Seven Pillars of Wisdom

[Konquest02]

Arrian: I think that if you control Theseus' Seven Pillars, you're going to build most of the wonders. Wonder building is mostly a consequence of everything else.

1) Warfare: Keep your opponents at war or crush them, and they won't be able to build wonders.

2) Research: Get first to a tech, you'll start the according wonder first, thus more chance of building it!

3) Trade and Diplo: Even better than 1). Get your opponents at war against each other and build the wonders while they focus on battle!

4) Happiness: More happy people = more people working tiles = faster building of anything (which includes wonders!)

5) Gold: Related to 2 and 4 (luxury slider).

6) Tile Working: without appropriate tile working on higher levels (monarch+), you won't get enough production to build any wonders.

7) Building: err...

If you control the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, you inevitably go towards Ultimate Power, which is IMHO, a goal to aim in every game!

--Kon--

[Alex]

Nice thread.

Some ideas:

- I think that mastering the 'seven pillars' warrants a victory for any player, but the game offers another options that are not necessarily linked to total control of all the aspects. Using the military might represents a tool that, when properly handled, can allow the player to overlook certain peculiarities of the other pillars, focusing the game on a more tactical level. Sure, every aspect is related to another aspect (a big military force needs updated units, which need advanced tech, which requires money -- both to researching and buying --, which, in turn, facilitates the maintenance of a large army in representative governments and so on), but I think that it is possible to focus in only one aspect more than in other(s).
- a victory is often achieved through the means of small things, such as building a wonder at the right time, winning a war in a quick manner, or sewing a brilliant diplomatic patchwork.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Konquest02
Arrian: I think that if you control Theseus' Seven Pillars, you're going to build most of the wonders. Wonder building is mostly a consequence of everything else.

1) Warfare: Keep your opponents at war or crush them, and they won't be able to build wonders.

Too much warfare too early can easily hurt wonder prospects. As you noted later, research is important, but warfare is often at odds with building improvements that help improve the research rate. And slowing down nearby civs' wonder-building may just mean that civs farther away (and thus harder to capture wonders from) end up getting all the good ones.

Nathan

[joncnunn]

The 0% (+1 scientist) is an Emperor / Diety tactic only.

It makes no sense on the lower levels, where it's easy to get a branch lead even in the anicnt era.

Things are different on the Emperor level, where the AI has a 20% science edge. You can't possibly consitantly outresearch the AI until your Forbiden Palace is complete at this level. The techs that you can ourreserach the AI to are off the main branches of reserach and can be done in the 40 turns. In the Ancient Era, set the scince breaker as low as you can such that you still have one beaker, and pick the most expensive tech. Peroidaclly check in with other AIs to buy every tech as it comes adviable. Tech whore both techs that you buy from an AI and the ones you get for 40 beakers. (If there's few enough AIs: Polythesism & Monarchy are the best candidates for this.)

Sometime during the Middle Ages, your Forbiden Palace should be complete (along with lots of Market Places and Court Houses where needed.) Then you can start reseraching profitably along a single branch and try to keep it as close to 4 turns as possible.

The general prinicple is either go all-out for reserach (preferably along a beeline path), or else don't bother. The middle road is inferior to both.

Check in with the AI at least every 10 turns to see what techs you can buy. When you buy the techs, do it as much as possible in GPT rather than one time gold. This is because some AIs are very agressive at the Emperor level, and if they attack you while your still paying for a tech, you've gotten a discount on the price. And before you hit the "Leave or Declare War" button, always buy all the techs they have in a pure GPT deal and then hit the "Leve or Declare War" button the same turn. This gives you all their techs for free when they declare war.

[Theseus]

Wilbill: Thanks... I meant to bring that up, that learning to play and win in different ways has kept my enthusiasm for Civ3 alive. You said it well though, and I think it bears repeating time to time.

Arrian: GAs and Wonders... they go towards success in whatever Pillar(s) you are focusing on as your game strategy.

Alexnm: I think you are right on target... you don;t need ALL of the Strategic Advantages to win any given game, you just need one of the three to gain control. That said, I agree with the sentiment that learning how to achieve each of the three is important in becoming a good or excellent player.

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by joncnunn
The 0% (+1 scientist) is an Emperor / Diety tactic only.

It makes no sense on the lower levels, where it's easy to get a branch lead even in the anicnt era.

I believe they are trying to say that this is never a good strategy. Personally I still think its the way to go durning BC, but I'm open to persuasive arguements.

[Theseus]

No, I think with 1 scientist it's *okay*, but I'd rather have the citizen working. The impact of allocating 10% to research in the ancient era is minimal.

[alexman]

It depends on how much income goes to science by setting your slider to 10%. If you lose just 1, definitely go with the slider. If you lose over 3, then you probably want to consider converting a citizen in a totally corrupt city into an entertainer.

[Theseus]

Hey, PB2000, I cross-posted with you and didn't see it. Yeah, I admit, I have biases... straight-out builder is not something I've done much of, except for the AU game where we played with no military. I guess what I don;t get is, what do you to take CONTROL of the game? It's gotta be something... is it better "Production Efficiency" (in effect, 'out-building' the AI civs), maybe combined with some Machiavellian diplo strategies?

[punkbass2000]

I must admit control is usually taken via ToE.

[joncnunn]

I actually start with 20% until I have a city with enough worked road tiles to where it will have 1 beaker with 10%.

Then I switch to 10% as soon as I can do with while still having 1 beaker.

Later, when the empire has enough worked tiles to where 3+ beakers would be used at 10%, then the slider is dropped to 0% and a citizen in a corrupt city turned to a scientist.

Originally posted by Theseus
No, I think with 1 scientist it's *okay*, but I'd rather have the citizen working. The impact of allocating 10% to research in the ancient era is minimal.

[Dominae]

I've been concerned with the "10% Science" line of thought that I've been running into on 'Poly. Isn't it sometimes better to go 90% to get that tech sooner. In my recent games as the Carthaginians, I try to research Bronze Working ASAP, for obvious reasons. Usually (depending on the start location), putting Science at 10% or 20% gives me Bronze Working in 30 or 40 turns, but putting it all the way to 90% brings it down to 23 turns. Of course the exact numbers change once I start building Settlers and new cities pop up, but those early beakers don't go to waste! Can anyone explain to me why hovering around 10% in the early game is best?


Dominae

[joncnunn]

Note that this low reserach in is purely for the Emperor level (and Diety)

Polythesism is a very expensive ancient era tech. You don't knock that many turns off the reserach with an all out effort to get it on a pure bee-line compared with reseraching it for 40 turns at 10% from the time you buy Mystism. If the AI does beat you, and you end up buying it, it's no big loss.

[ducki]

On Regent/Monarch, I often drop my research rate to 30% for the first tech.

My reasoning is that if I go down to 20%, I don't save any extra money or go any slower, if I go to 10%, I don't get any research done, and more than likely, I'm going to buy/trade for most of the first level techs before I've had time to finish researching one; but on the off chance that I'm alone, I still want to get some research done.

After the first round of trades, then and only then do I have a clear picture of where I can research and hopefully get a lead, or at least a tradeable commodity, at which point I can decide whether to increase or decrease research.

With PtW, like I said earlier, though, I am getting outresearched by the AI as though I were the village idiot and they are all reincarnations of Einstein and Aristotle.
It's definitely got me started looking at different strategies for ancient research that don't entail constant war.

[ThePlagueRat]

sorry, wrong thread

[jshelr]

ducki

"It's definitely got me started looking at different strategies for ancient research that don't entail constant war."

You can definitely build well and buy tech fast enough to keep just behind the leader. This will not give you the disired control of the game, but it will keep you competitive until you get an opportunity. You can even do this OCC, but with a good-sized civ you can overcome the AI tech-cost advantage at the trade window. Why you would want to when a good war would do it for free is another question.

[Catt]

Theseus - great job It's very difficult to articulate "game wisdom" above the tactical level.

First, I will come back later to challenge your point in the sidebar regarding a "production strategic advantage" which you anticipate may be a major point of contention.

Second, my only significant disagreement with your strategic layout of Civ 3 is with respect to the "Key Enablers." The partner of gold, in Civ 3, is shields. Happiness is a means to an end. Happiness is critically important -- but its purpose is to allow citizens to labor contentedly. Happiness therefore produces both shields and gold. One must manage a happy (or reasonably content) empire -- combined with the lessons to be learned in the "Developing Infrastructure" requirements -- which will produce shields and gold, each of which buys a piece ("enables") the Strategic Advantages available to the player. Happiness, by itself, buys nothing. Happiness, combined with the right strategic (and tactical) game choices, puts a player in the position to pursue a strategic advantage and a game breaker.

Finally, my two cents on "warmongering vs. building" or, in the context of this thread, "0% research" -- or more accurately, the concept of ignoring one facet of the game to pursue an overwhelming advantage in another facet, and using that "facet advantage" to secure advantage in the overall game itself [obviously dipping far more into personal preferences here, now]. Not only is it doable, but it is the surest way to ensure success. An ultra-early focus on warfare against the AI will generate success more often than any other early tactic, IMHO. But such an approach will too often represent an avoidance of the challenges of the game -- it is a variation of the end result of Vel's unbelievably accurate early work on Civ 3 strategy, but an approach that also focuses more on the AI's inability to perform than it does on the player's ability to make the most of the game rules. You can beat the AI consistently, but you can't beat the AI "at its own game."

Great thread

Catt

[Robber Baron]

Tottering on One or Two Pillars

First let me say, awesome thread, Thes! This one really got me thinking.
Now, purely on an elevated and impersonal strategic plane, a successful player has to develop a balanced array of objectives and imperatives, particularly at the higher levels of play. Leave one or two pillars underbuilt and your civ will topple, sooner or later (sooner at Deity; later but eventually at Emporer). The logic here is indisputable.

But then, from a roleplaying/gameplay point of view, I find myself regularly leaning heavily on one or two pillars, and trying to compensate for weakness elsewhere in the structure. Partly because specific game circumstances create specific, limited arrays of opportunities. But also partly because it becomes fun. As I play, a game-specific personality emerges, and then I find myself over-playing the personality. Don't just be war-like, become "Evilgrin Autoraze," bane of the world and the terror of his own troops. Don't just be an assiduous builder, become "Johnny Hop-lightly," cultural patron of your planet.
What's truly unique about CivIII (even more than Civ II) is the extent to which the game allows one to try to construct a range of strategies, and compensate tactical weaknesses with strategic strengths. You can research techs, or try to buy them, or try to bully them out. And so on.
Only occasionally do such one-dimensional players pull out victories. The logic here is right: usually an unbalanced strategy runs a player into serious trouble.
But that's fun, too. It makes for epic, tragic stories. By the time "Evilgrin Autoraze" is sending waves of knights into deathcharges against rifle-defended cities, or "Johnny Hop-lightly" is kneeling in Bach's Cathedral to pray for divine intervention, while outside the walls of his once-glorious capital a stack of enemy infantry and artillery is approaching that his valiant muskets and hoplites will not be able to withstand, I'm way into the drama.

(In any event, for me, winning is kind of boring -- the modern era game is rather tedious to plod through.)

[ducki]

On topic:
In trying to balance my play better, after reading this thread, I adopted a more involved relationship with my military advisor in the AU 205 game. Boy did that pay off early. Thanks for the eloquent strategy writing, Theseus. I might even convert it into some sort of "worksheet" for analyzing games - you know, like those career planning worksheets or those pages that they have in DayTimers about "What are Your Goals" etc.

Probably a good analysis tool for those that don't really care about the numbers game, but need a closer look at what they are doing right and wrong.

Off topic:

Originally posted by Robber Baron
(In any event, for me, winning is kind of boring -- the modern era game is rather tedious to plod through.)

Amen!

Besides, unless you are going for either Diplo or SS victory - and even usually then - don't most players know whether they've won by the time the Modern Age begins, at the latest?

[Thrumble]

Most excellent thread, it has difinitely improved by gameplay! Thanks.

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by ducki
Off topic:

Amen!

Besides, unless you are going for either Diplo or SS victory - and even usually then - don't most players know whether they've won by the time the Modern Age begins, at the latest?

Ducki - I have been in some very exciting nail biting close cinderella story SS victories, but otherwise yes the modern era is a huge drag.

I originally hated the diplo win and how early the SS victories came. But now I appreciate the early out they provide when you are not completely dominating the game.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Catt
First, I will come back later to challenge your point in the sidebar regarding a "production strategic advantage" which you anticipate may be a major point of contention.

Nah, I won't challenge. A production advantage only enables one of the true Strategic Advantages, or game breakers, and more easily enables the Warfare route. There really aren't effective ways to convert production (shields) into either gold or other tradeable assets, and though a modest tech advtange may be assisted by wealth or by building universities more quickly than a lagging production empire, ultimately the production must be turned to wasteful wealth or units, and units need to be used to have much value.

So I don't think a strong production advantage is a true game breaker.

Second, my only significant disagreement with your strategic layout of Civ 3 is with respect to the "Key Enablers." The partner of gold, in Civ 3, is shields. Happiness is a means to an end. Happiness is critically important -- but its purpose is to allow citizens to labor contentedly . . .

It is hard to underestimate the importance of happiness. It is critical to population growth, and population growth leads to shields and gold. Shields and gold are the key enablers to the three principal pillars, the game-breaking strategic advantages.

But I would still label happiness the enabler of the "Enablers." As such, I would put it in the lower level of "pillars" along with tile working and building. I see the strategic as one of 3-1-3: The three strategic advantages; the Enabler - shields and gold (i.e., city output); and the three necessary infrastructure projects; happiness, tile working, and build choices.

Again, great job on articulating the Seven Pillars.

Catt

[Theseus]

I just re-read this for the first time in... a long time.

With the commentary and suggestions, I still stand by it, so:

BUMP.

[Konquest02]

This thread should never need a bump like this one... It's one of the masterpieces of this forum and it deserves a read from everyone!!

--Kon--

[ducki]

Originally posted by Theseus
I just re-read this for the first time in... a long time.

With the commentary and suggestions, I still stand by it, so:

BUMP.

Ha! I just reinstalled Civ (can't find PtW, argh!) and was reading from your Must Read Threads thread.

Not 60 seconds ago I was thinking 'I wonder if Theseus still feels the same or if he'd modify the Seven Pillars' and lo! and behold! Here you are, reaffirming said Pillars.

Once again, thanks for such a well-written strategic level post.

[lockstep]

Still a must-read!

Originally posted by Theseus
For whatever reason, 0% research as a concept just drives me crazy.

I guess that's what Firaxis and Breakaway where also thinking when they decided to include Scientific Great Leaders into Civ3-Conquests.

[Arrian]

You know what else is good about this thread? It's only 2 pages long. Short, and very much to the point.



-Arrian, who notices that several of his posts are now terribly out of synch with his playstyle, which has changed.

[Theseus]

Thanks guys. I'll prolly re-visit this with a bit more C3C under my belt.

[Alex]

Hey, WTF is happening here? I didn't post that post above. Someone must have stolen my account, or this is the weirdest bug of all times...

EDIT: hm, ok, so it was from 2002. I understand now.

[ducki]

Originally posted by Theseus
Thanks guys. I'll prolly re-visit this with a bit more C3C under my belt.

Hey, it's been 3 months, man. Still stand by(on) your Pillars?