BRC's game - Page 3

BRC · January 16, 2003, 17:29

I'll post them outside of the zip file.

BRC · January 16, 2003, 17:33

Sorry. I'd really appreciate the help if you can get these to work. I'm playing unmodded 1.14.

vmxa1 · January 16, 2003, 17:50

Hum, well I am not sure what the deal is, I still get an error from either one, but not the 4000bc. What is the operating system you are using?
I will have to search around to see if this is something that has started with PTW. I used to download saves file here all the time. I am on XP PRO.

BRC · January 16, 2003, 18:02

I'm using XP also. I really have no idea. Any suggestions??
Has anyone else had problems with my saves???

Dominae · January 16, 2003, 18:06

All your saves are fine on my system (Win2K Pro), BRC. Have either of you played with the .ini or anything similarly fishy?

Dominae

vmxa1 · January 16, 2003, 18:07

I just tried one from PTW and one from Civ3 and failed. I recall being able to load civ3 savs using PTW. Anyway I guess I will uninstall and start from scratch. So much fun.

BRC · January 16, 2003, 18:22

You don't have to do that for me. Don't worry about it.

vmxa1 · January 16, 2003, 19:15

Ok it must have been something I did, but I do not recall doing anything. I do not even use terrain mods.
I uninstalled and reinstalled and applied 1.04 and then 1.14F and all the files I downloaded are fine. I must have had a corrupted file some where.

I gave a quick look and to me the big issue is many cities are not growing at a fair rate. Looked at Asyut and I see a worker building a mine? You already have a mine sitting idle and no new citizen is coming for ten turns. I did not check, but I would suspect the workers are automated. I would never allow automated workers until RR's are in place. I would rather see the worker create a road to a grassland and then irriagate it, so when yhou get the next citizen it can boost the growth.
I would not being building barracks in that city and several others as they are not on the front lines and will not be strong enough to make troops.
If you can get out of the war with Rome, you would not need much more in the way of troops.
Pi-Ramesses has gowth in 3 turns and already has 2 unhappy faces. Move one of the farmers to the forrest and slow the growth and speed up the market place. Once that is done, you may want to move the farmer back, may not need to with a new citizen. I may even spend cash to finish it a bit sooner.
Anyway I did not look at all the cities or workers, but I did see several workers building mines in towns that already had mines that are not worked. Giza has that and growth is 20 turns.
I have no idea where you stand on the Art of War, but I would suspect that 31 more turns is not going to be a winning time. If it is out of reach, then put the resources into horses or WC's until the war is over.
I may build a road to connect to Spain to open trade.
You have cash so get those embassies in place.
I think Dom made good points. Nothing can be done about city spacing now anyway. After the first 6-10 cities, it often is out of your control.

vmxa1 · January 16, 2003, 19:20

The reason I picked Rome as the one to not war with, is that France is weaker than you now and their UU is not far away. Rome already has its UU and will only be easier later.

BRC · January 16, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

I did not check, but I would suspect the workers are automated. I would never allow automated workers until RR's are in place. I would rather see the worker create a road to a grassland and then irriagate it, so when yhou get the next citizen it can boost the growth.

No, the workers aren't automated, but I will admit that I get lazy with them sometimes.
I was under the impression that it would be better to just mine the grassland and keep the production. Can you help me out with when to mine and when to irrigate??

Quote:

I would not being building barracks in that city and several others as they are not on the front lines and will not be strong enough to make troops.

I typically build a barracks in every city. Which cities do you think should get barracks, and which ones get ignored??

Quote:

If you can get out of the war with Rome, you would not need much more in the way of troops.

Rome declared war because I refused to give them 30 gold. They haven't sent anything my way yet. I just figured that I would wait them out and then switch to Republic.

Quote:

I have no idea where you stand on the Art of War, but I would suspect that 31 more turns is not going to be a winning time. If it is out of reach, then put the resources into horses or WC's until the war is over.

I really like the Medieval Wonders, and this was supposed to be a prebuild for Sistine or Leo's. I was getting ready to start another one.

Quote:

I may build a road to connect to Spain to open trade.

Is this something you try to do in every game, or do you usually just wait until harbors??

Thanks for the help.

Good to hear you got everything working.

vmxa1 · January 16, 2003, 20:34

"No, the workers aren't automated, but I will admit that I get lazy with them sometimes.
I was under the impression that it would be better to just mine the grassland and keep the production. Can you help me out with when to mine and when to irrigate??"
That is a delicate proposition to be sure. IMO it is a function of the game situation. Short answer I guess would be I mine tiles that will be productive and irrigate when the growth is too low. That tends to mean, mine early and be prepare to switch gears when the city faulters. See Crackers artice on CFC, it is the gospel for tile improvements and opening moves.

"I typically build a barracks in every city. Which cities do you think should get barracks, and which ones get ignored??"
Again this is situational for the most part. In general, I would build as few as I could get away with at the start. If I was to go into a very early rush that may mean barracks right away. Otherwise, I will get by on no barracks as long as I can and then build one in a strong city that is going to generate troops. Once war breaks out, I look at cities that are on the front lines and I may put one there as they are able to heal units, more than build vets. Those front line cities are not able to make troops worth a crap anyway. Barracks cost resources and have maint cost. I want to avoid that if I do not need it. I mean in modern times that is not a concern, but the early the game, that is more that will impact my empire.

"Rome declared war because I refused to give them 30 gold. They haven't sent anything my way yet. I just figured that I would wait them out and then switch to Republic."
That may or may not work. Time will tell. I have no sense of their capabilities, but if they come hard, that 30 gold could look like a bargain. If they don't come you may have gotten away with one. Actually for me, it would cost me as I will have to send troops to defend a battle that may never come. Those troops would be better used to smash France quickly. I am sorry I forgot the game level here. If I am at your stage and it is below emperor I would be inclined to take them on, at deity I would be inclined to pay or get me some allies.
If I am facing superior units soon, I want help, if not then I can likely handle it. I do not want to see knights in the next 20 turns, if I am you. Since I have not played up to this point I do not know if they is in the works, but I would expect at the top two levels it is.

"I really like the Medieval Wonders, and this was supposed to be a prebuild for Sistine or Leo's. I was getting ready to start another one."

I like all the wonders, but it does not matter if I can't get there. You are not doing any research and will not be seeing Invention for a long time as it is now. This means, if you stay on the SUN TSU and do not get it a lot of shileds are going up in smoke.
I could mention here that an option here could be to skip Chiv and beeling for gunpowder and MT. I often do that. I can pick up Chiv cheaply later. I do not see Leos as an option if you are at Emp/Deity if you research Chiv.
Well if you get some leaders.

"Is this something you try to do in every game, or do you usually just wait until harbors??"
Actually I am not that big on trading, but you have some things to offer and can not offer them to anyone right now. If the AI has harbors and you get yours going, great. This presumes you have the prerequisite tech to cross the sea if need be and you don't right now IIRC. The AI may not make a harbor when I need it to have one.

BRC · January 16, 2003, 23:55

Thanks vmxa1.

Quote:

Barracks cost resources and have maint cost.

Yeah, the maintenance starts to eat away at me.

Quote:

I am sorry I forgot the game level here.

This is one of my first shots at Emperor.

Quote:

I could mention here that an option here could be to skip Chiv and beeling for gunpowder and MT. I often do that. I can pick up Chiv cheaply later. I do not see Leos as an option if you are at Emp/Deity if you research Chiv.

Just a question here: Do you do a lot of fighting at Emperor and Deity?? At Monarch, I had no problem using oscillating war. In fact, it worked very well. I would like to take some of this playstyle to Emperor. Is this possible??

How does your research look for the first half of the game??

i.e. Start 40 turns at Mysticism, try and trade it, jump over to Mathematics..... Research Monarchy, trade for Republic, Research Engineering.... This would kind of help me, as I have been living off of extortion up til now.

Thank you very much.

Dominae · January 17, 2003, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by BRC
Just a question here: Do you do a lot of fighting at Emperor and Deity??

Let me jump in here, BRC. I've found that whatever you could do at Monarch, you can do at Emperor. It's just that you need to be a lot more efficient in all areas of your game (tech trading, terraforming, warfare, etc.). Try working in the "little things" (like making sure you have enough Workers doing the right things), and you should be able to use any strategy you want. I have little to no experience on Deity.

Dominae

BRC · January 17, 2003, 00:26

Quote:

Let me jump in here, BRC. I've found that whatever you could do at Monarch, you can do at Emperor. It's just that you need to be a lot more efficient in all areas of your game (tech trading, terraforming, warfare, etc.). Try working in the "little things" (like making sure you have enough Workers doing the right things), and you should be able to use any strategy you want. I have little to no experience on Deity.

Dom,

You saw my last game with Egypt. While I wasn't doing everything right, I had that game firmly in hand. I was building all the wonders, was running over everybody, and had the tech lead.

Now, I do have the right knowledge. I'm not trying to build as many wonders and have stopped building all the improvements. I have simplified the game, and now my civ sucks. I wouldn't be upset about this, except that the game doesn't FEEL any harder. I feel like I'm just not developing as well. Maybe this is because of the not enough worker thing, but, do you see anything different between this game, and that first game that you looked at?? Am I ignoring something here?? I'm just feeling a little confused again, when I thought that I was playing the game pretty well (on all my monarch games).

thanks, brc

Dominae · January 17, 2003, 00:43

Well, you're doing pretty well in your current game (i.e. I'm not sure you can lose). But there is definitely a difference between "winning big" (as in, UP), and just plain winning. That's the main difference between Monarchy and Emperor. On Emperor, the AI will give you more of a run for your money. IMO, that's a good thing.

I think you're doing all the right things to improve, though. By keeping up with AU and being critical about your game, you'll become a pro in no time. Then you can teach me a thing or two (I've definitely still got a bunch to learn...I thought I had this game down pat before the summer, and boy was I wrong!).

Dominae

BRC · January 17, 2003, 00:47

Quote:

Then you can teach me a thing or two (I've definitely still got a bunch to learn...I thought I had this game down pat before the summer, and boy was I wrong!).

To be fair, you have to unlearn some things. I don't. The patches changed a few things from what I hear. All I've had to deal with is 1.29 and 1.14.

vmxa1 · January 17, 2003, 04:03

Fighting is a state of mind to me. I mean I mostly played a warmonger style, especially before PTW and at Monarch. Before PTW, at deity, it was possible to rush some civs early after 129 and PTW, it got a bit harder and more dangerous IMO. I got burned out on the warring and played some peaceful until force for a time, just to do it.
I agree with Dom that you can play any style if you are wise with you management.
PTW tossed in a new wrinkle with the increased chance of getting a settler early. On games where I held off on starting that first settler and got one for my trouble out of a hut, EMP plays just like Monarch with a good start location. That is I can get the tech lead early and run away with the game. If I do not get that settler and have a less than optimal start, I can forget most early wonders and can start digging out of my hole.
So what I would do on research changes with the game.
If I am in a spot where I am way behind, I will look to get something that can be used for trade.
There are some good threads out there on the concept of the value of skipping some here to fore sancrosact techs, such as Chiv and Nationalism. I think Zachriel was the one that finally made me see that point. I always though I have to have these two or die.
Considerations of things like am I a Sci race? If so skipping some of the techs that are not required to get to the next age can be very useful.
One other point that is very often debated, so my view is just my view, but I never spend time researching Monarchy nor do I switch to it. It slows you down from getting out of the age and if you are not religous you can not afford to switch govs more than once. Egro, I jump on republic as it can be used all the way. Yes there are others that can be beneficial, but I can not afford to be switching.
In short there are no real cookie cutter reciepes as games and settings are fluid.
I also agree with DOM, that you are doing fine.
Most of the advice you get is just like a piece of a puzzle. You try to see if it fits and if does, use it, if not it made you think.

BRC · January 17, 2003, 10:37

Quote:

In short there are no real cookie cutter reciepes as games and settings are fluid.

It would be boring if there were. Thanks for all the help. I think I'm just gonna play a few games and see what works for me.

Quote:

You try to see if it fits and if does, use it, if not it made you think.

I'm doing a lot of thinking. Thanks.

Konquest02 · January 20, 2003, 10:59

I have taken the "City Spacing Challenge" you posted a while ago. Here are where I would put my cities. I think almost everyone should do the same exercise, at it forces you to think about city placement and spacing, not just acting in a mechanical kind of way...

DISCLAIMER: This assumes perfect knowledge of the map, and actual in-game city placement might not look exactly like this. This is only theoretical...

Compare, share, discuss as much as you want...!

--Kon--

BRC · January 20, 2003, 21:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Konquest02
I have taken the "City Spacing Challenge" you posted a while ago. Here are where I would put my cities. I think almost everyone should do the same exercise, at it forces you to think about city placement and spacing, not just acting in a mechanical kind of way...

DISCLAIMER: This assumes perfect knowledge of the map, and actual in-game city placement might not look exactly like this. This is only theoretical...

Compare, share, discuss as much as you want...!

--Kon--

Thanks. I am always wanting help. What do you (and Dom) look for in new city sites? As you probably have heard, I have hardly any overlap, and build in a pattern for the most part. I try to fill up the maximum amount of land with the least amount of cities (for the most part)? i.e. 4 tiles between cities.

I would really like to try a game with tighter spacing, but when I look for available sites, I'm always looking far away. I can't really recognize good sites for cities that are going to overlap with others. Any help is appreciated. Let me know what you think, and if you know any way to solve my affliction. Thanks.

ducki · January 20, 2003, 23:07

The way I got over this was twofold.
1. Lie to yourself - tell yourself that some of these early "tight" towns are temporary and you'll abandon them later. You don't have to completely believe yourself, just enough to pretend it's "true".

2. Make it a game rule, like the AU203's No War Pre-Communism. Force yourself to plant your first 4 towns such that a defender can travel by road from one town to the next in a single turn. That means City-Road-Road-City.
Tip: If you do this diagonally, you have less overlap.

BRC · January 21, 2003, 00:08

Quote:

The way I got over this was twofold.
1. Lie to yourself - tell yourself that some of these early "tight" towns are temporary and you'll abandon them later. You don't have to completely believe yourself, just enough to pretend it's "true".

I do like the idea of temporary cities.

Quote:

2. Make it a game rule, like the AU203's No War Pre-Communism. Force yourself to plant your first 4 towns such that a defender can travel by road from one town to the next in a single turn. That means City-Road-Road-City.

I think that I could do this, but I still don't know what I should look for when placing the city. Maybe I like having a "pattern" because I don't have to make such crucial (

) decisions.

Quote:

Tip: If you do this diagonally, you have less overlap.

Thank you Ducki. I feel better about doing this already.

Again, thanks.

Dominae · January 21, 2003, 01:25

BRC, here are some things I consider when placing cities:

1. Best use of best land

In your game I mentioned that fact that many of your cities were not close to fresh water. I always put as many cities as I can justify next to fresh water sources (Rivers mostly, since putting two cities around a 1-tile lake is pushing it, IMO).

But the above consideration applies to all special terrain features. Basically, every new city should exploit some bonus feature or another, immediately. If a Luxury is going to be within a city's borders once they expand (after a Temple and 5 turns), that is not good enough. Make sure that Luxury can be exploited right away.

I used the example of Luxuries, but in the early game the two critical features are Rivers and bonus Food tiles. Pack as many cities as you can around those, and watch you Productivity and growth soar.

2. Close city spacing

By placing many cities around close together, you can find the best way to divvy up your improved tiles among them. This may not seem like a great advantage, but when you really start micromanaging everything you realise how critical it is. I cannot stress it enough.

Another thing is that by putting your cities close together you end up working all tiles within your borders when your cities reach size 12. Not only is this efficient, but it can be critical with a restricted land mass.

Also, notice that a loose city spacing strategy relies on Temples and expanding borders to access all the best tiles. I find this hugely wasteful.

3. Avoidance of corruption

If at all possible, I try to expand in a blob shape around my capital. Point 1 takes precedence over this IMO, but only up to a certain point; chasing down far away Luxuries will do no good early on. If all your cities are close together, it will be that much easier to connect them, and therefore you reduce corruption due to distance from the capital as well as corruption due to being unconnected from it.

If I'm forced to expand away from my capital due to the local geography, I'll begin planning an early Palace jump.

4. Coastal access

If a city is going to have more than 1 or 2 Coast or Sea squares within its radius, it needs to be a coastal city. But coastal cities are good in and of themselves too: just consider that every coastal tile produces as much commerce as a roaded tile next to a river (more, come to think of it). The main reason it is possible to keep up in tech on the higher levels is because of coastal cities.

Try to imagine that your availalbe land mass extends all the way out into the Coast tiles (this is easier to do if you've played SMAC). Looking at it this way, you'll kick yourself for not using all that available land in previous games!

I hope this is the kind of advice you're looking for. Believe me, you're asking the right questions: early economy is so very important.

Dominae

ducki · January 21, 2003, 09:21

Re: Coastal cities - I agree that they become commercially strong...
... once you have harbours to boost those coast tiles up to self-sufficiency, but in the first 2000 years or so, I wouldn't settle "extra" coastal cities just for the sake of coastalness.

Definitely, do not avoid them, but once I've got one in my core(I love Colossus), I won't go out of my way to settle more of them the way I will for river towns - at least not until I get Mapmaking.

Dominae · January 21, 2003, 11:28

ducki, I didn't mean littering the coast with cities at the first opportunity. What I was trying to say is that restricting yourself to cities with many workable land tiles (as BRC and many other players seem to do) is denying yourself some extra cities that seriously boost your Commerce. Sure, a Harbor is required to get them going, which is why you do not settle "pure coastal" cities right away. But still they should be kept in mind in the initial city placement planning.

On some maps, Map Making is the early builder tech of choice, even ahead of Literature and Currency.

Dominae

BRC · January 21, 2003, 12:18

Quote:

In your game I mentioned that fact that many of your cities were not close to fresh water. I always put as many cities as I can justify next to fresh water sources (Rivers mostly, since putting two cities around a 1-tile lake is pushing it, IMO).

But the above consideration applies to all special terrain features. Basically, every new city should exploit some bonus feature or another, immediately. If a Luxury is going to be within a city's borders once they expand (after a Temple and 5 turns), that is not good enough. Make sure that Luxury can be exploited right away.

I used the example of Luxuries, but in the early game the two critical features are Rivers and bonus Food tiles. Pack as many cities as you can around those, and watch you Productivity and growth soar.

Ok. I understand putting cities on fresh water, and settling around bonus food resources. Those I see as important reasons for tighter spacing.

Quote:

Another thing is that by putting your cities close together you end up working all tiles within your borders when your cities reach size 12. Not only is this efficient, but it can be critical with a restricted land mass.

Do you end up building hospitals? Does this limit your late game at all?

Quote:

Also, notice that a loose city spacing strategy relies on Temples and expanding borders to access all the best tiles. I find this hugely wasteful.

I don't want to start a temple debate here, but can you explain to me why they are wasteful. I can see that the shields may end up having a better use (non-religious), but I feel that a temple may be necessary in outlying cities where the lux. slider has little effect. Plus, I have a no flip streak going.

Quote:

If at all possible, I try to expand in a blob shape around my capital. Point 1 takes precedence over this IMO, but only up to a certain point; chasing down far away Luxuries will do no good early on. If all your cities are close together, it will be that much easier to connect them, and therefore you reduce corruption due to distance from the capital as well as corruption due to being unconnected from it.

When does OCN corruption start to take its toll?? Just to point out, I almost never have a problem connecting all my cities a turn or two after they are built.

Quote:

If a city is going to have more than 1 or 2 Coast or Sea squares within its radius, it needs to be a coastal city. But coastal cities are good in and of themselves too: just consider that every coastal tile produces as much commerce as a roaded tile next to a river (more, come to think of it). The main reason it is possible to keep up in tech on the higher levels is because of coastal cities.

Yes. I get this, and will start throwing down Coastal cities more. What do you rush in these cities (since you probably won't have much production)?

Quote:

I hope this is the kind of advice you're looking for. Believe me, you're asking the right questions: early economy is so very important.

Yes. This is all good. And I think that my economy is where I need the most help.

Also, point noted on when to settle these coastal cities.

thanks guys

Stuie · January 21, 2003, 12:29

Quote:

Originally posted by BRC

I don't want to start a temple debate here, but can you explain to me why they are wasteful. I can see that the shields may end up having a better use (non-religious), but I feel that a temple may be necessary in outlying cities where the lux. slider has little effect.

Hope you don't mind if I jump in. If you have a good network of luxuries (which is a priority in my opinion), it makes more sense to build a Marketplace (to increase the luxury smilies, thus triggering WLT*D once size 6, and increase income) and a Library (which gives you culture and increases your research). It took me a long time to learn to appreciate the beauty of this combination and stop building Temples right away.

BRC · January 21, 2003, 12:40

Thanks Stuie.

ducki · January 21, 2003, 13:21

I did get the gist of it, Dom, I just wanted to clarify that pre-Mapmaking, the extra commerce is not always as usable and that coastal cities, while important, should not be a "rule" on most maps.

I agree completely with what you said, though.

BRC · January 21, 2003, 15:31

Check it out.

I am starting up games and just playing to get the feel of the closer spacing. This is my first one. Comments appreciated.

edit: BTW, I notice that my score is lower. Is this because of more Unhappy citizens, or what??

However, I do lead in every major category but Land Area.