly artillery). Once infantry shows up, however, you need a lot of firepower to take cities.

I fight an ancient war in maybe 1/2 of my games... it all depends. The Iroquois are fantastic for early conquest - those Mounted Warriors they borrowed from the Sioux really rock

Modern war can get ugly. In the game I'm presently playing (as the Iroquois) it turns out that I have all the oil. ALL OF IT. Hence, fighting in the modern era is just fine w/me. No one else can have tanks or airplanes (except for my good buddies the Americans, who are paying me just about every cent they can scrape together for some of that black gold). Normally, though, the AI builds bombers (which, until they patch it, you can't stop) and wrecks your infrastructure. You basically need overwhelming force so you can take what you want and then end it.

Basically, ancient war tends to be, overall, the most worthwhile because you will benifit from the gains you make for thousands and thousands of years. The reason my Iroquois have all the oil on the map is that I was a ancient era terror. Of course, if you get bogged down, an early war can also ruin you for thousands and thousands of years. Hence, if I'm playing a civ w/o a good early UU (Babylonians, for example), I'm more likely to lay low for a while.

Medieval war (pre-Cavalry) seems silly to me, unless perhaps you have a medieval UU (Japanese/Chinese) or are militaristic and get leaders out of it.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Morning all…is it just me, or has this week seemed to drag on forever!? (Work-wise, I mean…Civ-wise, I wish I had MORE time! LOL…Einstein was right…it’s all relative, and…all your base are belong to us…no wait! That’s not what he said!….’k…clearly the lack of sleep from Civving is getting the better of me, but I’m not complaining. These old bones and creaky joints are, cos in SMAC-style tradition, I’ve taken to playing all my Civ games in a straight-backed, wooden chair…OUCH! Generally, I’m there, playing solid from 6:30 when I get home, till about 3 in the morning. Yikes! Some would say I need a life, but I’m enjoying experimenting far too much right now!

So…that’s me…Official Civ Slave…

Lohrax, hiyas and thanks for the compliment! Would you believe that when I first found Apolyton ago, I didn’t post for about two months cos I was too shy!? LOL….Anyway, I wanted to say, excellent post re: being a good Despot! Sounds like we have a pretty similar early game style…if I see an opponent I feel I can easily whack without getting too far off of my developmental track….::evil grin:: Such Despotic, wicked fun!

Actually, I don’t know why, but I really like the early game for that reason. The primitive drumbeat music, the strange grunts of the cavemen warriors, the fact that to jumpstart your empire you break the back of mass thousands, sacrificing them to further the glory of your Civ…..I dunno…it just has such a REAL feel to it…you know? Very cool, that!

To Serapis re: the scenario….gotcha…now, go take that girlfriend of yours out to dinner or something!

Other stuff to comment on:
Hero Epic – Yow! I had my first opportunity to build it and the military academy in my French game….awesome! And, I actually DID get a second leader out of it! Very cool, but I DO have a question for those who have used it more:

When I got my first leader (Napoleon), I made an army and “loaded” troops into it (Modern Armor). After the third troop, that was it. I was unable to load any more, of any type. I thought the limit was like eleven or something?! What gives with three?!

So…I’ve not personally had enough experience with the wonder to write anything about it, but I was jazzed to see it in action, and will be playing more with that!

Terraforming: I generally irrigate two tiles and mine one, assuming there are hills/mountains in the city radius….if it’s ALL flatland, then I’ll mine/irrigate alternating tiles to balance mins with food.

Persians….Seems like they and their immortals pretty much get the nod as the most popular of the ancient civs, and I’d suspect that the French are probably about the most popular modern civ.

Stiel: I didn’t get the opportunity to try your capitol isolation against the Russians in my current game, but I DID use it against the Greeks! All they could build was Hoplites! LOL! It worked splendidly after I bombed their harbor out of existence! GREAT call!

And to Kptb: re: map layout…..absolutely right! But the layout as it stands displays 20 cities…on an average map….that’s a pretty big empire…but yep…easy enough to add at least another row. I’ve discovered that on an average map, 8 tiles out is about as far away as you can stand to get from your capitol, and four is preferred. Haven’t played on large or huge maps yet, but I’m VERY curious to see 16 civs in action together!

My Game Continued:
Let’s see…when I left off with the telling, it was sometime in the 1700’s, Germany surprised me with a half-baked attack, and it plunged the world into a war which raged until the early 1900’s.

During that war, I found myself squared off with Greece, and began a campaign to wipe them off of their sub-continent.

The war was slow goings, since much of the terrain is unforgiving mountains (pretty historically accurate, I think!), and the tenacious Greeks manned the hills with sturdy defensive units that I had to slog through to even GET to their cities! If I had been the Greeks, it was pretty much how I would have played it, which again, I have to give Soren VERY high marks for the AI work! That rocked, seeing the AI do stuff I would have done myself!

Tanks and Mechanized Infantry vs. Riflemen though, favorable terrain or no…the result was inevitable, and the Greeks found themselves steadily pushed back. My attack consisted of two major battle groups, with one consolidating around Athens and bringing the southern portion of the continent to heel, and a second group starting in New Orleans and working toward Athens (each group started with 8 Tanks and 8 Mechanized Infantry, btw), with 10 Bombers on the sub-continent (two groups of five) flying support missions, and two battleships firing at targets of convenience.

There were some upsets. I captured the town of Argos, staffed it with a Mech. Inf and two wounded tanks only to lose it culturally two turns later. A hard lesson learned, but I think I see three reasons that it fell.

First, the fact that it was in a state of disorder. This seems to have a HUGE bearing on whether the city will switch sides.

Second, it was four tiles from the capitol…obviously a biggie.

Third, I had one less garrisoned troops than the number of resistors. Also bad.

Anyway, after that, I would make sure there was no disorder (even if it meant starvation), properly staffed the captured cities, and kept the bulk of my forces in the field, and it never happened again.

So….while I was slowly grinding Greece to fine powder, the rest of the world was merrily blowing each other apart, lots of material getting smashed, but very few cities changing hands.

When I had the Greeks down to the city of Mycenea, I made peace with them, then got a right of passage agreement with Russia. By this time, I had upgraded all the “old” tanks I had lying about on the mainland to modern armor.

Got the RoP with Russia, positioned my tanks, and took all five of the cities on my target list on the same turn.

Turns out though, that America had a mutual protection pact with them, so I had to fight the Americans too….

Took two of their border outposts on my continent, two other Russian cities near their capitol, contacted Greece and gave them a former Russian town, and then immediately DoW’d them, knocking them off of their starting island, and auto-locating their capitol to their one remaining city.

I made peace with them and the Rus, giving back their two cities near their capitol for the island city of Odessa (Russia’s only non-continental holding). It would later become an airbase for me.

Took Seattle from the Americans and made peace with them, giving it right back, and once more made peace with Greece, creating a wholly new Greek state on the ashes of former Russian territory.

Some comments here: The American bomber squadrons BEELINED to knock out the roads leading to my sources of aluminum and rubber. Again, kudos to Soren. Exactly what I would have done!

They played it smart on the attack too, except for one thing….the Americans prolly sent sixty units (knights and longbow mostly) up against a trio of modern armor units fortified IN a fortress, on a mountain.

I had some dings and dents in my armor, but didn’t lose a single unit and got another leader from all the battling.

The rest of the Americans’ attacks though were very well executed, so perhaps they were just offloading obsolete units in hopes of killing 1-2 of my guys.

My hope was that everybody would leave the new little Greek state alone, but the Rus were FURIOUS with them and almost immediately launched an attack to recapture their lost cities, calling on Germany to help them.

I tried to get a RoP agreement with Greece to post ships off their coast and blockade their tiny kingdom to keep it safe, but they refused me (prolly based on my earlier mistreatment of Russia). So…Russia got three of their cities back, and Germany got two.

Just before the Greeks got taken out, I gave Mycenea back to keep them in the game, but when the German Panzers turned on Egypt….anyway, I was hoping to end the game with all 8 civs still around, but I could not prevent Egypt’s destruction ::sigh::

But, in 1950, I launched the massive space ship toward Alpha Centauri and won the game, having come up from fourth to a solid first place.

And I can’t wait to play again!

Edit: Cross-posted with Arrian, and EXCELLENT synopsis btw! (tho I must say, I dearly LOVE a *really* early rush with the Babylonians!

-=Vel=-

[La Fayette]

Soren
Sorry for disturbing, but I notice that you read this thread.
There are MANY mistakes in all French versions of civ2.
I am willing to help translate or reread the French version of civ3 (not looking for a job, but long time civ addict and lover of the French language).

Vel and others
Seems to be fun. I join you ASAP when I get a game (even with many mistakes in the French version)

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Velociryx
When I got my first leader (Napoleon), I made an army and “loaded” troops into it (Modern Armor). After the third troop, that was it. I was unable to load any more, of any type. I thought the limit was like eleven or something?! What gives with three?!

Nope it's set at 3 until you build the pentagon (not sure about the trigger for this) which bumps it to 4. You 1 army for every 4 cities if you build the Military Academy, again not sure what the trigger is, I only got my first leader a few days ago and haven't used him for anything yet, exams and work take up too much valuble Civ time

[Zurai001]

Trigger for the Pentagon is having at least 3 armies. It's not that big of a boost... if 3 units can't do it, 4 generally won't do much better. I personally like armies but most other people around here don't seem to.

[sapofeo]

Originally posted by Velociryx

They played it smart on the attack too, except for one thing….the Americans prolly sent sixty units (knights and longbow mostly) up against a trio of modern armor units fortified IN a fortress, on a mountain.

I had some dings and dents in my armor, but didn’t lose a single unit and got another leader from all the battling.

The rest of the Americans’ attacks though were very well executed, so perhaps they were just offloading obsolete units in hopes of killing 1-2 of my guys.

I saw the same thing in my game last night. Had a dozen or so units (tanks/mech/artillery) fortified on a mountain. The AI sent tons of cavalry and knights in at first. I found this was just to use up my defensive artillery and soften up some of my units, as they sent their own tanks and mechs in right after. I thought it was well played by the AI since they get at least some final usage from outdated units.

I wonder, if under different circumstances, they would instead load up these same throwaway units in a city under imminent threat of takeover - just to soak up my attack turns and buy a little time?

Enjoying the thread. Thanks to all for relating your experiences.

[Gatamelata]

I have some experiences to share in response to some of the
comments I've read here. Some background: I've been playing
the huge earth map that shipped with the game on Regent with
16 civs. I played one with 8 civs, but the rush of dealing
with 16 potential opponents - I haven't found anything yet
that beats it.


Making War:

I haven't thought of warfare in terms of ancient vs. modern. Mostly
I see warfare as an opportunity that may arise. Depending on the
flow of the game, who I've talked to, whether contact has been
made between the New and Old Worlds, etc, there are usually periods
in my games where many of my cities have all of the possible
improvements. During those times, I prepare for war by pumping
out a nice balance of defensive and offensive/support units.
Once I have a surplus of units, I take stock: are there any
inviting targets nearby? Are there any luxuries outside my borders
that I don't yet have, and that I can reasonably expect to hold
once I've taken them? Or wonders? Or chokepoints? Especially
chokepoints, since it is so much easier in this game than in
SMAC to manipulate the flow of the game by brokering between AI
civs.

If there are such valuables to be had, then I try to take a page
from the computer AI's book: the sudden, surgical strike. Drago
Sinio was exactly right on this point - you almost always, no
matter your government, want to avoid a protracted war. Know
your objectives, know your capabilities and limitations, and know
when you're beaten! Finally, take stock of the enemy and try to
get a good idea of what it will take to make him want peace, and
factor that into your objectives. Assemble a sufficient (overwhelming, if possible)
force just inside your borders nearest to your objective, then
strike without warning. Once your objectives have been taken,
offer peace, fortify, consolidate, and connect it via road to
your empire. You may have to offer gifts in order to secure
peace, but hopefully not - you should have hit the AI hard
enough that he doesn't want to fight you again.

It is very important to have an exit strategy when you plan a
war. If you just attack, take a small chunk of his empire and
sit on it, then he will strike back hard and where you least
expect it. Trust me, the AI won't waste troops on futile
counter-attacks. Once I had Joan on the ropes (4 cities left in
the Modern Era) and she was still sending units into my interior through our
neighbors to disrupt my infrastructure. If this kind of surgical
strike is executed well, it can be over in one turn, which leaves
no opportunity for counter-attack.

Any of this can happen in any of the eras, in my experience. It's
been very likely to
happen in the Ancient era, when expansion is on the brain and
one can reasonably expect to be able to take up to 5 cities from
an enemy civ. I've also seen this kind of opportunity come up
in late Medieval/early Industrial eras. I find that quite a few
mid-game conflicts are fought with knights, cavalry, pikemen
and musketeers. During the modern age, I am usually kept hopping
upgrading my obsolete units, filling out my towns with all of the
by now rapidly-appearing city improvements, and cleaning up
whatever wonders I can grab.


Automating workers:

Executing the 'improve this city' (Shift-I) command seems to work
very well, indeed. They improve the tiles more or less as I would
want them to. I only do this once I've discovered railroad, because
around that time is when I have enough workers that managing them
is a pain, and I don't have to worry so much about optimizing the
production of each little city. My core 10 cities are typically
productive giants by this time, at any rate.

However, the general automate command (A) seems to give them the
following priorities: a) connect us to any resource or luxury
within our borders, b) improve any of our cities you can get to,
c) railroad every land tile within our borders. The pathfinding
and queuing seems somewhat broken with this kind of automation. Then
again, I had well over 100 French slave units on the move. I won't
be doing that again - the time taken and the inefficiency bogged my
game down considerably... but I love those Industrious workers!


Resource denial:

Heh, this was an area the AI excelled at. When the Zulus conned
the Persians into attacking me, the first thing Persia did was
sever my mesopotamian incense-gathering cities from the rest of
my empire, throwing many of my cities into unrest. It works well
the other way around, too. If you can deny an enemy essential
luxuries, it can be more crippling than denying strategic
resources. I was able to precede my aforementioned attack on
France by severing her wine and incense supplies - that threw
most of her empire into disorder. Joan eventually regained control
of her cities, but at what cost? Either she burned quite a bit
of cash generating the requisite improvements, or she made some
specialists. Either way, her productive capacity was significantly
reduced, and she never recovered. While she struggled to contain
rebellion, I swept into her heartland and smashed her standing
army. Since she was unable to field troops, and since her
outlying cities took advantage of the unrest to defect to my
side, there was little she could do to prevent France's demotion
to the level of a third-rate power. This is the power of Civ3's resource system - it is now
possible to attack all of the cities in an entire empire at once in a way that I
haven't seen since the days of Civ2 and later-version Civ, where
taking an enemy's capital could split his empire.

[Velociryx]

::nodding:: Cool...I have no idea where I got the number 13 from where armies are concerned...wishful thinking? LOL Well, three it is then! And thanks for the info!

Gat! Howdy, and an *excellent* post! Your insights are especially interesting to me in light of the fact that, while I've been *itching* to play on a huge/16 map, I've not yet done so.

D'oh! And in looking back over the thread, I saw that I missed responding to a comment regarding the SMAX guide!

I figured I'd correct that here and now, with a link to said guide....

Vel's SMAX Guide

-V.

[hoyatables]

Wow, undoubtedly the best thread for Strategy.

Gat: I was about to suggest the same thing - I find I also have those "downtimes" when there aren't any improvements and it is hightime to just crank out military. For some reason, I have little luck with ancient wars - by the time I actually find iron or horses and get connected to it, it's usually too late to get a real easy kill.

I have two periods that seem to work well for some down and dirty fights - my "late Republic" stage, just after I get nationalism and cavalry but before I switch to democracy, and my "post-Industrial" stage, which really isn't post-Industrial, but just after I get factories and hospitals built and a decent rail network up. Usually around/just after Replacable Parts, so i can upgrade to infantry.

In the "Late Republic" stage, I take advantage of Cavalry, cannon, and Riflemen to colonize and capture key luxury resources. By this point you can really explore the whole map, and easily aid your forces with bombarding Frigates and Cannon. And if you are lucky, you can keep the war going just long enough till the discovery of coal, which allows you to make sure you've got your own supply.

In the "post-Industrial" stage, it's again a great opportunity to ugrade quickly and nab resources. This time you'll be looking for rubber and oil. And also be looking to secure your continent if possible before everyone else starts really using naval and air attacks.

The one problem is the lack of leaders. It would be GREAT to get a leader early on: this way I could build my first army, get a quick win, and get the heroic epic for more leaders to rush those wonders. By the time you get around to Nationalism, many Wonders are already built. But if not, winning some victories and advancing to leader (easiest to do with Cavalry or retreating units because they'll retreat) will jumpstart this process just in time for the Military Academy - again, more armies and this way, you can use your leaders exclusively for rushing wonders.

Maybe it's just because in my games, I've found myself always at a loss for resources. If I prepare myself to fight a war when I get the necessary advance, I figure I will at least be ready and not lose an additional 10-20 turns waiting to assemble a decent attack force. I find myself too weak and focused on development in the ancient game to fight a decent war for resources; I usually trade. Perhaps if I picked someone other than the French, British, or Americans this would work.

By the way, anyone else notice that, just as in real history, the 'classic' civs - Babylon, Persia, Greece, etc - do much better in the earlier years, while the 'moderns' - America, Britain - do better later on? It's certainly trying to skew it this way when you look at when the Unique Units pop up in the time line.

[Gatamelata]

Hi, Vel. The 16 civ games are great fun, and being a history buff, I do enjoy the 'real world' maps. But 16 civ games on huge maps take a long time. Based on what I've read of your experiences, I'm interested in playing a regular size random world with 8 civs. Sometimes I don't have an opportunity for early conquest on the huge earth map, depending on where I start. The India start location, for example, is pretty isolated.

I'll be interested to read what you think about the 16 civ huge map experience. I'm certainly eager to try the game at your parameters and compare my experiences to what you've learned.

[Velociryx]

Still got time for a post or two before I gotta head home and clean my apartment! No Civ tonight....errr...at least not till I mop, etc. ::sigh::

Damn...I need a maid and a secretary so I can focus on the REALLLLLY important stuff!

Anyway, I'm glad you are enjoying the thread! We've gotten an *amazing* number of page views on this one, so that tells me that we're doing something right! And we even got a surprise visit by Soren! WhoooHoooo!

I like you're approach, btw....I'll admit that I've never tried large scale warfare in what is your "Late Republic" era....at that point in the game, it just seems like everything is becoming obsolete so fast that I'm usually reluctant to build much in the way of units, preferring to simply wait a bit more for tanks...lol. Lazy, I know....::

In my game starts, I find myself (quite realistically, IMO) with at least a surplus in one or two strategic/luxury items, and this enables me to trade for what I'm missing (one game it was horses and iron! UGH...and another it was oil!)...but...If you have attractive products (my favorite game was when I was able to found a city near FIVE gem deposits! TALK about the AI falling all over themselves to be my friend there!), you can barter for what you need.

The thing I admire MOST about the game is that the use of resources make the KINDS of warfare and diplomatic arrangements we see in this game something that you simply could not have done in the previous. In my mind's eye, it makes it more *real,* you know?

I mean, I'll admit it, I've actually gone to war over coal when nations refused to trade with me! And I'd have to look at the luxury chart re: marketplace happiness effects, but if I needed ONE MORE permanant supply of some luxury item to get another nation-wide happiness boost, I could see myself going to war over that as well! From a purely game mechanics standpoint, it's worth it!

Gat: Best of luck in the Normal/8 game. Having survived sixteen howling banshees, you'll prolly see it as a bit of a step down, but I have to admit that it really was a lot of fun! (and btw, I'm a big fan of history too!)

*****

Okay, since I've been reading a lot of the threads over in the general section, it's got me thinking about something.

In the broadest sense of the word, you can break gamers down into two camps. You've got your scientific gamers and your romantic gamers.

Scientific gamers are all about the numbers. They want to know what the specific attack and defense numbers are and WHY. They want to change them if they don't suit (see the NUMEROUS threads in the general section re: combat). These guys are all about realism. Unfortunately, they'll probably find Civ3 not much to their liking. The reason for that is that Civ is not a wargame in the classic sense (certainly not in the sense of Panzer Blitz or Wester Theater). The kinds of detail in combat they're looking for are staples of the wargame genre, but have NEVER been implemented with great success in 4x games.

Why?

Mostly, because 4x games MUST, by their definition abstract combat in order to devote time to what the game is really about....that is, growing an empire!

Romantic gamers exist at the other end of the spectrum....they're the ones who see past the abstracted combat at what's going on behind the scenes. They're the ones who recognize that it's not "really" a spearman that just beat that tank, but an "ill-equipped partisan rebel" who somehow....somehow carried the day.

History is full of wildly romantic tales like that, and they tend to be our favorite stories.

From Thermopalye to the Russian withdrawl of Afghanistan, it sticks in our minds BIG TIME when the underdog pulls one out on the big dog.

And, IMO, since the game we're now playing represents the whole sweep of history, it's important that the combat system leave room for events like this.

Frustrating as it is when it happens to me, that's what history is all about....

-=Vel=-

[Gatamelata]

We seem to see eye-to-eye on most things, hoyatables.

Yes, cavalry are excellent units. Knights and cav are the tanks of their time. Good offense, decent defense, excellent mobility, withdrawal, and the zone of control (for cavalry) make them very powerful all-around units. Really, the cavalry aren't obsolete until you get modern armor. I find the 2-movement of tanks to be very slow, and I usually hang on to whatever elite cavalry I have until I get the Abrams units. The 3 move points make cavalry an excellent fast reaction team. Furthermore, riflemen make an excellent complement to cavalry.

I haven't yet had any strategic resource shortage issues. The huge map of earth seems to dole them out pretty liberally.

I also regret the lack of leaders in the early game, which is another reason I want to try to play on a 'regular' size map. Early contact allows early warfare, and the real trick seems to be getting the first leader. My first always forms an army so that I can crank out the epic and the academy. Subsequent leaders always wind up rushing wonders or SS improvements.

I haven't played any modern civs yet. I have mostly been focusing on the Babylonians because I enjoy cultural warfare.

I just started a huge map 16-civ game as the Zulus. I started in India, hoping for early warfare, but I had to go all the way to North Africa to find the Americans.

I posted about one of my Babylonian games on the stories forum, then started reading some of the other stories. Whoops, I saw some polished stuff, made me feel silly for posting my ramblings without working it over once or twice. But I also discovered the concept of a succession game (in Gaius Marius' excellent thread there). I'd be very interested in playing one of those at some point, even if only because it would provide some great insight into different playstyles. I need to wait until work eases up on my schedule some in a couple of weeks, but it sounds like a pretty fun concept.

Vel, interesting analysis of gamers. I came up with a similar justification when I lost a tank to a pikeman. I figure that, no matter how much farther advanced a civilization is, nor how despotic, technology can't be kept within borders forever. Eventually the obsolete stuff will start to leak out. How hard would it be for a gun-runner to get WWII weaponry today? Not hard. And for a full-fledged nation? Probably even easier. So those spearmen have probably been handed a limited amount of satchel charges or grenades or whatever, given some supplementary training, and told something similar to what the Red Army was told during WWII: "Each soldier must kill ten enemy soldiers, or one enemy tank." It's neither impossible nor unthinkable, and I think expecting that a spearman unit would only use spears when better weaponry is available on the black (or grey) market is possibly less realistic than guys with spears taking out a tank.

[hoyatables]

Real quick, because I now have to do all the work today that I should have been doing all week instead of reading message boards voraciously:

Last night, started yet another game with the Americans, this time on an archipelago. I hate them, but I wanted to see how the dynamic worked and how long it would take to get past the ancient era with minimal contact with other Civs. Anyway, as I secured my continent and moved over to the next island, I found a lot of barbarians. Horsemen all over the place. At least three or four encampments. And my Swordsmen quickly because Elite...I imagine it would have only been a matter of time before a leader emerged...except: Can you get a leader from a barbarian win, or must it be through battles with another Civ?

Oh, and I take back my earlier admonishment of ancient warfare. Because I had iron and horses from the get go, I was able to build some Swordsmen and chariots to help conquer the Romans before they got legions. Unfortunately, I wasted a lot of Archers before I figured this out. It really does all hinge on getting those crucial units/techs/resources at the right time, and before anyone else - at least before your neighbor.

And finally, my starting island was RICH with resources. Tons of incense (probably 8 of them) and also gems (5 of them). Even had horses and iron. I'd say it was 'average sized' - large enough to support about 12 cities spaced moderately apart; nevertheless, I definitely had more luck here than in the past.

[Velociryx]

Hey bud! And that sounds like a truly OUTSTANDING starting place! Dayum! Trade goods for days!!!!

I'm only working half a day today, so this will prolly be my only real strat. post, but here's a refinement of something I've been working on.

Considering problems with corruption (and not counting a fledgling civ taken out in the ancient era), it's probably only a good idea to totally absorb one rival civ during the coruse of the game. More than that, and the corruption will eat you alive! Besides....having absorbed (maybe) one civ in the ancient era and another sometime later should put you in a position of clear dominance (not to mention any cities you gain via cultural conquest or skirmishes for resoruces).

So...if you're ready to take out that "one big civ" but you're not happy with the idea of slogging through the nasty terrain, try this....it's worked like a charm for me....

1) Contact said Civ and trade luxury items and cash for a Right of Passage agreement, giving you access to his roads/rails (already have your army en route by the way...and preferably just off the coast!)

2) Land your troops and use his own rail system to position your forces exactly where you want them.

3) When you're ready, launch the attack! With enough force, you can take the Civ out in a single turn, or at least grab all his key cities and cut the roads and rails to them to prevent a swift counterstrike.



-=Vel=-

[Gatamelata]

I played some more of my game as the Zulus on huge, 16 civs, where I started in India. India is a fantastic start location. It's not isolated, but you can drop a city right away and start exploiting a cow square. Just to your north is another city site benefiting from a cow. South is a grassland/wheat tile, and also northwest is another good city site with grassland/wheat, IIRC.

So I spread like crazy. By 500 BC, six civs had signed protection pacts against me, and I was fending off agression from all sides. I managed to send a swarm of 4 Impi out to harrass and discourage. After several turns of their tender mercies, I managed to net an Aztec city and peace from four of the six aggressors. Now I have only the Americans (N. Africa) and the French (Korea) after me, and I suspect that Paris, with its food-stuffed pyramids, will soon be merely another Zulu annex.

I made some early mistakes in this game. I completely spaced rush building until about 700 BC. Man, that hurt, especially with four fast-growing cities. I did expand like crazy, however, extending north of the Himalayas into the Gobi Desert (incense), west almost to the Tigris and Euphrates, and east to the Pacific. I also didn't realize the power of the Impi until pretty late. What can I say? I've been working insane hours lately, so by the time I get to play some Civ3, I am often playing on autopilot and not optimizing. I also put most of my workers on auto-improve this city. I've never automated ancient workers before, and I don't think I will again. They mined cow and wheat tiles instead of irrigating, which was not too cool.

I've been thinking quite a bit about Golden Ages, and what is the best time to get one. On one hand, it seems that an early Golden Age is best, because giving your early cities a productive boost means that they will reach their productive potential earlier in the game. It's a concept I have yet to apply a name to, and I haven't thought hard enough about it to articulate it well, but it's something like compound interest... the more shields you can get early on, the faster your city will mature.

Then again, a Golden Age that comes later in the game, when your cities are larger and are working more tiles, means a larger overall shield boost, so perhaps later is better. Personally, I am leaning more toward the early Golden Ages, mainly because I think the proportional boost is the same no matter the age. I can say that when my Impi triggered a Golden Age, I ripped out some serious early infrastructure (temple, barracks, worker) in most of my cities within that 20 year period, and it was a vital boost. I'd be very interested to read some thoughts from you guys about early vs. late Golden Ages.

[BelGarion]

I haven't heard a lot of people post about the Aztecs so I just wanted to put in a quick plug for them here.

This relates to modern vs ancient warfare. What I've found is creating a large base of land and cities in the early game is better for my style of play than starting small and trying to expand later.

The special unit of the Aztecs is the Jaguar warriors and they ROCK for the first few hundred years. They are the same as regular warriors but they get two movement. This can make a big different in the very early game where they act as excellent explorers and fighting units. They'll also retreat in combat too so they last longer than regular units.

In my last game I was the Aztecs and I shared a continent with the Iroquois to the north and the Americans to the south. I build about 8 Jaguars and 2 cannons and took over the Americans while they were still producing spearman. I built the Forbidden Palace in their former capitol city and suddenly I went from being behind from focusing on war so quickly to being in the lead. With the Aztec religious advantage I pumped out temples and my culture picked up a few more Iroquois and English cities. From there I consolidated my base, made friends with everyone and built like hell. I picked up most of the industrial wonders and all the modern wonders. I never joined a mutual protection pack and every 10 turns I would call everyone up and offer them 10 gold as a gift. They never got above polite but I never had another war and my culture and production rocked!!!!

I could have won with the united nations around 1930's but decided to win the space race in 1960's.
In the latest game I started I'm playing the French and they start soooo slow!! Now I really appreciate the Jaguar warriors. It's good building a road every two turns but I'm crammed into a smaller space and my neighbors (English and German) are flat out mean. Oh well, time to adjust the playing style.

[Hastus]

Originally posted by Gatamelata


I've never automated ancient workers before, and I don't think I will again. They mined cow and wheat tiles instead of irrigating, which was not too cool.

Thats the way I usally do it myself. Under Despotism I usally just irrigate maybe plains,and build mines on grasslands,cows,wheat etc.. Cities that I can not reach with irrigation I just put mines up all around. And later on when the city reach a population of six I just arrange it so it got zero growth and maxium production.
Then when I discover enginering I replace some of the mines with forest. Putting up mines early on will help production alot, and if you ever wonder why the computer have that super production at the start its becouse he does the same thing.

[Rosacrux]

So...if you're ready to take out that "one big civ" but you're not happy with the idea of slogging through the nasty terrain, try this....it's worked like a charm for me....

1) Contact said Civ and trade luxury items and cash for a Right of Passage agreement, giving you access to his roads/rails (already have your army en route by the way...and preferably just off the coast!)

2) Land your troops and use his own rail system to position your forces exactly where you want them.

3) When you're ready, launch the attack! With enough force, you can take the Civ out in a single turn, or at least grab all his key cities and cut the roads and rails to them to prevent a swift counterstrike.

-=Vel=-

Great Great strategy Vel. Fantastic. I am using it to wipe out Ze Germans in my game... but I learned how to use it the hard way: The Persians have used it on me in the previous game

Actually, I needed their help to take out the Bleeding Romans and fend off some English aggresivenes, so I signed the RoP pact and soon I found my empire full of literally dozens of immortals, archers and pikemen (later on, just before war, a dozen or so of Cavalry units also showed up).

Can you say swarming? When we finished with the Romans (I got 3/4 of their cities and Persia the rest) I had more than 50 Persian units on my ground. In a while (since they were standing on tiles I wanted to improve further) I told them politely to get the heck out of there... and I found myself overwhelmed by a sudden attack! They took 7 of my cities (one-unit defended - damned, the Persian were "gracious" FCS!) in one turn and carried on doing the "roll-over" thing to me... I should have known better, right?

Next time, though, I did the same to Bismarck... and I enjoyed every minute of it

[Lohrax]

Howdy all,

I am a romantic Civver at heart (good term Vel). But being a Unix admin also makes me interested in the 'how' and 'why' in addition to the 'cool' and 'Overseer! Lash that slave until he dies!' aspects of Despotic rule... There's nothing more satisfying than sending a worker to a far-off city and force-building a barracks to build More Military UNITS to further Oppress my Petty, Insignificant Worms into extending My GLORIOUS RULE over others.... ah... uh... sorry... kind of lost it there.

I too have noticed the AI's love of engaging in seemingly eternally-reinforced battles against well-fortified mountaintops. Having seen the behavior first-hand myself and reading about it here, I lost some of my currently-insufficient amount of sleep pondering the possibilities. What I came up with fit the hypothesis, could be way off the mark, but I think it's a worthy place to start.

I wonder if it assigns different tiles a 'target' value based on what's contained in them? For example, a mountain w/ fortress and 4 fortified Musketeer (E/E/V/V). You, the player, have placed a very high tactical/strategic value on that tile - why shouldn't the AI? Your own value is based on what you have built/garrisoned there - why shouldn't the AI?

To start, let's talk about garrisons. Perhaps the AI does a quick calculation to determine the human player's garrison valuation of the tile; that calculation being based on the human player having 'U' units of defensive value 'D' ('D' being the sum total of all defensive modifiers cased by tile type, structure locations, etc.) located in tile 'M'. The aggregate defensive value is (U * D). Factor in hit points (using some coded variable) and you have a single number, let's call that 'Kenny'. The AI assigns this value as 'human player tactical unit value of the tile'.

Now, the targeting routine. How does the AI target where to attack? I would say you could break this down into two parts - human tactical value and AI tactical value. The AI looks at what improvements have been built in the tile (cities, fortresses, mines, etc.) and assigns that a value - call it 'HT' - 'human player tactical tile-based value'. The AI uses it's own complex formula taking surrounding terrain into consideration and expansion goals, force levels, etc. and assigns that to 'AT' - 'AI tactical tile-based value' (for example, a one-tile chokepoint with a mountain dividing two chunks of a large continent is going to have one h**l of a high AT value). So, the AI ends up with two basic variables:

HT - the human tactical value (extrapolated from the effort the human player expended developing the tile)
AT- the self-generated strategic importance of the tile

The targeting routine would really only care about HT and AT - what is the tile really worth. The targeting routine may/may not look at K - based on my own and other's observations either situation is as likely: a) yes, it looks at it and increases the HT of the tile based on a K-based modifier thereby making the tile a more attractive target and b) no, it doesn't look at it and therefore blindly passes the targeting information to the force estimation routine - in effect ordering the force estimation routine to take the target (but not necessarily at all costs). Based on my (and other's observations), I can't really hazard a guess as to the behavior - anybody out there want to venture some ideas?Including the K value and attempting to extrapolate the human player's willingness to defend the tile using a small database populated by a serious of HT+AT+Kenny measued over time would be cool though...

Next, the force estimation routine. It looks at Kenny and determines how much military it must send out to kill Kenny. It SHOULD look at Kenny and determine how many hit points it needs to inflict in one turn and send exactly that (or more, depending on a coded aggressiveness variable). Unfortunately, I think the force estimation routine is broken. It SHOULD build units and station them somewhere for a one-time assault as that minimizes the rest and recovery of hit points for Kenny - ensuring that Kenny dies in one turn. Humans concentrate forces at the point of attack. I've seen the AI do it and I've seen the AI not do it and try the everlasting trickle approach. This is what leads me to believe that something is broken/needs tweakage there...

The targeting routine has run and assigned target tile priorities. It has passed these tile priorities to the force estimation routine, which has calculated the force required to take the target. The production routine builds the units and the movement routine moves them in for the attack. So now the big question that I don't have an answer for and has been keeping me up at night:

Does the AI simply not know that multiple units are stacked and think that K is much smaller than it is? In my situation, the fortress was right on the border, and there were several AI units within visual range...

Thanks for your time, and I look forward to some good old-fashioned idea exchange!

-Lohrax

"I love the smell of perfume in the morning."

[mambo4]

I've been trying to follow Vel's advice and get into an early warrior,settler, warrior,settler, repeat bui8lding pattern. But the city I seems to always grow too slowly, and i end up waiting for size 3 to come so I can build my settler. Add to that the fact that at size 3 i get disorder... how can I maximize my production to insure that I make settlers more efficiently/quickly?

[Jack_www]

I dont know about any of you guys but when you talking about your invading forces they seem a bit too small to me. When I invade the AI go in with at least 20 moble units or more. In my current game I have 34 calvery units, and I use every single one of them when attacking. I like to blitz in and take as many cities as I can in the first turn of the invasion. In my game I am the Americans and the French are on one of my broaders. I attacked them and took 6 cities in one turn, did not even need to do a RoP agreement etheir. I always like to land an invasion force that is much larger than the one I am attacking. The key to my sucess in my millitary actions is to take as many cities as can in the shortest period of time, not 2 or 3 a turn(which I did orginally) but 6 or 7 a turn I find is much better. I also attack civs that are weeker than me, thus helps me become more powerfull.

In my game I am also been trading techs with the computer. As a result I am earning 1200 gold/turn and I have the tax rate set at 0%. This allows me to instanously upgrade my units when new one become avaible.

In the early part of my game I ran out of room fast to expand my empire, so I had to use my army to take cities form my weakest neighbor. I find this very efective in expanding your empire early in the game, I never able to keep up with the computer's expansion any other way.

[Jack_www]

I have been able to find a way to get cities form the computer through deplomicy. A had a couple of open spots in my empire, and the computer decided that it was going to plant a city right there. Some of you will try to wait for your culture to assimulate the city and others would start a war and take it, and others who dont feel like going to war will just let the city be.

Well I was able to find a way to get the city form the AI through peacefull means. To do this you must have something that the AI will want though. What you do is you contact the civ that the city belongs too. Then click on the acitve button so that you can get the active agrements that you have with the civ up. Then if you are able to click on the peace treaty. It seems that the AI is more willing to sell you cities when you are renogiating a peace treaty then when your are not. This way you can buy the city form him for a tech or two and a lump sum of gold. Although you have to becarefull, because when the AI is mad at you they will demand something form you when you are trying to do this to renew the peace treaty. I did this sucessfully a couple of times in my game and was even able to buy a city form the AI that had horses in it. Up to that time I had to trade with the Greeks to get horses, but now I have my own supply of horses, which really helps if you goto war alot.

[vmxa1]

Fisrt I love this thread, second I finally won.
Now I just had to say something to Vel about the partisan rebel. I for one would never complain if the rare rebel won a battle, it is that the rebel wins way to often to buy. Afgan lost a about a million people to russians, so the rebel did win here and there, but lost 9x% of the time. I seems to me the regular hoplite beats the vet riflemen and calv on even terrain most of the time (in my experience), even elite troops lost at times to lower level units.
I agree the AI has a very good tactical understanding and I applaud them.
Trade is not so good, AI is alway mad if you do not offer more than you get, even if you are number one ranked. Even after beating one civ twice in war, they want more than they give? They will offer maps and want maps/tech and xxx dollars? I do not even want their maps. Often I would get personal and declare war for that crap.
I hate the horses going in circles in some cities, plese stop them.

[Arrian]

Definitely a good thread - I like comparing my way vs. some of the others. Frankly, I've been playing practically NONSTOP since the game came out (man, I need to get more sleep) and yet I've only played 3 civs thus far - so people's ideas about some of those I haven't played and strategies I have yet to try are great. The game takes me much longer than CIV II - I played that game like I was on speed or something - I could play out an entire game on a small or maybe even medium map in one night.

Anyway, regarding the AI throwing units at musketeers in a fortress on a mountain... I haven't seen anything like that. Quite the contrary. The AI, in my games, seems to know if it has no chance at winning a given battle, and does not attempt it. Instead, it will try to flank me and capture my workers or break my roads. The worker capture thing I think I've mentioned before - Soren, if you're listening, it's a major AI weakness. In CIV II, losing a settler or engineer sucked, because it died and you had to build another. Now, you can just recapture them while you're mopping up. I end up with so many captured workers, I use every last one of "mine" to add pop to new cities. and have even disbanded large groups to help build a temple - not really efficient, I know, but I was just tired of hitting the spacebar.

Jack - I agree w/your numbers of mobile units. Units get hurt. It happens. You need a bunch in order to keep the initiative. Lose it, and the AI may hurt you.

I have found that building and maintaining a large military (compared to what I did in CIV II - one def. unit per city and a couple of the best offensive unit available at key points) is essential. Not only does having a half-way decent army gain you more respect from other civs, it allows you to ramp up for a war quicker. There are, in fact (as mentioned by Hoyatables), noticeable periods of time when your cities will have built all the improvements they need for a while. Build barracks and start pumping out units - so long as they upgrade. The exception is Cavalry, which does not, but it is useful for a while. If you neglect your military you will probably pay for it. The AI is capable of attacking in force now, so you have to be prepared.

Be not afraid - unit upkeep is $$ now, and so long as you can afford it, the bigger your army, the better. Once you build the intelligency agency, you get to plant spies and see your opponents' order of battle. That, IMHO, is the only really useful thing about spies (at least on Regent level) - but it's very, very nice.

Hoyatables - your "late republic" war description is remarkably similar to several situations I've been in, with one notable exception - I'm democratic by then. Other than that, it just what I've been doing... usually in order to get my grubby paws on coal or rubber. Once the AI gets infantry, Cavalry is no longer a powerful unit. You can still use it, but it requires much more artillery backup, and you may as well wait for tanks. Of course, the one time I actually did use cavalry vs. infantry was to get oil so that I could build the damn tanks. Arg, that got nasty... definitely had a WWI feel to it - artillery banging away, massive attacks to gain tiny bits of territory. I won and all, but it hurt.

Lohrax - love the signature.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

Gat, that is some romatic take on the battles, but it sounds like AI cheating to me. I agree that they may get weapons, who determines that? An afgan witha stingers or greek hoplite with a machine gun, would still distinguishable to you and it is not in the game so don't give them bonuses. All I ask is we have a way to determine if we should or should not attack. It smacks of changing the rules in the middle of the game to me. If you publish a hoplite as 1 3 1 and rifleman as 3 6 1 and we know what the modifiers are, then you can not decide to say he has an usi once we attack. That a hoplite would kill a rifleman some time is fine, but if they have 10 battles, which do you want to be? If no bonus except the rifleman is a vet or an elite, how you like you chances now? In my game the hop won every time unless I was on a hillside. Do you really like the idea that I can not attack even a spearman with a calv unit with certainly unless I am on a hill? If so then you got it.

[Kriton]

I've learned many things by reading this thread. I never played Civ2, but I think I've picked up some good ideas. I've played a few huge maps w/16 civs on emperor. In one game I expanded as fast as possible under the given conditions and I still wasn't as fast as the AI. I even placed a town near the AI border and then backfilled. I kept pace in science along with everyone else, sometimes being ahead. This may have been a detriment because of the money I could've been saving had I been behind a couple of civs in tech because of the tech modifier.

So, I was the smallest of the civs in terms of cities. I eventually got into Democracy and built my FP and corruption was virtually gone. Had I had more cities and been on a smaller map, I assume I'd have more. I had been building railroads when I finally got Nationalim. My grasslands and hills were all mined and RRed. I then switched to mobilized and started building tanks. I was getting a tank every 2/3 turns from every city! When I had enough, I switched to communism and went to war. I took down a civ twice my size. Mobilizing is like a GA for war. It's great!

Now I have a few questions to ask about the game:

1. Is a unit's attack strength modified by the amount of movement it has left? (like Civ1 and CTP)

2. When is the best time for GA? (i.e. should I have settled everywhere first? should I have cities up to size 12?)

3. Does an elite have 'exerience points' which when enough accumulate you get a leader or does he have a % chance every time he wins a battle?

4. Does the AI value techs based on their research cost only?

I have more questions that I forgot. Maybe I should take notes while playing, huh? TIA all!

[Gatamelata]

vmxa1: I'm not suggesting that the hoplite's stats should change. I'm just explaining how it's possible in my mind that a lightly-armed force could conceivably win against modern armor. Tanks aren't all powerful, and can be extremely vulnerable to infantry in an ambush situation. It only takes a couple of guys with rather cheap antitank munitions to ruin a tanker's day.

That written, I think in general you can expect a tank to win against a spearman. But a rifleman against a hoplite? That's a 3:3 matchup, so the rifleman should lose half the time, statistically speaking. But ten times in a row? Did you attack with ten riflemen, or did you reload your game ten times and replay the attack? I am almost certain that the game uses what programmers call a 'seed' to generate combat results; I suspect they did this to prevent the frequent "save the game, attack, reload if you don't like the results" hack.

Kriton: My only claim to knowledge is having played quite a bit and a single reading of the manual, but here goes:
1: No, I don't think movement points affect combat, except in the case of a fast unit withdrawing from battle with a slower one.
2: I've been wondering the same thing. My suspicion is that the best time is early in your game, after you've stopped expanding but before you've started your infrastructure.
3: According to the manual, there is a flat chance per victory that an elite will generate a leader.
4: I believe so, yes.

Hope this helps!

Gatamelata