Picking the right Civ!

[Theseus]

Except for its cultural neighbors, Rome, Persia, and Greece, all of whom also have strong early traits.

[Txurce]

Theseus, in both these games, I faced Greece and Rome, but not Persia. Rome was easy because it takes them longer to build up their UU, given that it requires iron working. I would go at these two civs right away. The Greeks, on the other hand, have a chariot-crusher right from the start. I leave the Greeks for cavalry, since their lack of a powerful ancient offensive unit makes them no problem to hold off, should they get ambitious.

My real point, though, was surprise at my two best early expansions with the Egyptians. I would have thought that the Iroquois would be even better, but I really think that cheap, fast-moving ancient UUs offer the best opportunity to quickly pull away from the AI.

[Theseus]

I totally agree. Good move taking out Rome right away.

Early warmongering rocks, but I am currently having my best (i.e., most dominant) game ever with Japan. The Samurai is on the edge of unbalanced, especially now with multi-attack Armies.

Rel / Mil versus Rel / Ind... both excellent.

[player1]

Originally posted by Txurce
Theseus, in both these games, I faced Greece and Rome, but not Persia. Rome was easy because it takes them longer to build up their UU, given that it requires iron working. I would go at these two civs right away. The Greeks, on the other hand, have a chariot-crusher right from the start. I leave the Greeks for cavalry, since their lack of a powerful ancient offensive unit makes them no problem to hold off, should they get ambitious.

My real point, though, was surprise at my two best early expansions with the Egyptians. I would have thought that the Iroquois would be even better, but I really think that cheap, fast-moving ancient UUs offer the best opportunity to quickly pull away from the AI.

You could take out Greeks if going to Swordsmen mode, and using Chariots for "Pillage to death" strategy.

[notyoueither]

What do you early conquest dudes do if you start no closer than 18 tiles away from the nearest AI capital on a standard map?

[Primus40]

LordAzreal... wow, you've done some thinking on this. Let me put my $.02 in on this and talk about my personal favorite:

Industrious/Scientific (Persians) - The worker rate benefit allows rapid land improvement to increase pop, build roads and get those settlers out to expand. If placement is good and you can build your capitol (or an early city) on the coast and next to fresh water, build the colossus asap and - BAM - you have a high production city that can just keep growing. Next wonder: Pyramids and you can keep those populations rising. More workers/more improvement/more production/more population, more settlers/more cities, more units/more strength... snowball effect. The cheaper science improvements allow you to tech-up and keep pace or pull away from the others. More techs, more stuff... again, snowball effect contributing to the previously mentioned benefits. My Immortals are generally effective against calvary, legionaires, impi... and later I send them off and they can whittle down tanks, mech infantry and modern armor to a point that my similar units wipe them up with ease.

I have great sucess rates at whatever type of victory strategy I want to try for using this civ. But to each his own.

[player1]

Originally posted by Primus40
My Immortals are generally effective against calvary, legionaires, impi...

No, they are NOT effecive against cavalry (horsemen, knights).



But if enemy has no horses:

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Primus40
LordAzreal... wow, you've done some thinking on this. Let me put my $.02 in on this and talk about my personal favorite:

Industrious/Scientific (Persians) - The worker rate benefit allows rapid land improvement to increase pop, build roads and get those settlers out to expand. If placement is good and you can build your capitol (or an early city) on the coast and next to fresh water, build the colossus asap and - BAM - you have a high production city that can just keep growing. Next wonder: Pyramids and you can keep those populations rising. More workers/more improvement/more production/more population, more settlers/more cities, more units/more strength... snowball effect. The cheaper science improvements allow you to tech-up and keep pace or pull away from the others. More techs, more stuff... again, snowball effect contributing to the previously mentioned benefits.

Couldn't have said anything about Scientific/Industrious better myself. Saves me the trouble of saying that in this next instalment...

Commercial/Scientific (Greece) is another decent scientist's combo. Once a far-flung empire is built, with its infrastructure, the commerce from the many roads of the empire is maximized with the reduction of corruption. Cheaper libraries/unis/labs means that a the science bonus from them comes up quicker, thus accelerating the rate at which technologies are discovered.

Expansionist/Scientific (Russia) is yet another decent scientist's combo. The better goody-huts means getting ahead in technology (and since you use scouts that isn't too hard). Once your empire is established, the cheaper science improvements means a quicker way to boost scientific research. This, when done right you can gain the scientific lead right from the start, and maintain it through the ages.

Religious/Industrious (Egypt) I haven't figured much out, but I find that this combo shines the most when you have discovered Democracy. You can maintain your war effort under monarchy/communism and quickly switch to democracy once you've finished your conquests for the moment and want to consolidate your gains, and build infrastructure in your newly acquired lands. And since a democratic industrious civ is immensely fast at doing this, the delay from your world-domination plot won't last as long. Once you've finished with your consolidation and infrastructure, you can immediately switch to a warmongering government and knock out the next enemy.

Militaristic/Industrious (China) Again, this is a consolidation combo. More powerful, higher levelled military can bring enemy territories under your control. Once you've secured the newly acquired region, you can send your workers to build up infrastructure. This can include irrigation, that will ultimately lead to your own nationals breeding into these towns quicker and thus increasing chances of cultural assimilation. Though there's no switching to Democracy to consolidate (unless you're prepared to go through a long period of anarchy), being Industrious still bestows a bonus to the establishment of infrastructure in the occupied territories, and at home.

Still more to come.

[nato]

LordAzreal, I really like the way you consider the civ traits in combination rather than seperately. This makes so much sense since they of course always come in combos, not seperately.

I've thought a lot about civ traits, but I always thought of each one seperately ... good work!

One question I have ... you state several times that expansionist will lead to a larger empire. Do you really find this to be the case? I admit I don't play expansionist civs much, but I never really saw that they were getting more or faster cities than other civs. I just thought they explore and get early techs faster. How many settlers from huts can they really get?

Anyway, cool analysis.

[Txurce]

Player1, swordsmen would be more effective against hoplites, but it would still be a struggle, and one that ties up my infrastructure, as swordsmen take longer to build than WCs. If I don't absolutely have to fight Greece, I'd rather save them for later, and pick on someone else. If I have to - and I have a couple of times - then I do sometimes build a few swordsmen to lead the charge on the bigger cities. But again, I really hate to slow my production rate by building a more expensive unit. "Faster, cheaper" works better for me.

NYE, I'll check later to see how close the nearest capital was to mine in my last game. In the meantime, why do you ask if they're within 18 tiles of each other? From a distance perspective, Egypt obviously can bridge it more quickly with industriously-built roads. But I rarely focus on an enemy capital in my first war, as it's usually too early in the game to have anything to recommend it.

[Arrian]

Theseus,

Enjoying Japan? Good fun, aren't they? I would argue that the Samurai isn't overpowered, though. It's just a knight with +1 defense. Compare that to the MW or Immortal in ancient times, or the Rider in medieval times (imagine a 3-rider army... it could blast right through the standard AI defense of a city - 2 defense/1 attacker all by itself). I think it's fine. Thing is, though, if you did well in the ancient era, you will be on the verge of dominant right around the time you discover chivalry and can upgrade a large number of horsemen to samurai. It's the timing more than anything else.

---------------------

I hate the Greeks. Hoplites? We don't want no steeenking hoplites! My preferred strat is a 2 or 3 to 1 horsemen/swordsmen combo rush for continental domination. This will work on Greece, but you will take higher casualties. I would leave them for Samurai, or even Cavalry.

Rome is easier because all you need to do is cut off their iron. Same with Persia.

Religious/Industrious, by the way, is quite possibly the ultimate builder combo (obviously, the Babs are also a possibility here). The Industriousness of your people allows for a good REX, which is doubly crucial if you're not going to fight for land. Religious is just a great trait, ensuring you start off with better culture than the AI (even religious AI civs are delinquent early on), which will probably gain you a few cities via flipping. You start the game with Masonry, a valueable wonder tech which you can trade (or not). The turns saved by no anarchy, plus the cheap cathedrals are also key. Your terrain will be developed at double speed, and later on your rail net will be done in a blink of your eye. Once you have replaceable parts it gets downright silly.

I've had some really good games as Egypt. My only complaint is that their lack of militarism means less great leader generation, so when I went warmonger, I sacrificed Industrious for Militaristic.

-Arrian

[Primus40]

quote:Originally posted by Primus40
My Immortals are generally effective against calvary, legionaires, impi...

Originally posted by player1
No, they are NOT effective against cavalry (horsemen, knights).

You are right, I stand corrected... my gawd, what was I thinking about?
But I still stand by my Immortals!

(and on the right ground they can be moderately effective against horsemen - in my games at least)

[Txurce]

Arrian, I agree with your analysis of the samurai, and have one more personal caveat to add: how long does the age of chivalry last? In most of my games, I catch up to the AI at around this time, having demanded their tech to avoid further ruin from whichever ancient-era UU I am wielding. And then I usually notice that - if I can switch to republic economically and crank up the science - military tradition isn't very far away. As a result, I usually wait for cavalry, given that it has a bigger edge at first against defenders than knights do against pikemen. Even if I didn't wait, though, I wouldn't have enough time to make much use of chivalry-era units.

Egypt is a terrific builder civ. In my 1410 domination game I stayed pretty much in monarchy, and built only a couple of libraries; it was war, war, war until the end - no one reached infantry, including me. But I picked up the same game at 70BC and played space race, with the results that you describe. Even though Egypt lacks Babylon's science advantage, their fast building seems to make up for it, and I am now on my way to a launch in the early 1700s, which should nip my own record, held by the Babs.

You're right about the lack of GLs, of course - I had none in either of these games, and had to build the FP. On the other hand, it didn't matter.

[Arrian]

Txurce,

With regard to the age of chivalry, it all depends on the layout of the map. If I start on a continent with three other civs, I can usually crush them in ancient times... maybe with the last one getting feudalism and even putting out a couple of pikes, but generally I'm building by the early middle ages. I avoid chivalry and continue to build horsemen here and there, so that I can have a large force to upgrade whenever I need it. With three AI civs destroyed, tech slows down. Then again, if all four remaining AI's have contact with each other, I probably won't have much of a window of opportunity to use my Samurai. If one or two of the AI's are stuck on islands and can't make contact until astronomy or navigation, you're all set. Seek and destroy!

You are correct about Cav vs. Musket being a better deal than Sam vs. Pike. However, I always worry about the AI getting to nationalism, which results in Cav vs. Rifle. If I can destroy another AI civ with Samurai without hurting my building, I will do it.

I've had a rough streak lately where I've been getting 5 or even 6 civ continents with the Romans and Greeks on them. Blah. It slows me down, and the large # of civs in contact with each other speeds the tech such that I manage to conquer two, maybe three, before feudalism. I'll still win, eventually, but it's just not nearly as fun. I'm going for total domination of the AI, so getting bogged down is unacceptable.

I want a China/India/France romp. Those are quick 'n easy.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Arrian, you raise a good point regarding civ variables, especially as they affect the tech rate. Interestingly, both my domination games were on six-civ continents - I probably wouldn't have bothered, if I thought I'd need to mount a major overseas invasion! How does a large number of civs on your continent slow you down?

In my first game, I saved Greece and Rome for cavalry (Rome was far away); in my second, Rome was crippled right after France. In the latter game, I kept both these civs alive until late in the game, as it seemed more efficient to move on, once they were rendered irrelevant. (Another advantage of this is that the more civs, the more likely the AI is to fight among themselves.) In effect, I used a "tall poppy" strategy, where I would attack the most threatening civ as soon as I was ready, reduce it to second-rate status, then switch targets. As I began my final push toward domination, it was easy to wipe these out quickly with cavalry, as most were back to using spearmen.

(I also build settlers at the close of a domination game, to fill up those bare spots on the map. I think the land masses are designed so that - if starting on a very large continent - you don't need to invade a second continent to win. In both my games, I eked out the required land area by filling in the dots with settlers, and taking just enough of the scattered islands.)

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by nato
LordAzreal, I really like the way you consider the civ traits in combination rather than seperately. This makes so much sense since they of course always come in combos, not seperately.

I've thought a lot about civ traits, but I always thought of each one seperately ... good work!

One question I have ... you state several times that expansionist will lead to a larger empire. Do you really find this to be the case? I admit I don't play expansionist civs much, but I never really saw that they were getting more or faster cities than other civs. I just thought they explore and get early techs faster. How many settlers from huts can they really get?

Anyway, cool analysis.

Expansionist is supposed to lead to a larger empire. This is because firstly, you're more likely to come across settlers in goody huts. Secondly, you can build granaries right away, doubling the rate of population growth. The faster population growth means that you can build more settlers quicker.

I've found that when the AI uses expansionist civs, they expand beyond their defensive capability (especially the Americans), and that makes them easier to wipe out (even if it does take longer). The only exception to this is the Zulu, who build more military than settlers, being militaristic, and at full aggression and programmed to pump out offensive land units.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Txurce
Arrian, you raise a good point regarding civ variables, especially as they affect the tech rate. Interestingly, both my domination games were on six-civ continents - I probably wouldn't have bothered, if I thought I'd need to mount a major overseas invasion! How does a large number of civs on your continent slow you down?

Keep in mind that our goals are slightly different. I want my wars over by the start of the middle ages, at which point I want total control of my continent, with at the very most 1 city left of a rival that I can destroy at will. Which I will do. See, part of what I want to do is eliminate everyone who knows what a demented, psychotic, meglomaniacal warmongerer I was in ancient times. Thus, when I meet the rest of the gang, I have a shot at decent trade relations (at least for a while ).

What slows me down? I guess I should say that more AI's on the continent speed them up, rather than slowing me down. Tech goes faster, meaning I have less time before the dawn of the middle ages (my preferred time to switch over to "builder" style... and, oh yeah, when pikemen show up). Basically, I have only once pulled off the conquest of a 5-civ continent in ancient times... and to be honest, the last four or five cities were taken by Samurai. Three AI's is more doable, but geography can still screw you.

I had a great start last night on a 6-civ continent. I popped a settler from a hut, I had horses, I had iron, I had luxuries... I hemmed in Persia. They were target #1. They went down with barely a whimper. Next up, however, was China. They were kind far away. Killing China was easy too. No leaders yet, hardly any promotions (did they tweak something? I've been having bad luck with leaders since 1.21). Next up: Babylon. By this time, I'm a LOOOONG way from home. I took heavy casualties for some reason. In an attempt to sustain momentum, I rush-bought (I was a Monarchy at this point) barracks in two captured Bab towns, and rush-bought warriors every other turn until my workers caught up and connected them to my road net. Then, *poof* 8 swordsmen. Unfortunately, the Babs were of course in a golden age (lots of units to deal with) and I hit a bad run of luck. Basically, my attack ran out of steam. I had taken the Bab core cities, leaving them permanently crippled. HOWEVER, India was untouched, Zululand and Aztec land (both islands) had made contact, the middle ages had arrived, and I got zero leaders. FP would have to be built. Ouch. I saved it as "winning ugly." Translation: I can win that game... probably fairly comfortably, but I don't really want to. My objectives were not achieved.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Arrian -

I've never taken out three civs in ancient times - that is quite a rampage! I appreciate the evil behind your desire to have no other civs know just how many skeletons are buried in your continent. I've never figured out why other civs suddenly dislike you in this game, other than that you're kicking butt. Does it affect your trade relations?

I know what you mean about a game losing its zest when you fail to reach your objectives. Mine boil down to winning asap in either domination or space-race mode. The one game I played differently - limiting myself to less than 20 cities - was a space-race game, naturally, but setting records was impossible. It was more of a constant challenge, and probably the most fun I've had with Civ3.

I think I'm going to try the Chinese, given that the rider's offensive edge parallels that of cavalry. Edit: Well, maybe... I was thinking that riders were 5s, not 4s.

[Arrian]

Txurce,

One of the reasons I favor horsemen over swordsmen (one of the many) is their speed. A horde of horsemen can overrun several civs pretty quickly, depending on how early you launch your attack.

Last night I started a new game, and had some nice core production cities which allowed me to launch my attack good 'n early (I think 600bc or so). I hit France with 26 horsemen. Left them with a tundra town and proceeded onward to England, which allied with their neighbor, India, against me. By this point I had more horsemen and 5 or 6 swordsmen with me. I left England with 1 city and wiped India out. Then I wheeled north, and destroyed China... after which I finished off England and France.

I managed to get four leaders (Pyramids, Forbidden Palace, Great Library, Sistine). My golden age was triggered at peace, in republic, with two core areas up and running (triggered by building Sun Tzu + Sistine). My land area is over 100k sq. miles, and I don't have any outposts off-continent. Domination on a standard/normal is roughly 130k sq. miles. Yeesh. I gotta be careful when I go luxury huntin' later.

I am now cruising toward the Industrial Age with a comfortable tech lead on the other civs (whom I've just met): Germany, Rome and a beaten-up Russia (the mean nasty Bismarck man appears to have had his way with Cathy).

Relations with those civs are normal. They range from polite to annoyed (Rome polite, Germany cautious, Russia annoyed), but that's due to my power, not past actions. They don't know I did anything bad. If they had met any of the civs I had attacked before I'd managed to kill them off, every single one of 'em would be furious. I know from experience

Unfortunately, they have gunpowder. So 4 of my 6 caravels loaded with Samurai did an about-face to await the Cavalry upgrade. Then I think Rome is gonna die. No one will trade me luxuries (I offered Bismarck a 5 for 1 trade and my trade advisor told me that he "doubt they will accept this proposal" at which point I executed my advisor). I have 5 luxuries now, Sistine, Bach, 10% luxuries running. I want two more... and Rome has furs and gems. Therefore, they die. Sorry, Caesar.

-Arrian

p.s. It just occurred to me that, in this particular game, I blew right past the "age of chivalry" we were talking about before. I had taken so much land early on that it has taken me forever to properly develop it all (just about done with that now, three techs from the Industrial Age). Plus, the other civs were across a deep ocean (something like 8 squares of ocean between continents at the closest), so fighting pre-navigation wasn't gonna happen. At that point, why not just wait for Cav?

[Txurce]

Arrian,
It's interesting to learn how your Mongol horde lays waste to an ancient-era continent. I've never had more than 15 UUs when I've begun my first war, because I count on reinforcements to steadily swell my ranks, and fear running into too many enemy UUs if I wait too long. But I can see that if I were to build up 25+ offensive units by 600BC, I could wipe out a civ almost overnight, and arguably conclude the conquest of my continent sooner than I would have with my earlier start (and fewer invaders). There is NO argiung with the spoils that you gained from these continental wars, or the time frame in which you gained them. (And yes, you highlighted my point about the relative value of chivalric units, given their frequently short lifespan; if not playing domination, I also tend to use this period not to fight, but to build infrastructure.)

Now for my questions: were you going for a domination win? (I think the square mileage required is between 130-135k.) I would guess not, because your samurai could have won it for you, albeit with some losses, by taking on the Russians. So what are your goals with regard to the other continent, and the game in general? Are you going to space? If you are, there's still no arguing with the results of your current game, since the militaristic trait helped you get more GLs (even without a UU), and religious is so valuable a trait as to rate as over-powered in my book, far more than any UU!

My last question has to do with 10% luxuries, which I know you do to stay in WLTKD. What are the specific benefits of this? They seem fuzzy to me in Civ3.

[Arrian]

Txurce,

Ah, strategy discussion. Great for a friday afternoon.

The truth is that my strategy doesn't work all the time... or even most of the time - where "working" requires the conquest of a continent and AT LEAST 1 leader. In this particular game, I got lucky in a number of ways:

My capitol had 2 game and several s. grassland. My #2 city had 2 cows, some s. grassland. City #3 had a cow and lots of s. grassland. #4 had s. grassland, #5 had a cow, though it was kinda squeezed inbetween a city of mine and Paris. After that, the terrain deteriorated (floodplain/desert north, jungle west, ocean east... and my southern border bumped right up into Paris' radius). These nice core cities allowed me to produce a lot of units for my initial attack, and then to continue to pump out reinforcements.

The second reason things worked out well was the fact that my weakest foe was right freakin' next to me. The first city I attacked was Paris. The English and Indians were on a subcontinent (connected by a 2-tile wide strip) east of France. China was due north of me. None of these opponents were prohibitively far from my core. Reinforcements could arrive at a decent rate.

I'm not really playing for domination, no. I could end the game pretty easily, yes. But I don't want to end it yet. I went into a massive infrastructure building phase that is just now being completed. I am producing more Samurai now (I think I have only about 30-35 available). Essentially, before I allow the game to end, I want local access to at least 7 luxuries and I want to be able to trade for the other. I want a fully industrialized society. And I'd kinda like to try and beat my 5950 score.

WLTKD reduces shield waste. For instance, a formerly Chinese city - size 10 - with a courthouse was producing 1 shield. I rushed a cathedral, it hit WLTKD and jumped to 4. It's still badly corrupt, but I can actually have it at least partially build something before rushing it. Also, happy people = score. And I just kinda like having happy people.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Arrian,

Okay, so you did get lucky with so many fast-growth cities. In any case, I assume that you would have used a similar core number (5-6) to build your army - it just would have taken you longer. If so, this varies from my usual strategy, which is to pump out settlers until there's no room to expand peacefully, and only then start building an army. (The exception is those permanent size-2 cities.) Let me know if this is the case, as I'd like to try something different.

I didn't realize that you were playing for a specific score (with additional specific parameters). This would make some of our strategies different. Staying in WLTKD when running a super-civ sounds like 10% well spent, although since all I usually care about is the tech rate, a fast comparison with the slider would answer whether it's worth it for me.

[Arrian]

Txurce,

Yeah, I cap my expansion before all the land is used up (usually... sometimes you just start off boxed in). Continuing to build settlers really slows down my military buildup, and that's a killer. I don't mind if the AI beats me to a peripheral city site in 800bc, because I'm gonna take it anyway. By the way, what do you mean by "permanent size 2 cities?" Just bad city sites - poor terrain?

I'm not actually playing for a specific score, I just generally like trying to get higher and higher ones. I continued to play a bit this weekend, and I am now literally 1 city away from domination (129k land area). I crushed Rome, razing 9 cities, rebuilding two, getting two leaders (ToE, army) and making peace (even got a tech - nationalism - out of it). This gained me furs and gems. I only lack spices, and I was able to wrangle them from Russia (for six luxuries + communism). It's about 1400AD, my hospitals and police stations are coming online (factories done, hoover done). I'm considering just ending it... or trying to milk it. The milking, however, will be difficult. I've racked up 48k culture already.

As for luxury spending, I find that running 10% luxuries doesn't slow down tech at all. It does cut into profits, and there were times were I ran deficits in order to get a tech in 4 turns, but I can't recall ever waiting more than 5 turns for a tech since my golden age.

-Arrian

[Txurce]

Arrian,

Great game. I've noticed in my current game that running 10% luxury doesn't do any damage, either. I've also realized that getting GLs is easily the biggest wild card in the game, and depending on your goals, potentially the deciding factor. I am playing the Iroquois, and going for domination. I started on a land mass with islands that I shared with three other civs. I wipedout the last island city at just past 1000 AD, which gave me 100k square miles. This last victory - I now have no contact with any other civs - gave me my first GL! That means I've been operating without an FP throughout. (Even if I'd started building one in the appropriate place centuries earlier, it would barely have been finished.) The effect of that on my tech rate means I'll likely not achieve my goal, which is a domination victory earlier thyan 1400.

When I say "Pop 2" cities, I mean those that are built on terrain lacking grass or irrigation. There's usually at least one of those in the rings surrounding my capital. I don't get around to building harbors or bringing in irrigation until after my expansion wars are over. So I just build a barracks and have them pump out units. With mines, they're perfectly adequate for this task at this stage in the game.

[Arrian]

See, now that's why I don't really like the Iroquois. As powerful as the Mounted Warrior is, you just aren't going to generate leaders. It's all about probabilities, and the militaristic civs have the edge because they get more promotions to elite. And it's all about leaders. The Iroquois can conquer vast territory quickly, due to the power of the Mounted Warrior. You will find, however, that that territory will be often be corrupt and wonderless.

Ok, yeah, I know those size two "spearman cities" as I think of them. Build a barracks and just build spearmen until I can get irrigation over there. I'm always short on spearmen (to defend my captured cities) because I concentrate on the attack force.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Txurce,

sorry for jumping into your dialog , but your game has a lot parallels to my game described in the changes-in-1.21f thread. Also Iroquois, also alone on a continent, also 10% luxuries (in a 2-luxury-republic), and also leaderless wars. I took a big effort in a free palace jump, remember I told you about building lots of workers. In fact, it was about 100 or even more. Half of them got readded to the cities after the jump (and after they improved my terrain very quick). It seems to be the only way to get the best out of this situation. Now, after 1.21, the free palace jump is even easier, because you can disband a city at will, no need to adjust a settler production just to the right moment. Just disband your capital, when all your cities are size 3- and the target city is size 6+. Done. I never failed with that method.

Arrian,

you have a point with your description of the Iroquois, about big conquered, but wonderless territory. I'm just playing around with the Japanese. It's great to see horses from the beginning, and being militaristic helps in early conquests as well as leader generation, and no need to talk about the benefits of being religious, but playing on larger maps I really badly miss those scouts. I tried to replace them with chariots, but they often have to leave vast jungle and mountain areas undiscovered. Still don't know how to handle this.

[Arrian]

SirRalph,

It's true, on large or huge maps the expansionist ability of the Iroquois shines, and does make them more alluring. Then again, the first civ I beat on usually gets to survive with one city in exchange for their tech, gold (not much) and world map. Since the AI trades maps like crazy, this usually means I have a map of my whole continent.

The dynamics of conquest on a large map are a bit different, I think. On standard maps, conquest of a continent will provide roughly 1/2 of the game's resources and luxuries. On a large map, either the portion will be smaller, or you will be up against 6+ civs on your continent. Yikes.

On larger maps, China might be better than Japan. Industrious will boost expansion/development, and the Rider has a speed bonus. Also, the Zulu may be the way to go on larger maps. Just imagine those horseman/impi stacks. And why haven't I tried either of these civs? Oh, the agony of not being religious. Actually having to build temples & cathedrals at full price... enduring several turns of anarchy... the horror!

-Arrian

[Txurce]

I finished my Iroquois domination game, with some interesting results. My score was 5673, which is my second highest, despite finishing in 1530 - the slowest of my three domination games. The reason for the discrepancy? I didn't win until I had 160k square miles. I had thought the trigger ws automatically in the low 130s, but I guess not.

I reached the traditional winning point around 1450, not too far from my best of 1410. (It helped that my cavalry only ran into five riflemen.) Given that I had to do more sailing than in the 1410 game, and that I researched military tradition before astronomy and magnetism, I think I could have been around my best with easier circumstances and better planning. The point I'm making is that getting only one GL... and that in 1030... didn't hurt all that much. The notable advantage of the MWs made up for it. (I did pick up a lot of wonders, including the Great Library.) If you're going for domination asap, building the FP is probably the only essential build for which you need a GL. On the other hand, playing for "absolute power" like Arrian would make the absence of GLs more problematic.

I've only played on standard maps, so can't comment knowledgeably on Sir Ralph's scouting problem, but may I suggest my old favorites the Aztecs? They're militaristic/religious, and the JW doubles as a scout. They do get their GA early, as do all ancient civs, but that's where I find it most useful, since it's where you win the game. Sir Ralph, I'm still playing on 1.17 (until the Macs get 1.21), so what do you think of Arrian's "let the AI build my cities" approach to early expansion, versus your "build workers for a bounce" approach?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Txurce
I'm still playing on 1.17 (until the Macs get 1.21), so what do you think of Arrian's "let the AI build my cities" approach to early expansion, versus your "build workers for a bounce" approach?

I think it's a matter of map size.

If you choose larger maps and a less than standard number of civs, for instance huge/9 civs, you will have plenty room to build a huge empire, before your borders meet another civilization. I often have in the second half of the first millennium AD still unsettled territory. Early wars are a pain on these maps, because the civs are far away each from other. Hence, no leader. In this case, an early jump is an absolute necessity, or your empire will be half productive for a big time. As soon as I get the FP message, I look up the map, try to figure where P/FP should be located, and start build the FP in the "focus" nearer to my capital. Then I make sure I found a good city on a nice river/lake spot with grassland near the other focus. When the FP about to be built, I switch the production in the 4+ cities to workers (don't forget the FP city!), pump a few of them in the new capital city (making it 6+). As soon as all other cities are size 3-, I disband my capital and it's done. Simple, effective and no leader needed.

On standard/8 civs maps (Arrian's setting), you get boxed in fairly soon in the BC's, and Arrians approach is very effective. You'll get a leader for the FP in the early conquests, so no need for the free jump.

PS (EDIT): Txurce, this 1.21 thing I had overlooked... well you still can't disband a city at will, but have to build a settler while the city is size 2 with food deficit. It's not simple to adjust this to the right moment (no size 4+ cities except the one and only), but possible.

[Harovan]

By the way, Arrian+Txurce, thanks for your suggestions. I already played the Zulus and know they kick butt in larger map warmongering games. Scouts+Impis+Horsemen are an awesome mix. But I think I'll give the Aztecs a try too, as soon as I get a source of at least 100 city names (preferably even more, or I will have to name my cities Chocolatl1, 2, 3... etc. ). Only the early golden age I don't like much...

Since I prefer huge/9 civ maps now, I think the best civ for this map type are the Americans. Expansionist is a must on larger maps, and no need to talk about the benefits of industious. Plus - no early golden age, better to make a wonder driven GA in the right moment.

And when it comes the next time to a game on Marla's, the Russians will be mine. Dang, no Euros will found cities in MY Siberia!