The paradox of playing too well

squid · November 6, 2001, 23:57

played a game on chieftain and own half the map. Excellent culture. My capital of Babylon has nearly every wonder known to man and every city has every improvement. The year is 1997, and i'm only in the industrial age.

Why?

I think I'm doing too well. As my enemies are still building Pikeman and are stupid as bricks, I can't really learn from trading tech with them. I have to research everything on my own.

Has anyone else been able to research into the modern era (say, jet fighters) with Chieftain or is there some requirement now to trade and ensure that (as hard as it may seem) that your enemy is prosperous?

DaXX · November 7, 2001, 00:24

why are you playing on chieftan??? kick it up a few notches and you'll find the game a bit more challenging

Roulette · November 7, 2001, 02:32

Nah. No such thing as doing too well. I played through on chief just to get a feel the first time. I stomped them bad (big shock I know...) I had stealth when they were running with knights. It's easy to do that. You can advance. You may hyave to do all your own research, but it's not THAT hard. I normally lead the tech anyway.

diamon · November 7, 2001, 06:25

I had something similar... In most games I'm leading or near-leader in Tech fields, as was the case in my last game (fifth attempt, 1 through 4 all wiped me since I did civ2 tactics.

), but I got steam power in 1980, and advanced flight in 2017. I gave up on my hopes for a spaceship win by 2050. Somehow they were mostly scoring better than me as well.

Quite annoying.

Most research was completing in 4 to 6 turns, and my manufacturing support was pretty impressive in my core cities (inner ring/capitol). I'll try kicking up the difficulty a notch and trying again...

I had enough problems surviving at chieftain, so I'll just have to hope for the best...

I heard something about tech needing more research on larger boards, and I was playing on a large (not huge) board... Maybe that's it? I hope not, I like large playing fields... I keep playing afterwards and seeing where things go after the "official" scoring is over...

Any case, my $.02

vincentz · November 7, 2001, 06:58

Actually I am in the 1920s and have recently invented Flight. And I actually got fed up of expanding and just focused on keeping my cities fully improved. I have 25-size cities, that may help a little. Also I have a 3.7.0 tax system, maybe you should spend more on research.

Dev · November 7, 2001, 07:02

odd, playing my first game (Regent) I've expanded as fast as possible and have 5 very nice cities (close to eachother and each with 1->3 good resources) and still the AI is ahead in both research and expansion and the damn babylonians just snatched 2 good city spots I had in mind from me (both my settlers were 2 tiles away when the AI created the cities).

Looks good so far is all I can say.

/Dev

YahMon · November 7, 2001, 11:28

I haven't had a problem with Tech. I'm playing on Regent level on a standard map. I've been the leader or near-leader for most of the game (especially now since I have Newton's and SETI Wonders in the same city) I missed out on all ancient era wonders and ran into a problem with the Indians to the south going culture heavy so I started rush building libraries and universities since I was a scientific civ since they are half price and still give you culture points. I've traded a few techs for luxuries I needed but it was always non-military once like ecology. The year is 1900 and I've almost completed the spaceship. I've been in a democracy as soon as I researched it-- which caused a serious problem when I had to fight ww1 and ww2 with one ally against the rest of the world. Actually, I had two of my nuclear plants blow up in my cities due to civil unrest!!! halves the population and surrounds it with pollution. I think the trick it to trade techs with your friends so that they can keep up with you and give you some of the other techs advanes... however, once i sell a tech advance to one civ, I quickly also sell it to the other civs since the computer will do that anyhow.

kmj · November 7, 2001, 11:33

I just finished a cheiftan game, where I was ahead throughout, gained maybe two early advances through trading and found one... I definitely was well into the modern age before 2000, but I was still behind "reality", having space flight at about 2000 and fission at about 2018.

Garth Vader · November 7, 2001, 15:58

I am playing my first game on Warlord and am working on flight in 1816. I built Copernicus observatory and newtons college in my capitol. I also switched to Republic and then to democracy fairly quickly. Although I noticed Democracy didn't seem much better.

treedom · November 7, 2001, 19:47

I played on Chieftain in my first game and won by way of a space race in 1991. The AI was never far behind in techs, but they never had any I didn't have, except the optional ones I didn't bother with.

SofaKing · November 7, 2001, 19:56

I have noticed that when I negotiate with the other civs, I don't have the option of giving away my most advanced techs. For that matter, when the othe civs ask for tech it is usually an age behind me. Is it possible that in order to get a tech from another civ, you have to know the prerequisites? I don't recall that being the case in civ2, but I could be mistaken.

Scary Penguin · November 7, 2001, 21:03

All other things being equal, you will certainly get less tech if you conquer neighboring continents instead of trading with them.

First, you are diverting some productive capacity to build an army, and probably more productive capacity to rush build improvements in your second continent.

Second, 1 civ with 20 cities spread out over two continents is going to see a lot more corruption than 2 civs with 10 cities each, each on their own continent. That means you'll be producing only slightly more than 1/2 as many beakers than you and your former neighbor would be producing otherwise.

Still, you should be able to run the tech tree on chieftan. I suspect you're not spending enough shields on tech improvements, not allocating enough annual income to tech, and/or didn't build roads in all your productive squares early enough.

Madine · November 7, 2001, 22:03

Right now I'm playing as the Zulus in chieftain. It's the 1880s, I've just finished flight and I'm working on motorized transportation. I've built almost every wonder. My total culture is around 45000, and my culture in my capitol is over 10000. I'm in a Republic and my spending is 3 6 1.

I'm getting techs every 4 turns, which I think is as fast as allowed by the game.

Right now I'm about to launch a trans-oceanic invasion with Infantry because most of my cities have produced all possible improvements

I got off to a fast start in tech by popping goodie huts. The Zulus are Expansionist so I got a scout plus the hut bonus.

Sofaking is right, you have to have the prerequistes in order to get a tech from other civs.

Atragon · November 7, 2001, 23:15

The problem with it is the insane war weariness, my main cities (size 28 monsters) were going into civil disorder after 1 or 2 turns at war! I was forced to send in my elite armour, capture a city or two, then contact the egyptions and tell them that I'd over extended...kinda low, but it works.

Leonid · November 7, 2001, 23:33

Dev there is a good way to help turn back the expansion and deal with the babalonians when they get your good city cites.

..... it's called WAR

Mwahahahaaaa !!! may they all perish before my mighty samuari on the field of battle!

Xard · November 8, 2001, 00:16

I'm playing a Warlord level game, huge map and 16 players.

First off: It's crazy. Good lord, do some of the computer players have a ton of cities. Of course, corruption doesn't seem to bug them, so...

Anyways.

I'm playing as the Persians (sci++) and so far am doing rather well. I rushed pretty early to get Monarchy, and I have been keeping with that gov't since I got it. I find it does the best as far as being both militarily and culturally good. As soon as I get it, I may try to change to Communism, but we'll see how that works out. I may even try one of those silly Popular Sovereignty governments, but I doubt it.

Current year is about 1750 or so, and I'm researching Electronics (hydro dam, save me yet). I should be in the modern era halfway through the 1800's, if a bit closer to 1900.

I'm more or less the standard Perfectionist player. I have about ALL my cities fully built up, and only those which are in crappy spots or recently acquired not having all the improvements. Civ III semi tripped me up in that you really have to expand a lot to win the game, more so than in the past games. This one is hardcore about having lots and lots of space.

As for wonders: I've kept all my wonders pretty diversified, and no city has more than 2, I don't believe. I don't have the observatory, but I do have Newton's college, but single cities don't produce enough beakers to be actual huge boons to researching stuff.

Also, it's important to note that I have traded techs when possible, and I think that that can greatly help you speed your research in an area if you missed going down that branch of the tree.

Just my two cents, I've lost track of where I was going.

ICMB · November 8, 2001, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by squid
Has anyone else been able to research into the modern era (say, jet fighters) with Chieftain or is there some requirement now to trade and ensure that (as hard as it may seem) that your enemy is prosperous?

Hmm..

My first game of Civ3 on Chieftan, learning the new system, I had a Diplomacy victory in 1920 and went on to space flight in the mid-50s.

My second game, I had a pure space race victory in the late 1900s.

The third game, in Warlord, I barely beat another civ to space in 2020 or so. (With no wars, or even tech trading.)

I'm surprised to hear of some of the problems on the board. My personal strategy is pretty simple, usually. I spend the first part of the game expanding as the computers do. Ever notice the computer users have tiny cities for a long time? It's because they pump out the settlers and workers. Then, I get to upping my culture with temples and such as soon as possible. This expands my borderline nicely. I overfill the map, putting more cities than I could, as I always get into the entertainer/taxman/scientist which don't do much for me.

I research tech as fast as I can, wait to build an army for as long as I feel I can get away with it. Having the tech advantage is a major advantage in war, and although there are some obvious mismatches, I don't have as big a problem with the combat as others do. (perhaps because I've been playing on lower levels.)

When I get a new wonder available to me, I usually put my most productive city to work on it. (after the expansion phase). I actually concentrate on governments, usually going directly to Monarchy and then direct to Republic, and then filling in. I find that the early tech disadvantage is reversed when you get Republic early. Just pay attention to how many Civs demand Republic from you.

Then it's build, build, build, as I add every improvement I can, go as high as I can with science, and build up a force sizable enough to dissuade my opponents from attacking. Meanwhile, I overpay my buddy civs, and get them to do my dirty work by running interference.

In short, my strategy is to play as a wuss...quite a change from my "Mongol Horde" strategy of Civ1.

- ICMB