Ok, should I have taken out the persians to the north first?

wvfoos · October 4, 2002, 01:58

I'm playing as the greeks, on large map, 2nd easiest level, whatever that is. I'm on the end of the pangea, with just the persians to the north, the romans to the south, and the other civs beyond the romans. Should I have taken out the persians first? Currently, I'm in an alliance with the zulus and the persians against rome. I've basically just let the persians go through my territory to get to the romans, and havnt really had much contact with the zulus (they are coming from the other side of the romans).

The reason I didn't take out the persians first, was because after I made contact with them, got their maps etc, I noticed they didn't really have much in the way of resources, except for like one wine. As i'm not trying to be a war monger, I didn't really feel like gearing up for war, when I was busy trying to build the pyramids and the GL. Should I have let them hang around this long?

bongo · October 4, 2002, 07:11

Haven't looked at your save but I always prefer to have my back clear. More than anything it's a matter about your style of play. I'm a sociopathic warmongerer and prefer to take out my neighbours one at a time. Which one i go after It's just a matter of timing, kill them before they try to kill you, or become so powerful that it is impossible. Teaming up with others to take out a powerful enemy is smart, going after the romans now is probably a good thing. Expand into roman territory and try to keep the persians as your friends, you never know when the zulus get tired of kicking romans and go after you instead.

bbaws · October 5, 2002, 12:34

I'd have gone for one of the enemies beyond the Romans first; nice alliance with the Romans and the Persians against this early enemy. Rome gives you a buffer and the war draws strength from Persia. With any luck at all, Persia's hordes of immortals will all be on the other side of Rome when it comes time to march on the infidels.

vmxa1 · October 5, 2002, 15:25

Given that you do not want to war monger, and are not really strong enough to conquer Persia, I would say you are doing the correct thing now. Research looks good, cities are basically fine, but need more workers to get all roads done. I am against making any units without a barracks after warrirors, why give up that HP. I would not make Knights in a city that will take more than 6 or 7 turns, certainly not twenty plus. I would not have sent the knight all the way out to Rome. It will not be able to capture, let alone hold that city and if it kills any defenders that will only help the other civs take the city. I would get some of those knights to Cumae and take it down. I may sit on my hands at that point until I can grab the next city, no aid for anyone. Sneak in for the last defender if you get the chance. I would then work on getting Persia crippled. Culture flips or war. If I go to war with them I want to do it while they have all those immortals spread out in the open where my knights can take advatnage of the retreat. I want to eliminate all cities in my empires range to get a solid empire with no interloping cities. Eventually eliminate persia.

Knightblade pDM · October 5, 2002, 15:37

As a devoted Persia player now, I realize the true power of the Immortals. As vmxa said, wait until they're spread out. I've used Immortals to cripple cavalry, so if you plan on attacking them, just use strategy and don't just rush in.

In most of my non-Persian games, I try to keep them on my good side, especially if they're next door to me. Whether by RoP/MPP, or just giving them gifts every so often. But, that won't stop them from sneak attacking you if they want something bad enough, like Iron or Oil.

I was never able to out culture Persia, even with the border cities. War, whether short lived or drawn out, is the only answer to keeping them small and backwards in tech

Theseus · October 5, 2002, 21:07

Persia...

If there's a possiblity that they be a threat up through Gunpowder, you'd better whack, and hard, ASAP.

"NO IRON, NO IRON" is the ancient equivalent of NO NUKES.

Even then, I very often find Persia to be a strong mid-game opponent, and even sometimes one of the final contenders.

All in all, an AI civ I'd like to neutralize earlier than later.

vmxa1 · October 5, 2002, 23:48

Yes I will torch Persia or Rome if they are my next door civ, before they can bring the UU into it. If they are far away they are not much as the UU will be bogus later, just a bunch of dead wood.

wvfoos · October 6, 2002, 02:30

I was able to flip several of the persian cities. I'm up to railroads/democracy, persia is still struggling a bit. So I've got them afraid of me, and they aren't bugging me.

The barracks thing? I bet on sun tzu's and got it. I don't like making barracks early if I'm not playing "kill em all." Seems like its a waste, or that you have to really watch those one or two cities with them, and make sure they are always making military units. I like a bit more freedom with my queues.

The reason I went for rome, was it was sort of in that bottleneck/chockepoint. I figured if i could hold there, I could keep that land bridge all mine.

I eventually got all those cities between rome and my territory by culture flips. Persia took a few, and they then flipped to me. I think one flipped from the romans, right after I took rome.

Me, the zulus, and the persians eradicated the virus that was roman culture not long after I took rome. Then, I knew the inevitable zulu war was coming. That's another reason I sent the knights to rome. Zulu had 4 or 5 tiny (I dont think any were more than a size 2) cities next to rome. Hehehehe, I got persia to do my dirty work there for me. Weakened the zulus and the persians, and then I came in and cleaned up the mess. And all this got me close enough to the americans so I could actually sneak in and link up a wine luxury that nobody had. I believe someone had tried earlier for the wines, as my archeolgists found some roads and some evidence of mines and irrigation around the area.
Now, war has broken out with the aztecs and the americans against the iriquios. As the iriq are basically tied with me for first place, I'm debating whether or not to get involved. I think it might be worth my time, as I could get rid of them as a threat for good, leaving me alone at the top of the leaderboard.

I think looking back, I played it right by leaving hte persians alone, at least for the time being. By not fighting them early, I've been able to build instead of warmongering, and my cities are all pretty good. They have been pretty good being my lackeys. I think right before they get gunpowder, I'll take them out. I've got god knows how many calvary in cities on my border with persia, and its a quick shot straight to their capital, like one, maybe two cities away.

vmxa1 · October 6, 2002, 13:08

Originally posted by wvfoos
"The barracks thing? I bet on sun tzu's and got it. I don't like making barracks early if I'm not playing "kill em all." Seems like its a waste, or that you have to really watch those one or two cities with them, and make sure they are always making military units. I like a bit more freedom with my queues."

First I am glad you had fun. You will find that as you move up you will have very tough time relying on early wonders. You will need a barracks or two to make vets and can not afford to wait for Sun Tzu, especially when at war (throw all I say out if you reload to get the desired outcome). The AI will be way out in front on tech and have superior numbers and units at Emp/Deity for a long time. At warlord you can do pretty much anything you want. The AI is not as good as you and has no handicaps, so most any tactics will be fine.