Civ-Specific Strategy: Americans

[Dominae]

Hi all,

I received a couple of "raised-eyebrow" reactions when I mentioned (shortly after PTW came out) that America is a "powerhouse" civ in multiplayer. The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that the America is a great in general (in Civ3; please, no political commentary!). I'm first going to outline why I think the Americans shine in MP, then proceed to discuss some strats specific to the Industrious/Expansionist trait combo. Finally I'll list some random thoughts concerning the Americans.

1. MP Dominance

With a near-useless UU (completely useless in MP), the Americans are all about the strength of their traits. IMO, Industrious and Expansionist are best traits for MP games. Here's why:

a. Industrious

Industrious is pivotal because you need to get off the ground fast; no time to wait for your economy to build up like in SP. Given that many MP games are short affairs (small maps preferred...frequent quitters), doing things earlier ensures you're on top the entire game. As a side note, for this very reason I believe the Scientific trait to be discounted in MP games. But, of course, the best thing about Industrious is that it just keeps on giving; Industrious Worker's advantage over normal Workers is just as potent in the Industrial age as the Ancient age. Thus, Industrious does not suffer from the "window" effect present in the other traits (Expasionist is early-game only, Commercial is mid to late-game only, Religious is mostly mid-game only, etc.).

Industrious Workers also give you a lot of leeway in what you can afford to do "creatively" in terms of tile improvements. The main creative use of Workers is for building a military road network. Most players do not expect reinforcements to arrive at their doorstep at three times the normal speed. Another creative use is Fortresses, which human players are deathly afraid of, in the right location.

b. Expansionist

Expansionist is amazing for a few reasons. First, the information you gain from early exploration is far more useful in MP than in SP. Against AIs, you can expect a certain standard behaviour (with experience), such as an aggressive REX phase, more or less "blob-like" growth, rapid tech-trading, founding of cities near Luxuries, perhaps an early Archer-rush from the Germans, etc. The point is that all of this is predictable. Against a human player, anything goes. Here's just a list of things the human player can possibly do to ruin your day early on: 1) send military units to aggressively claim Strategic resources ("You want Horses? NEVER, they're all MINE!!!), 2) sneak military units just outside your visible range in order to launch a very suprising attack, 3) not follow a civ's "typical" strategy, like Archer rushing with the Greeks, 4) expand aggressively in your direction only. Obviously, all of these things are bad news. Your best defense is early and plentiful information, and nothing provides this better than Scouts.

The second reason Expansionist is great in MP is similar to the discussion of Industrious above. Scouts provide early-game advantages in terms of techs, gold, maybe even Setters or cities. MP is all about the early-game, and Scouts ensure you're on top from the start.

Finally, Scouts are for playing mind games. Place a Scout 1 tile away from the opponent's capital, just out of reach of their defender. Now you've planted a spy that the other player will want to eliminate. But your Scout moves fast! When the defender moves to attack, step back. Now you're luring their defense out of their city. Games like this may will result in a very frustrated opponent, which is good for you.

Every trait is useful, to be sure, but no 2 traits allow you to do quite as much in MP as those just described.


2. Industriousness, Expansionism and You

America's traits are highly synergistic, moreso than any other civ's (although Egypt, China and Babylon are close seconds). In no particular order, here's what America allows you to do:

a. Rapid Growth

Putting Pottery together with Industrious Workers allows for the fastest possible expansion of any civ (assuming equivalent starting locations). Here's not an unusual scenario: your starting location contains a combination of Forest and Grassland tiles. What do you do during your first few turns (other than explore with the Scout)? Here's a possibility: start on a Granary immediately. Sound crazy? In ten turns with 2 Forest chopped down you've got 20 Shields to go on your Granary, which is only 5-6 turns now that you're at size 2. So in 15 turns you've got a Granary in your capital. Now, assuming some nice production tiles, you can produce Settlers twice as fast as you normally could! The best part is that your Scout is roaming around, making sure you're not getting into trouble with enemy civs or Barbarians. Plus, by the time your Settler is ready (between turn 20-25), you've already scouted out your second city site, and maybe even built a road to it.

b. Flexible Production

Even if the Granary plan doesn't seem like a good idea, you're still ahead because you're flexible. Knowledge gained from your Scout will tell you whether to pop out some early Archers, Spearmen, or just Settler after Settler. Again, fast Workers help you do whatever you plan on that much better.

c. Gold and Techs

All the money and techs you get from your Scout, combined with faster trade revenues due to your Industrious workes makes you the richest and most advanced civ in the first part of the game (surpassing those Scientific and Commercial late-bloomers!). With so many techs and money, you can basically bend any trade negotiation to your advantage, especially in SP. In MP, this advantage translates into not having to depend on any other civ early on. It will usually be your call whether you want to spread techs around or keep them to yourself. Human players will give you almost anything for an early chance at Monarchy, Horseback Riding or Iron Working.

d. Resource Denial

With a fast tech rate (or equivalent, see point c) and a nice view of the local geography provided by your Scouts, you're in a great position to attempt some resource denial. With Iron and Horses visible (hopefully while they're still hidden from the opponent's view), you can place your cities on or around those locations. Or, you keep an eye on those locations with your Scouts, perhaps even starting a minor skirmish in case another civ gets too close. The is nothing sweeter than denying Horses from every other civ on your continent in the early age (thumbs up if you can deny both types of resource!).

e. Flexible Research

Without Bronze Working or Warrior Code, you lose a bit of a lead on your first type of military units (Horsemen or Swordsmen). However, what you lose in speed, you do gain in flexibility. If the local geography looks good for Sworsmen (lots of Forest, Hills and Mountains), hit Bronze Working; if it's mostly open Plains and Grasslands, go for The Wheel. Most other civs will be directed in their choice of early attacker either by their starting tech or their UU (Iroquois Swordsmen are pretty strange). You can adjust to fit the situation.


3. Randomness

a. Yes, the American UU is...umm..."sub-optimal". This is a definite disadvantage. However, there is a single saving grace: no UU means even more flexibility (did I mention the Americans are, above all, flexible?). Whereas you can pretty much expect a MW rush from the Iroquois, a Jag rush from the Aztecs, and no rush from the Greeks, there's simply nothing to expect from the Americans. This means that the Americans are not "confined" to a specific point in the game where they need to (or are expected to) shine.

b. Of course, no UU (uh, you know what I mean...) means that a GA needs to be triggered via Wonders. Here's the list of Wonder's you need to keep an eye out for: (Industrious) Pyramids, Hanging Gardens, Hoover Dam, Mahhattan Project; (Expansionist) The Colossus, Great Lighthouse, Copernicus' Observatory, Magellan's Expedition, SETI Program. Recall that you don't have to actually build the two Wonders with the required traits: if you control one half, building a Wonder that satisfies the other will trigger a GA. For example, if you conquer Berlin which houses the Pyramids, and you subsequently build Copernicus's, a GA will begin. Thanks to whoever clarified this in another thread (I cannot remember your name right now...sorry!).

c. Canada rules.

d. All the names of the American cities are well-known and easy to recognize (at least for North American players). This means you'll recall where specific cities are located on the map much more often (compared to, say, all those funky Persian or Korean names). I guess if you're Korean you'll remember those city names better...and, of course, you can always just rename any city (hey, this section is random, I can say whatever I want). Anyway, you many not think that having recognizable city names is a particularly good thing, but it will actually help you recall more build queues, potential civil disorders, and other important, city-specific things.

e. Finally(!), as of now, many human players underestimate the Americans. This means: 1) you'll always be able to pick them, and 2) you won't be considered much of a threat. Use this (and your flexibility!) to your advantage.


Comments, questions, more random thoughts...all welcome.





Dominae

[VenomLord]

very nice post, I've been a quite follower of these forums for quite some time... reading the posts of all you great civers and i too recently played the amaricans (non ptw unfortunatly) on the AU 202 and must say i was pleasently suprised with their results a well written and thoughtout post as usual dominae

[BRC]

Dom: Good thread. I chose the Mongols in AU 202, hoping to just overrun the continent. It's working, but I feel that Industrious would do me more good than Militaristic.

First, the information you gain from early exploration is far more useful in MP than in SP.

Without a doubt.

America's traits are highly synergistic, moreso than any other civ's (although Egypt, China and Babylon are close seconds).

They do complement each other nicely. Maybe the best part of the Americans.

With a fast tech rate (or equivalent, see point b) and a nice view of the local geography provided by your Scouts, you're in a great position to attempt some resource denial.

This can be important, especially if you encounter Egypt, or Rome...... I think this would be one of the easiest ways to get ahead in mp.

Canada rules.

[cueing]Star Spangled Banner[/cueing]

This means: 1) you'll always be able to pick them, and 2) you won't be considered much of a threat. Use this (and your flexibility!) to your advantage.

This I like. If anyone else can work out a strategy with another lesser used civ, then that is probably a lot more valuable than knowing how to archer rush with the Chinese. It may not be more effective, but....

Good thread dom.

[Charis]

Outstanding post, Dominae! (of the goddess?)


I saw that quote on America being a superpower civ and I just stared blankly at my monitor. Recent threads on scouting, plus AU 202 have been a huge eye-opener for expansionist, which was so far at the bottom of my six traits it wasn't funny. I've had snoozer performances in games with English, Zulu, and viewed good results with Iroquois and Vikings as due to their UU. The one game where I had an extremely strong victory with America - I was left wondering WHY. Basically, we expanded so well (on a large map) that we had a perfect vision of city placement and even forbidden palace placement, VERY early in the game. Before other civs had even finished expanding we had built our FP and had a double ring around it. Add in industrious and the national productivity was through the roof!

Thanks,
Charis

PS (in edit) - So THAT'S why the American's have such a lousy UU, because the synergistic traits are superb, and giving them a UU before modern era would be overkill

[alexman]

Dominae,

I definitely agree that the Americans are a strong MP civ (and SP, actually). In fact, I chose the Americans in the only MP game where I had a choice to do so.

Just a couple of random comments:

• Contrary to what you claim, Industrious is generally considered to be an early-game trait, with a second big use when railroads come. I agree with that assessment. After the ancient age, workers (or slaves) of even a non-industrious civ can generally keep up with the tiles worked. However, a good start often translates into a good rest of the game. Early-game advantages are powerful.
  
• If you're into high scores, you need to play on huge pangea maps. Those are exactly the settings where the Americans shine even more.

[Arrian]

c. Canada rules.

Trying to slip that one past us, Dominae?

I've played the Americans before (most memorably in the AU game w/o military units) and they do have excellent trait synergy. Nobody expands better than the Americans - they're like a fungus. No, wait, that's not it...

One minor quibble:

Thus, Industrious does not suffer from the "window" effect present in the other traits (Expasionist is early-game only, Commercial is mid to late-game only, Religious is mostly mid-game only, etc.).

Surely when you typed that you had to know I'd have something to say about it. Religious is not mostly a mid-game only trait. Temples @ 30 shields each - that's early game (and huge in SP, I feel), and government switches can occur at any time.

-Arrian

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by Dominae

c. Canada rules.

Dominae

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.


We love our northern neighbors even if you did send us Celine Dion

[Jawa Jocky]

I do remember having quite a GA with them. In democracy by building the Hoover Damn. I built a lot of Factories I haven't played them since the old Regent days when I was still trying (and mostly failing) to be a Civ2 builder.

[Laertes]

Originally posted by Dominae
e. Flexible Research

Without Bronze Working or Warrior Code, you lose a bit of a lead on your first type of military units (Horsemen or Swordsmen). However, you what you lose in speed, you do gain in flexibility. If the local geography looks good for Sworsmen (lots of Forest, Hills and Mountains), hit Bronze Working; if it's mostly open Plains and Grasslands, go for The Wheel. Most other civs will be directed in their choice of early attacker either by their starting tech or their UU (Iroquois Swordsmen are pretty strange). You can adjust to fit the situation.

[

This may well have already been discussed elsewhere, but I noticed that, unlike in Civ 2, the techs you get from a hut are neither the one you are researching, nor any that have pre-reqs which you have not got.

So I always try and find a relatively "dead-end" tech to research, to maximise my chances of getting along the writing or monarchy branches from the huts. I usually pick the wheel as my research tech, not having thought about your resource-denial point.

Nice article dominae. I had my first (SP) win as the AMericans, without ever getting a GA!

[Dominae]

Thanks for comments everyone!

Charis: I'm still trying to figure out if the Firaxians knew the Industrious/Expansionsist combo is good enough to warrant giving America an irrelevant UU. Sure, the F15 makes sense, but the situation reeks of "game balancing", IMO. Perhaps we should give the development team more credit than we have previously?

alexman: I hold firm to my belief Industrious is a very relevant trait up to and including the Industrial age (admittedly, with peaks in usefulness in the early-game and during industriliazation). By high score games and Huge Pangea maps, I believe you're referring to Aeson's 'Borg' game a while back...scary stuff he pulled off with the Americans!

Jawa Jocky: I'm pleasantly surprised you know our anthem! Sorry about Celine Dion, but she's actually top-secret espionage/subversion weapon specifally crafted for use against your country...Too effective, IMO.

Originally posted by Arrian
Surely when you typed that you had to know I'd have something to say about it. Religious is not mostly a mid-game only trait. Temples @ 30 shields each - that's early game (and huge in SP, I feel), and government switches can occur at any time.

Heh, what's an article without a few debate-starters? Yes, if you make a point of building Temples early, I can see how the Religious windows is "widened". But I consider the mass-production of Temples and Cathedrals primarily a mid-game occurence, even for Religious civs. In addition, (correct me if I'm wrong), but the Culture effect of Temples is only apparent when conquering other civs, which is mainly a mid-game affair. The ability to change governments is relevant in mid-game only: you're in the mid-game when you get Monarchy or The Republic and switch between them; in the late-game, the only important switch is to Communism, which is rarely a viable option. Admittedly, I haven't given Religious a go in long while, so I'm open to a change in opinion.


Dominae

[Arrian]

Dominae,

I build a temple in every new city I found, pretty much asap. In reasonably productive towns, it's usually warrior, worker, temple or warrior, worker, settler, temple. 1-shield towns will usually build a worker and start a temple, which gets poprushed.

Cheap temples make early warfare easier: rush a spearman upon taking the city (unless you brought some extras along, which I occasionally do), set to temple, 10 turns later, rush temple. *presto* the city is defended and cultured. This makes securing your conquests (both by preventing flips and just locking up your culture borders) easy.

The cultural power of early warfare + cheap temples is awesome. So much so that I have a friend who (after unwilling winning several games he wanted to milk for score - via culture) will deliberately not build cathedrals. As in he just won't ever build them. He often plays as the Iroquois on large/large maps and usually ends up with a staggeringly huge empire 'round about the beginning of the middle ages. Dunno why

I like doing a lot of fighting in the ancient age. Depending on my civ, I will often archer rush, swordsman rush, and/or horseman (or WC) rush. Usually a combo of the two, but not all three. The only constants are temples, barracks and troops.

Therefore, I see Religious as an early game boost (temples), and a mid-game boost (gov't switching, cathedrals). The government switching thing remains valid throughout, of course. But a trait that offers advantages primarily in the first 1/2 of the game is powerful, especially considering that I rarely see the last 1/4 of the game.

A last note on governments: I like to switch to Democracy. As a religious civ, I will often go Despot -> Monarchy -> Republic -> Demo. As a non-religious civ, I am more likely to ditch either Monarchy or Demo.

-Arrian

ps Sorry if I was a tad long-winded. I've been known to defend the religious trait every so often...

[Dominae]

Arrian, our strategies are remarkably similar. The one difference (obviously the one we have all these disagreemens about!) is whether or not to build Temples during the REX phase. If my core cities can build Barracks, military units and Workers at an acceptable pace, there is no way I'm going to forego those options to buid Temples. In the outlying cities that aren't as productive (2-3 Shield output or less), I'll use the queue you mentioned above (actually, these days I remove the Warrior and just go Worker, Worker, Temple or somesuch). I'm open to the possibility that early Culture is helpful, but I'm as of yet not convinced it's as helpful as more Settlers, Workers and military units at probably the most critical time in the game.

Don't worry about defending the Religious trait (or being long-winded), I believe I'm the one with the less-popular opinion...


Dominae

[joncnunn]

My second SP victory in Civ III was with the Americans with a GA in the modern era via building Hoover Dam & SETI.

In addition to the capture the Pyraimds and then build Coperacus for the GA, you can also capture both the Pyraimds (Industrious) & Colossus (Expansionist) and then build any GW whenever you want your GA.

Temples as ancient era wonder pre-builds are early game. Mass production of Temples is after both REX and any ancient era unit rush, and so the Temple portion of Religious is an early & mid game. Both Catherdrials & the govt switch out of Despotism are mid game, and so is the switch to Democracy, so Religious overall is an early game thru mid game traight.

Expansionsist benifit seems concentrated in the first 40 turns.

Industrial benifits are concentrated in both ancient era & industrial era in cold dry climates, but in hot wet climates where you have a lot of jungle to clear, there's not a middle age drop off in use.

Scientific benifits are scattered because your building structures early (Libaries and later Universitys) whose impact continues to increase throughout the game as the cities grow. The way I play, as a Scientific civ I'm mass producing Universities at the same time period where if I'm non-scienfic I'm mass producing Libaries.

Military also has spread out benfits. If your planning an ancient era rush, the half price baracks & walls are early game. If your more peaceful, the baracks are more likely to be built in the middle ages and no walls built. Certain food-shortage cities can use the half price Harbors in the ancient era, with a few more in middle ages, with the rest built in the industrial ages.

Commericalisms benifit is the inverse of Expansionist. It won't be felt at all until you have 3+ cities and gradually increases with the number of cities you build and as they grow but even at it's peak power is low at any given time compared to the others during their peak.

First verse of Star Spangled Banner:

Unfurl the Banner, and raize it to the Sky!
Let eagle cry from mountain high,
the never ending watch word of our nation,
now behold this gem of old, the wonder of the western sky!

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
But I consider the mass-production of Temples and Cathedrals primarily a mid-game occurence, even for Religious civs. [. . . .] you're in the mid-game when you get Monarchy or The Republic and switch between them; in the late-game, the only important switch is to Communism, which is rarely a viable option.

Originally posted by joncnuun
Temples as ancient era wonder pre-builds are early game. Mass production of Temples is after both REX and any ancient era unit rush, and so the Temple portion of Religious is an early & mid game. Both Catherdrials & the govt switch out of Despotism are mid game, and so is the switch to Democracy, so Religious overall is an early game thru mid game traight.

I'll jump into the Religious debate . . .

Although I agree that the benefits of the trait may be felt more strongly during certain times of the game, I hold to the view that religious is very helpful throughout the game. Cheap happiness improvements and the freedom to war at any time, for any reason, against any odds, without worrying about WW or up to 8 turns of anarchy is significant, IMHO. Even late game it means the ability to take advantage of faster workers under a democracy, or the ability to go Communist for 10 turns near the conclusion of an Industrial Age war to pop rush "expensive" improvements like cathedrals, markets, libraries, etc. -- nothing like capturing metro's (12+ pop), holding them (we have a culture lead because of our early temples, remember?) and pop-rushing them down to 3 or 4 while at the same time creating necessary infrastructure (pay cash for the temple and 7 citizens gets you a cathderal and granary, ensuring quick regrowth with your nationality citizens and offsetting the unhappiness of the pop-rushing - completely if you happen to control Sistine ). Neither such choice is terribly inviting with a non-religious civ.

But rather than extensively debate those merits, I'd throw out some additional considerations. The utility of the trait obviously increases if you play to it -- indeed this whole thread highlights the power of a certain civ, especially if played in a manner to exploit to the fullest its inherent advantages. I'm surprised someone hasn't argued for taking a different approach to the early game when playing a religious civ.

Whether you choose to use (or even believe in) the power of early temples, how about exploiting the combination of the religious starting tech and the anarchy-free gov switches? IMHO, a great opening gambit for religious civs is to build from the starting tech Ceremonial Burial and beeline to Monarchy. To do so you need Warrior Code (so go ahead and archer rush if you choose to do so). Both Mysticsim and Polytheism are "empty" - somewhat univiting unless they are used as an aggressive tech trading asset, in which case they are quite valuable. And getting to Monarchy first means: (1) early escape from the despot tile penalties (a big deal, IMHO); (2) first shot at the HG (nice to have, by no means a "great" GW in most cases); (3) a very expensive (trade value) tech for trading; and (4) the ability to use the dirty trick of trading Monarchy to a neighbor and then attacking during the neighbor's anarchy.

If you play a set opening with relatively static build choices and tactical considerations so that certain improvements come a certain game times, regardless of civ traits you're playing, then you're not necessarily exploiting to the fullest one of the arrows in your quiver.

Maybe all that should have gone into Arrian's The Breath of God thread . . .

Back on topic

Great analysis of the Americans Dominae.

Catt

P.S. - is the Great Wall also an "industrious" flagged wonder?

[Dominae]

Let me clarify my original point so as not to spur endless debate (which is nonetheless really fun to read): the Religious trait, in comparison to the Industrious and Expansionist traits, is at its best at some point well beyond the 40th turn. If you want benefits right now from turn 1, Americans have the goods.

I believe this is secondary to the relative merits of the Religious trait in general. To convince me that the Egyptians, Iroquois or Arabs have a better early-game trait combination, you would need to show that: 1) super-early Temples directly promote the power of your civ, 2) Ceremonial Burial can be traded at high relative cost, or 3) a beeline to Monarchy helps your early growth. Point 2 is clearly false, and I doubt point 3 is true. Thus, point 1 is the only point of contention, and I happen to be on the skeptical side of the fence. Catt, I'm not saying that the Monarchy beeling is not a good strat (actually, I'm impressed; gotta try it!), just that it's not "early-game".

Slightly off-topic: going through the editor, I noticed that some Small Wonders have trait flags checked (for instance, Heroic Epic is Militaristic). Does this mean that you can trigger a GA with them (or, at least, fulfill that half of a GA's requirements)? I also noticed that The Colosssus is Expansionist, Commercial and Religious. This makes it the only Wonder with three traits. Is this normal?


Dominae

[Jawa Jocky]

Could someone defend the Commercial trait now? It has moved to the bottom of my list where Expansionist used to be. I was going to start a new thread with a poll to re-open the entire trait debate yet again, but I have 2 minutes of lunch time left.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
Let me clarify my original point so as not to spur endless debate (which is nonetheless really fun to read): the Religious trait, in comparison to the Industrious and Expansionist traits, is at its best at some point well beyond the 40th turn. If you want benefits right now from turn 1, Americans have the goods.

No argument here.

I believe this is secondary to the relative merits of the Religious trait in general. To convince me that the Egyptians, Iroquois or Arabs have a better early-game trait combination, you would need to show that: 1) super-early Temples directly promote the power of your civ, 2) Ceremonial Burial can be traded at high relative cost, or 3) a beeline to Monarchy helps your early growth. Point 2 is clearly false, and I doubt point 3 is true. Thus, point 1 is the only point of contention, and I happen to be on the skeptical side of the fence. Catt, I'm not saying that the Monarchy beeling is not a good strat (actually, I'm impressed; gotta try it!), just that it's not "early-game".

I was responding more to the stated view that the religious trait's benefits are predominantly "mid-game" benefits as opposed to arguing that religious trumps industrious and expansionist at turn 1. I believe the benefits of the religious trait are broader and are present in all eras of the game -- but I also agree that its effects are more "diluted" it seems to me (and hence my wholehearted argeement that it is tough to beat the American trait combo for "right now" effectiveness at turn 1). IOW, I acknowledged that I was contributing to the off-topic sub-discussion as to whether religious is limited to a "mid-game window" or not.

We can also potentially disagree about what constitutes the transition to "mid-game" but that's probably not a worthwhile discussion - at least not in your fine American thread.

Slightly off-topic: going through the editor, I noticed that some Small Wonders have trait flags checked (for instance, Heroic Epic is Militaristic). Does this mean that you can trigger a GA with them (or, at least, fulfill that half of a GA's requirements)? I also noticed that The Colosssus is Expansionist, Commercial and Religious. This makes it the only Wonder with three traits. Is this normal?

Small wonders won't help with the GA - it's my guess (only a guess) that the trait flags are included either due to (1) an early decision decision that was later reversed in game development; or (2) to assist the AI in determining the advisability of builds. (Did you by chance check on the Great Wall? I thought it was both Mil and Ind but don't have access to the editor here at work).

The Colossus has always had all three traits (don't know why) and it is sometimes annoying to discover this -- many have discovered it the hard way by triggering a GA inadvertantly since, IIRC, the Civilopedia only lists the Colussus as "GA-inducing" for Exp and Com civs. I didn't want to build it in AU 202 even with a coastal capitol (playing the Arabs) because I was hoping to race to Monarchy before a GA, but ended up "racing" at a snail's pace. And, with PTW, the Internet has all 6 traits flagged!

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
Could someone defend the Commercial trait now?

I think it is tough to defend empirically because its benefits are nor readily apparent. Perhaps you could build a largish "pre-made" empire in the editor and change the empire's civ's traits in two scenarios to generate some concrete facts (income, production, etc.) that would help quantify the value of the commercial trait. Lots of work for little pay-off, IMHO. Without an example and known data set to play with, it is very difficult to quantify (which results in most commercial defenses consisiting of vague "wow, I was raking in the cash in the Industrial Age; commercial is great!").

Catt

[BRC]

Slightly off-topic: going through the editor, I noticed that some Small Wonders have trait flags checked (for instance, Heroic Epic is Militaristic).

My HE is religious, Ptw 1.14 Can someone check on this?

Dom, you know I like the religious too. In the AU mod, with Democracy giving free unit support, the value of Religious is increased. I understand why this was done, but does it make you want Religious when you play the AU mod?? I know it does for me.

Small wonders won't help with the GA - it's my guess (only a guess) that the trait flags are included either due to (1) an early decision decision that was later reversed in game development; or (2) to assist the AI in determining the advisability of builds. (Did you by chance check on the Great Wall? I thought it was both Mil and Ind but don't have access to the editor here at work).

Catt, my last game as the Egyptians, (the one that Dom looked at), I triggered my golden Age after building the Hanging Gardens. The only wonder I had built was the HE. I did capture a city with the Oracle in it sometime around there, but, are you sure that Small Wonders can't trigger GA?? (ptw 1.14)

the Religious trait, in comparison to the Industrious and Expansionist traits, is at its best at some point well beyond the 40th turn. If you want benefits right now from turn 1, Americans have the goods.

You are right that most of the Religious payoffs aren't SEEN until later on. I noticed from your games that you like immediate benefit from everything you do. I prefer some immediate benefit, but I also have nothing wrong with building for the future. (I'm not trying to start anything, merely commenting on what I noticed.)

I do agree with your statement that Expansionist and Industrious traits complement each other very well.

The cultural power of early warfare + cheap temples is awesome. So much so that I have a friend who (after unwilling winning several games he wanted to milk for score - via culture) will deliberately not build cathedrals. As in he just won't ever build them. He often plays as the Iroquois on large/large maps and usually ends up with a staggeringly huge empire 'round about the beginning of the middle ages. Dunno why

It seems to me that Arrian's "friend" knows that early culture can lead to a win. Does this cultural win occur faster than your Domination/Spaceship/Whatever win??

As I try to improve, I don't concentrate on how fast I can win the game. Rather, I work on how efficiently I win the game. I like to be in control of all 8 luxuries. That's just the way I am. I also like to be able to say that I had no close calls, and I had no lucky breaks.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Catt
(Did you by chance check on the Great Wall? I thought it was both Mil and Ind but don't have access to the editor here at work).

Sorry, I completely forgot about your question. The Great Wall is indeed both Militaristic and Industrious (presmably so that China triggers a GA automatically upon building it, just like the Egyptians do with The Pyramids...I wonder why the same was not done for the Babylonians with the Hanging Gardens).


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by BRC


My HE is religious, Ptw 1.14 Can someone check on this?

That's what I thought too - Dominae is being saddled with editor checks on behalf of those of us without current access.

Catt, my last game as the Egyptians, (the one that Dom looked at), I triggered my golden Age after building the Hanging Gardens. The only wonder I had built was the HE. I did capture a city with the Oracle in it sometime around there, but, are you sure that Small Wonders can't trigger GA?? (ptw 1.14)

The wonder-induced GA mechanics are a little non-intuitive. The way it seems to work is that every time you build a wonder, your civ is checked to see if it controls wonders with the correct civ traits. This check is not done upon wonder capture. What this means in game terms is that the Egyptians will trigger a GA by building the Pyramids, but not by capturing them. If, however, the Egyptians capture the Pyramids, they can then build Sun Tzu's (militaristic only) and still trigger their GA (because the "GA check" shows possession of GWs with both Ind and Rel attributes). In your specific case, you captured the Oracle (Rel) and built the HG (Ind) -- the "GA check" happened upon your build, and the Oracle (not HE) satisfied the trigger.

Catt

[BRC]

The wonder-induced GA mechanics are a little non-intuitive. The way it seems to work is that every time you build a wonder, your civ is checked to see if it controls wonders with the correct civ traits. This check is not done upon wonder capture. What this means in game terms is that the Egyptians will trigger a GA by building the Pyramids, but not by capturing them. If, however, the Egyptians capture the Pyramids, they can then build Sun Tzu's (militaristic only) and still trigger their GA (because the "GA check" shows possession of GWs with both Ind and Rel attributes). In your specific case, you captured the Oracle (Rel) and built the HG (Ind) -- the "GA check" happened upon your build, and the Oracle (not HE) satisfied the trigger.

Appreciate the clarification. I know someone else did this in another thread too, but I did not know with Small Wonders.

So, no one really knows what the SW flags are for????

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BRC
My HE is religious, Ptw 1.14 Can someone check on this?

Sorry, the Heroic Epic is indeed Religious (not that it matters...see the point after next).

Originally posted by BRC
Dom, you know I like the religious too. In the AU mod, with Democracy giving free unit support, the value of Religious is increased. I understand why this was done, but does it make you want Religious when you play the AU mod?? I know it does for me.

I would switch to Democracy if I were playing a Religious civ, playing the AU mod or no. And no, the slight advantage of Democracy introduced in the AU mod does not entice me to play Religious (not at this time, at least), mostly because it's eclipsed by the faster Worker rate.

Originally posted by BRC
Catt, my last game as the Egyptians, (the one that Dom looked at), I triggered my golden Age after building the Hanging Gardens. The only wonder I had built was the HE. I did capture a city with the Oracle in it sometime around there, but, are you sure that Small Wonders can't trigger GA?? (ptw 1.14)

From joncnunn's post, controlling The Oracle meant that you had met the Religious requirement (doesn't matter that you didn't build it). When you built the Hanging Gardens, the Industrious requirement was also met, and so you triggered your GA. Nothing to do with the Heroic Epic.

Originally posted by BRC
You are right that most of the Religious payoffs aren't SEEN until later on. I noticed from your games that you like immediate benefit from everything you do. I prefer some immediate benefit, but I also have nothing wrong with building for the future. (I'm not trying to start anything, merely commenting on what I noticed.)

Ha, you're psycho-analyzing me, aren't you! "You like immediate benefits in everything you do"...

Seriously, I've come to play this way because I think early benefits translate into great rewards later on. Early investements translate into mediocre rewards (at least in Civ3). For instance, conquering your neighbour instead early will always be better in the long run than building Temples (I can just sense the flames coming on this one!). Those extra turns that you control those cities produces a geometric effect later on. Temples double in Culture once only. And think about it: the more cities you can have early on, the more Temples you can build (if that's your thing)!

Originally posted by BRC
As I try to improve, I don't concentrate on how fast I can win the game. Rather, I work on how efficiently I win the game. I like to be in control of all 8 luxuries. That's just the way I am. I also like to be able to say that I had no close calls, and I had no lucky breaks.

You and I use the term "efficiently" in different ways then. I see "efficient" as "lossless" and "not wasteful", so in my eyes having all your citizens Happy is wasteful (unless you need a WLTKD). From your comments, you see "efficient" as "higher relative advantage". For me, close calls and lucky breaks are part of the fun, which is why I didn't much enjoy the Ultimate Power AU game. Different people, different tastes.


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
For instance, conquering your neighbour instead early will always be better in the long run than building Temples (I can just sense the flames coming on this one!). Those extra turns that you control those cities produces a geometric effect later on. Temples double in Culture once only. And think about it: the more cities you can have early on, the more Temples you can build (if that's your thing)!

I can't imagine how someone can flame you on that point -- I would love to see someone try and argue that building early temples is more powerful than conquering a neighbor early; the mental gymnastics, logical leaps, and outright falsehoods that would seem to be necessary to carrying the day on that argument would be quite the show .

But the question around early temples isn't: Conquer or Culture? It is: Conquer AND Culture. Finding the sweetspots in a city's build queue to slip in that 30-shiled temple is the key. To frame the analysis I would ask the questions: (1) Will building temples instead of units prevent me from conquering a neighbor early?; assuming "no," then (2) will the additional units I could build instead of temples generate longer-term benefits than temples? Point (2) is the tricky one, since it is difficult to accurately quantify the long-term benefits of early temples and also difficult to accurately quantify the value-add to the early war of the extra units that the temple-builder would otherwise forego.

Sorry to keep the thread-jack running, but the thread-starter seems to be a willing participant, so I don't feel too badly

( says, "I want a Santa hat" )
EDIT: New says, "I got a Santa hat"

Catt

[BRC]

For instance, conquering your neighbour instead early will always be better in the long run than building Temples

Totally agree with you here. Everyone needs more room for cities.

I would switch to Democracy if I were playing a Religious civ, playing the AU mod or no.

Sorry. I was assuming that you stay in Republic due to the Anarchy and lousy payoff. That's just what I've heard from most of the others.

Ha, you're psycho-analyzing me, aren't you! "You like immediate benefits in everything you do"...

Just trying to learn. I haven't had a whole lot of gaming experience to know what works yet.

You and I use the term "efficiently" in different ways then. I see "efficient" as "lossless" and "not wasteful", so in my eyes having all your citizens Happy is wasteful (unless you need a WLTKD). From your comments, you see "efficient" as "higher relative advantage". For me, close calls and lucky breaks are part of the fun, which is why I didn't much enjoy the Ultimate Power AU game. Different people, different tastes.

I want every game to be a UP game. No doubt about it. It is true that I enjoy the end of the game less, but when I start to pull away, that's where I feel good. I guess you see why I needed some encouragement to move up to Emperor. Gonna try Japan.

But the question around early temples isn't: Conquer or Culture? It is: Conquer AND Culture.

Yes. If I think that my units are not going to be enough, a temple does not get built. No question. I'm terrified of the later flips, but my safety in the beginning comes first.

Arrian's whole method of rushing temples works extremely well. I use it in my outlying cities all the time. The unhappiness is taken care of by the temple, you get early culture, your borders get sealed.... I think the value of Religious is taken down a bit if you are not able to incorporate this strategy.

[Arrian]

I want every game to be a UP game. No doubt about it. It is true that I enjoy the end of the game less, but when I start to pull away, that's where I feel good.

You suffer from the same affliction I do. Just winning doesn't cut it.

Incidentally, I've come up with a way to perk up the late(r) part of the game: Privateers. When you have UP, you can easily afford to crank out 20 or so privateers. See if you can destroy the combined navies of the remaining AI civs. It's like fighting a war... without fighting a war. I'll even take on ironclads. 2-3 privateers will take them down.

Or, alternatively, you could use that nifty religious trait and switch back to Monarchy and just declare a neverending war on the remaining civs. Take your time. No need to rush it. Break things. Slowly. Carefully.

I may be evil.

-Arrian

[joncnunn]

There is a huge production advantages to cities with CN > 4 having a WLTPD pre-Police Station. (For commerical civs, it's CN> 5).

Having a WLTPD acts like a free additional Court House (production only.)

Post-Police Stations, WLTPD still give huge production advantages to cities with CN > 10. (For Commerical, civs, it's CN > 12.)

Having 12 Happy Citizens is excelent.

11 Happy Citizens + 1 Unhappy citizen though might as well be 6 Happy Citizens + 6 Unhappy citizens.

Originally posted by Dominae

You and I use the term "efficiently" in different ways then. I see "efficient" as "lossless" and "not wasteful", so in my eyes having all your citizens Happy is wasteful (unless you need a WLTKD). From your comments, you see "efficient" as "higher relative advantage". For me, close calls and lucky breaks are part of the fun, which is why I didn't much enjoy the Ultimate Power AU game. Different people, different tastes.

Dominae

[Dominae]

Still, even with those "huge" production advantages, those corrupt cities will contribute next-to-nothing to your empire. Unless you like building in your core cities and disbanding in your corrupt cites (which I find really tedious and dumb), most of the time you're better served by just growing the pop and using Specialists. WLTKDs are useful only in those few cities that are minimally productive, yet not totally corrupt.


Dominae

[Arrian]

Dominae,

I am a big fan of WLTKD, and I think you are gravely underestimating its power.

It's not that 1 shield city that you can coax up to 4 shields that really matters (except when you are building the FP from scratch: that's a big deal), it's the "near-core" cities that really benifit. Cities that, with a courthouse & WLTKD are now nearly the equals (production-wise) of your core. That's where it pays off.

joncnunn is absolutely right that 11 happy, 1 unhappy is worthless. In fact, depending on the city (just about any but the rings immediately surrounding the capitol and FP), I will often pull that 12th citizen off the land and make him a taxman. *presto* I have WLTKD, which more than covers the shields the 12 citizen was "producing" but I wasn't getting anyway. It's a BIG difference.

This is why I'm such a luxurymonger, and why I love the Sistine. Get a temple & courthouse, and getting a size 6 city into WLTKD usually requires that only the 6th citizen be made an entertainer. Use the WLTKD boost to build a cathedral. Put citizen back on land. Build aqueduct, then a market. You may be surprised at how well that city ends up.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Yes, I understand the power of WLTKD. Here's the way I see it: there's the core cities (around your 2 Palaces), there's the mid-distance cities, and there's the outlying (totally corrupt) cities. In my experience, the first and third groups (really close and really far) are much bigger than the middle group. Admittedly, this depends on a lot of things, primarily geography. I do agree that WLTKD is amazing in the right circumstances. But getting those few cities up and running with a Temple, Cathedral, J.S. Bach's, etc. so that they're celebrating when they've got all their Luxuries is nonetheless expensive. So, for an important part of the game, I'm happy with just keeping my citizens (a majority of which are in the core) from revolting. Of course, grabbing extra Luxuries is never a bad thing, either.


Dominae

[Arrian]

My experience is that I can usually get most, if not all, of a 4-5 civ continent (originally that is, before I killed the 3-4 neighbors) to be productive. By that I mean less that 50% shield loss. A really good city (w/RRs, factory & hoover) will put out around 100 shields (the best ones, most end up in the 70-90 range). So lots of my fringe cities, in WLTKD end up producing 35-50 shields. It definitely takes work, and doesn't really pay off until RRs, factories and hoover when the game is probably already won, but...

I like efficiency. Plus, there is a development stage in the mid-to-late middle ages where WLTKD in that middle band of cities you mention (no idea why yours have low pop other than desert or something) can really give you a boost, allowing those cities to build things in a reasonable amount of time such that they can be turned into powerhouses once RRs show up.

-Arrian