Winning Early: What do YOU do?

[sabrewolf]

wierd... both suicidal decisions of the AI. 1 MA can take down 2-3 infantry, then 1 turn to recover if you have MPs left, shift 'em to a barracked city... strange that it doesn't evaluate i properly (allthough this should have been fixed in 1.29f ?!?)

i've only once played a huge map and gave up after the medieval age (couldn't afford using 20 mins/turn).. maybe that makes the units-strength-evaluation different (you can't move new units up to the front so fast, so geographical allocation of the units might be part of the decision... i guess only soren@firaxis can answer this

[Gen.Dragolen]

Lord Merciless,

I have been following that threat with great interest.

I will be making a play tonight to bring down the Aztecs and then the Zulus through use of alliances with the only other super power, the Chinese. If the remaining Romans and Iroquios haven't finished each other off, I just may get them into it too.

It's a good thing we don't work for our governements, the way we change allies and warmonger.


D.

[Theseus]

Typically, almost no matter what civ I play, I make sure to get Bronze Working, The Wheel, and Iron Working out of the way, ASAP.

Sometimes though, applyin' the ole grey matter is better than just plowing on ahead.

I started a game as France, with cultural linking on.

My start position had a goody hut next to it... when you build a city next to one, it automatically "opens" it, with no chance of it being a barb.

So, lucky me, some damn tribe has taught me Ceremonial Burial!!

Ah, but hang on a minute...

France starts with Alphabet and Masonry.
England starts with Alphabet and Pottery.
Russia starts with Pottery and Bronze Working.
Germany starts with Warrior Code and Bronze Working.

So I know I'll be able to get Pottery and Bronze Working pretty easily... and Warrior Code should be doable too.

I could go for The Wheel, but so can everybody else.

The best thing to go for in this situation is a tech that NO ONE else can research... this will put you in the driver's seat.

In this case, Mysticism or Mathematics... I think Mathematics will be valued higher by the AI civs.

Gaining a tech lead, in any given BRANCH, is great for the early game.

[Theseus]

At some point, you may see reference to the 1337 game.

I've been looking at it again, and have one thing to say:

DO NOT let Greek towns hit 7 pop!!

In the early era, think about what your opponents might become if left unchecked...

[Arrian]

Theseus,

Early tech research:

Like you, I like to get BW, IW and the Wheel out of the way. If not religious, I will detour for CB. As Egypt, I've tried the Monarchy beeline, with mixed results... very successful last game, since a late ancient era GA as a Monarchy with a perfectly placed FP is pretty powerful.

When I used to play a "builder" style, though, I did it differently: I beelined straight for literature. I like using Egypt for this, because they start with masonry & CB, which means you can build your temples and start on the pyramids when you wish, which is simply a prebuild for the GL. Tech rate can be low, as all you need is to get to literature before somebody finishes the pyramids (or gets to literature before you). Then, you catch up in tech while pushing hard for the HG (I assume the Colossus... unless an AI has a coastal capitol, you can nab that pretty easily) for your GA.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

(Sorry, this is just a bump. Again)

[planetfall]

Reread this long, long thread and still have 2 questions:

1. Military alliances
Ok so you declare war. Is there a reputation hit if you don't attack? If so, what is the minimum needed to not take a hit. Bombard one tile, take out one unit, what?


2. Vel's specialist cities
settler farms from high pop growth cities.
worker farms from medium growth cities,
whatever from other cities.

How do we differentiate high pop growth, from medium pop growth from low growth cities? Is it just the number of turns to growth, or the number of turns in relationship to city size.? What is the magic formula?

3. Ideal ratio of workers to cities in ancient era?

It seems like I always need 2 workers for military road building and then about 1/city;but a rough guide would be to have near end of ancient era about 1 worker/city.

Does this sound like the right ratio? Or have I been playing with too many or too few workers?

Thanks

--PF

[Arrian]

Planetfall,

1) Not that I'm aware of. You don't actually have to fight. It's making peace with the enemy when the alliance is still active that kills your rep.

2) Hmm. I don't really use "specialist cities" per se. I think part of it is that on a standard map, in the early going, you just don't have that many cities. Your high growth cities are your high production cities. They tend to do all of the work, as you slowly get the periphery up to speed. I would say a high growth city is one with 2 food specials (wheat/cows). The key is for the city to be able to build a settler and then bounce back to at least size 3 before it completes the next one.

3) Obviously this depends on whether or not you are industrious. As an industrious civ, I typically build 1 worker in each new city I build early on. If not industrious, I will need more. I will also buy as many workers as I can from the AI. By the late ancient age I will also have a fistful of slaves.

-Arrian

[planetfall]

Arrian,

Thanks, forgot ratio of native workers depends on civ playing. I've only played Rome and Germany. Granted once slaves are available, I generally keep my native down to 5-10 units, or less, depending on slave ability. It is so funny to have 0 native workers and see the city manager always trying to create a new worker.

In an earlier post you were tired and started to make some distinction between ultra-early GL and early GL. I didn't understand why the attempted distinction? Were you trying to decide if utilization of GL would be different if first GL appears at
1. before 1200bc
2. 1200bc - 10ad
3. after 10ad

I haven't seen any value in different uses for GL yet. Mine are always used for: A, [the first], army, and then B [subsequent], quickly obtainable GW.

Strange programming for alliances. I only noticed this in last game where had a military alliance vs Russia who was a long way away. Over 1/2 of my required war years had past before I could get any unit within striking distance. So I started to wonder.

Thus, if you are far away from a foreign civ, and are not a Republic or Demo, there does not seem any disadvange in making alliances and being drug into a distant war. Advantage is WW may force them out of Rep/Demo to lower
government. Let's see which is better my Monarchy vs AI communism. Hey guys who needs a MPP vs AI?

BTW, that was a great idea, no military units in capital in early game. I want to check out how your idea of using luxuries works. A few more frontline/second line troops is never a bad idea.

-- PF

[Arrian]

What I meant by an "ultra" early GL is a GL generated before you have enough cities to have the option of building a FP. If you use the GL then, you will either build an army or one of the very early wonders (Pyramids, Oracle, Colossus - though I think using it on either or the second two is a waste of a leader).

I generated one such GL in my recent Egyptian game (I discussed it in the Palace/FP thread in the strategy forum). I couldn't build the FP yet, but I did have a perfect spot for it (captured London). So I held it and rushed the FP in 690BC. It was more than worth it.

Since you play only Rome and Germany, I understand why you would use your first GL on an army every time. Games played with militaristic civs should involve lots of war, which means many leaders. The investment of one GL for the HE is therefore worthwhile.

Thus, if you are far away from a foreign civ, and are not a Republic or Demo, there does not seem any disadvange in making alliances and being drug into a distant war. Advantage is WW may force them out of Rep/Demo to lower government.

The only disadvantage is that the civ you end up at war with will hate you. Other than that, yeah, it makes perfect sense. If you join a war in progress, you will be able to get tech/money/resources in exchange for your services. Ain't life grand?

BTW, that was a great idea, no military units in capital in early game. I want to check out how your idea of using luxuries works. A few more frontline/second line troops is never a bad idea.

What idea was that?

-Arrian

[Theseus]

planetfall,

Regarding war and reputation, here are some of the factors that I believe to be true:

DECLARING WAR

* If you actually declare war (end a peace treaty that is not during a 20-turn agreement, e.g., all of your INITIAL peace treaties ) before striking the first blow, your rep is clean.

* Declaring war via refusing to leave another civ's territory damages your rep (and vice versa for the AI civs that refuse to leave your terrritory, and declare war).

* Your rep is also clean, under all circumstances, until you strike the first blow (which includes capturing workers and settlers, and pillaging) in your enemy's territory. Attacking (or defending) against their units on your territory is OK, and in fact, later in the game, will put some of your cities into WLTKD. BTW, not sure of the mechanism regarding naval attacks.

ALLIANCES

* If you never have a battle (or pillage / bombard) with an alliance enemy, and / or you make peace with said enemy prior to the expiration of the 20-turn agreement, your rep suffers.

OTHER

* Your rep suffers if you keep slave workers hanging around, whether bought or captured... the AI civs want you to either disband them or join them to your own towns / cities (or sell / gift them, I guess). Arrian's idea about buying and joining slaves EARLY is a masterpiece.

[Arrian]

ALLIANCES
* If you never have a battle (or pillage / bombard) with an alliance enemy, your rep suffers.

Oh, really? I never knew that. I've also never done that... when I fight, I FIGHT.

Arrian's idea about buying and joining slaves EARLY is a masterpiece.

Why thank you All I did, though, was refine the basic idea of buying workers (I think it was Vel that explained how powerful that could be) based upon the relatively new info that having slaves pissed off the civ you got them from. I will sometimes still use them instead of adding them to cities (if I'm industrious), because I intend to fight anyway, and a lot of times it's good when the AI picks a fight with me... it forces me to get moving. I tend to wait too long sometimes... building the ultimate fighting machine when a few well-positioned swordsmen can serious hamper and/or damage a civ while I proceed normally.

Just be aware that if you get into a war with civ whose workers you have added to your cities, you will have WW-like issues ("stop the aggression vs. our mother country!").

If you are fighting a civ more to harass them than to conquer them, and are preparing to make peace, I would suggest moving a unit within 2 tiles of their capitol. Any workers nearby will withdraw into the city, and then you can demand them as part of the peace treaty.

-Arrian
a very bad man

[Theseus]

Nice one!

So, remembering this is for new players (yeah right, they just read through 5 pages of this stuff):

If not attacking the capitol, send a detachment of one good defender (Spearmen, Hoplite, or Legion) along a chain of mountains / hills to threaten the capitol from within 2 tiles. Make sure to demand any Workers when negotiating peace.

[Lord Merciless]

BUMP. This is a too good thread to be missed.

[lateralis]

correct me if im wrong, but it was my understanding that captured workers suffer from two things:
1. if industrious, they do not work as fast as your industrious workers, they work just like a normal worker.
2. any other improvements (ie commercial 150% after some tech or government i forget which) do not follow those workers. ex. you are a normal (non industrious) civ. captured workers work the same as yours. you move to industrial age (or whatever age brings a worker boost) the captured slaves still work at the lower rate while native workers increase in productivity.

is this right? i read it somewhere and immediatly changed my whole mode of play, i desband or join ALL captured workers at my earliest convenience.

lateralis

[Catt]

Captured workers (slaves) work half as fast as your native workers, whether you are industrious or not. Any benefit that a technology (Replaceable Parts) or a government (Democracy) brings to your civ also brings the improvement to your slaves - so they will always work at 50% of the speed as your native workers.

Catt

[Theseus]

lateralis, remember though:

1) Slave workers are free.

2) But keeping them (versus joining, disbanding, or selling) makes their parent civ not like you.

Best use I've seen: Arrian has been using them to pump up early cities.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by lateralis
is this right? i read it somewhere and immediatly changed my whole mode of play, i desband or join ALL captured workers at my earliest convenience.

Well, one advantage of the slaves is that they are... well, slaves. You pay no upkeep for them. But I mostly do what you do, joining them to my cities. I do my best to keep the total number of workers down... and my own people do the fastest job...

[Panag]

hi ,

slaves are only good for two things , ....

one ; to join a city
two ; to be sold as a slave to an other civ

have a nice day

[sabrewolf]

i keep the slaves i'm at war with... and send them to improve the newly "acquired" territory, so if there's a counterattack, i'd only lose those.

if the slaves belong to an extinct civ, i'll keep them (havn't noticed any change in attitude from the enemy), but if they belong to an ally, i'll trade it to him (the workers cost 1 upkeep each)

[Ethelred]

but if they belong to an ally, i'll trade it to him (the workers cost 1 upkeep each)

No they don't. Your own workers do. The captured workers do not have any upkeep.

Why do you think we call them slaves instead of captured workers? They don't get paid.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Ethelred


No they don't. Your own workers do. The captured workers do not have any upkeep.

Why do you think we call them slaves instead of captured workers? They don't get paid.

no, sorry, you understood it wrong:
if i trade the worker to his home nation: that nation will have to pay 1 gold upkeep. for the same reason i disband weak units...

[Ethelred]

OK.

However that saves the loss of a pop point to create a replacement. The good thing about giving them their own workers back is that it improves their attitude towards you. I give them back to allie myself when I actually notice that I have one of their workers.

Doesn't come up all that often though.

[candybo]

Fantastic stuff! Regarding slaves: Is it advantageous to offer slaves of one AI to another? Besides anything you may get as trade, are there any reputation impacts? Thx...

[Theseus]

I don;t think so.

Again, tho', I think a better use is to join them to culturally 'safe' towns / cities.

[vmxa1]

I may have it wrong, but I understood that the workers that you captured do create an irritant towards that civ. IOW, if you keep their workers as slave they don't like it. I tend to 1) join 2) disband 3) sell 4) use for a while. Early in the game 2 shields per worker can get something finished sooner. Even at industrial trait (mine)they are too slow until Replacement Parts.

[Ethelred]

I tend to 1) join 2) disband 3) sell 4) use for a while

1) join

That will be OK with the Workers civ. It will at least not cause deterioration of relations with them. They are supposed to actualy like it if you do that.

2) disband

Bad choice. The AI does not like that one at all. I don't know if its worse then keeping them but they don't like it.

3) sell

I don't know on this one. If you sell them back to their parent civ I think its probably OK. Think of it as covering your expenses.

4) use for a while

Well that is what annoys the parent Civ. Maybe not as much as disbanding.

Someone Firaxis posted on this. They don't like their workers held. They like them returned, presumably giving them is better than selling them back. They don't like them disbanded. They do like them joined to your city. I guess they just forget about them in that case.

[Panag]

hi ,

if you let them join your civ , and "distribute" them all over your empire , after a while they have identity cards of your civ , .....

have a nice day

[Wormwood]

If you give/sell say, persian slaves to the babylonians, do they get pissed at you or the babs?

[candybo]

Originally posted by Wormwood
If you give/sell say, persian slaves to the babylonians, do they get pissed at you or the babs?

Thanks WW, once again you have crystalized my thoughts most elegantly. Or, at least, that's what I meant to say...