Overcoming Parity in the Medival Age - Page 2

Catt · February 26, 2003, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Yes, the AI is predictable, but I haven't learned their exact repetition yet. I have noticed a few things; Monarchy almost ALWAYS comes last, which can help. Any other pointers/hints? (though maybe this is a subject for another thread)

Too many to catalogue. Check out many of the "Must Read" threads topped here in the strategy forum for a good overall sense of AI patterning.

Quote:

Yes, the AI does launch idiotic and poorly-waged wars often. But occassionally, some power will come along and utterly conquer the other, leaving you with a genuine superpower to deal with. I'm not talking about the Europeans offing each other. It's generally something like the Carthaginians taking ALL of Egypt, Babylon or wherever, or the Zulus doing the same to some country. This is quite problematic, as I am fond of the classic maxim "divide and rule". It's certainly an improvement in PTW from standard Civ3, IMO.

But there you've hit my point! Admittedly, there's not much you can do when all the "AI-killing-AI fighting" is happening on another landmass prior to contact. But if you know of the civs, and can sense their relative power, it is precisely your task at hand to prevent the emergence of a super-power. Either jump in with the strong to divide the spoils, or prop up the weak with alliances and resources. If the costs to your empire of direct and strong intervention is too great, diplomacy and trading can often accomplish much of what a strong military force can. Get in on the action and enlist allies to battle the potential superpower. Make sure the underdog has critical resources, even if it means offering a sweetheart deal (trading away your sole source of iron to a Feudalism- and Chivalry-enabled AI which happens to be ironless and under attack, for example). Which seems better: (1) building and massing troops to take on the emerging superpower, or (2) allying with the weakling, and buying alliances against the superpower with 2 or 3 "decent" AI empires? It all depends on the situation of course, but oftentimes the second option is best -- particularly where building a force will alter your near-term goals considerably. I take great pleasure in watching 2 or 3 proxy-AI's take care of the would-be superpower -- not only is the emerging threat crippled, but the proxies themselves are weakened by the warfare.

Quote:

Because Huge games are SO SLOW, waiting to conquer the good wonders isn't as appealing, sometimes, as just starting over.

You should play in the manner you find most appealing! If you want to start over because you're not in the position you wanted to be in, by all means do so -- but don't start over under the misapprehension that you're in a "losing" position.

Catt

Yahweh Sabaoth · February 26, 2003, 18:23

It's not a matter of losing or winning, it's a matter of achieving MG (Maximum Glory).

It seems to me that the AI is more likely to team up with the emerging superpower to pick on other weak AIs, or my own empire if it is deemed weak enough. I do my best to prop up small empires under attack by big ones. That's both good strategy and "the right thing to do", even though this is a computer game we're talking about. But it's the delusion that counts.

Another issue is, how to make myself the favorite superpower, in the end? I intend to conquer the weak as well.

Catt · February 26, 2003, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
It's not a matter of losing or winning, it's a matter of achieving MG (Maximum Glory).

You need to read everything Arrian's ever posted. His version of MG is UP ("Ultimate Power") and he has devoted an awful lot of attention and learning into perfecting the ways to achieve it.

Quote:

It seems to me that the AI is more likely to team up with the emerging superpower to pick on other weak AIs, or my own empire if it is deemed weak enough.

Quick action is required. If you dither, sinister forces will take the initiative. Learning to recognize opportunity, and then seize it before it passes, is important (and fun to learn -- after all, it generally requires a lot of game playing!).

Quote:

I do my best to prop up small empires under attack by big ones. That's both good strategy and "the right thing to do", even though this is a computer game we're talking about. But it's the delusion that counts.

I agree

on the delusion - a sense of roleplaying makes for a lot of fun for me - but sometimes the same delusion requires utterly destroying every last trace of the pathetic little blight of an empire impinging on one's own visions of grandeur

Quote:

Another issue is, how to make myself the favorite superpower, in the end? I intend to conquer the weak as well.

It's tough to be dominant and loved. It's darn near impossible to be dominant and loved by all.

Catt

Master Zen · February 27, 2003, 02:13

Hello guys, coming late to this thread I'd like to say one or two things about my strategy:

First of all, assuming tech parity, I always go against the stronger civ as early as possible. Its the best way to avoid a superpower neighbour in the future. Here's a little history of my recent game (playing France)

1) REX phase. I ended up with a small territory and only 1 lux. fortunately I was endowed with horses and iron. My neighbours were Germany, England, and two detatched Persian cities. Germany had a HUGE territory, and it was far and away the #1 civ.

2) Buildup phase. Since I had a small territory I built temorary cities for unit production, loosely based on the Ralphing scheme. Soon, I had 30+ horesmen. I also built the Great Library which kept me on parity with the AI. I did NOT switch to Monarchy (I only do this if Im a religious civ) and waited until Republic and switched.

3) War phase. I could go to war againt England, Persina and Germany. With over 25 cities Germany was a powerhouse. I got Chivalry and upgraded my Horsemen to Knights, with the GL I spent everything on taxes and was pretty rich. Declared war on Germany and in 20 turns had wiped them off the face of the earth with my 30+ Knights. I got 3 leaders during the war and became the largest territory in the world with 25 extra cities and over 10 luxuries added! One of my leaders built the Forbidden Palace in a German city, the other built an army and the other the Sistine Chapel.

4) Building phase. About 10 turns into the war I got a Golden Age thru my Musketeers. After that I started building improvements like Universities, Banks etc. .

5) Beelined to MT. Right before the Persians declared war on me and I took 5 of their cities until they sued for peace. Same with the Russians. Now I am after England. I just invaded them with 30+ cavalries. The rest has wet to be written...

My point is, parity in the medieval age is quite possible when you get Knights. Beelining to MT is a possibility but remember that by the time you get Cavalry the AI will have many cities over size 6 which will to a certain degree negate the advantages of Cavalry over the best medieval defensive unit, the Musketeer. You will need to bombard the cities but Cannon at that age is notoriously ineffective. You can have a stack of 10 and most will be failed bombardments. Not an easy way of taking a size 12 city. The only other solution is a stack of 10+ Cavalry attacking from a square right beside the city to guarantee that they will retreat if beaten. You'll suffer atrocious damage taking Musketman-defended cities but hopefuly few lost units. Just fortify in the city once you take it and wait for them to heal and repeat.

Another issue is that most civs will end up hating you. Every civ in the world at this time is Annoyed or Furious at me (especially the ones that got their butt kicked - the Persians, U.S. and Russians). It's a price that us warmongers are willing to pay since securing the continent is the ONLY way of leading a peaceful life until you can beat the game with a SS or hopefully if you make amends, a diplomatic victory.

So, take advantage of Knights, use them before the AI gets gunpowder, early medieval wars are winnable since most AI cities will be small, in my Germany war, they only had 3 cities over size 6.

If you get Cavarly and start a war then, remember, win quickly because Riflemen are just around the corner and only until the advent of tanks will you get another clear shot at a swift victory.

vmxa1 · February 27, 2003, 03:23

I really can not see the need to switch governments three times or even two for non religous civs, it is just too painful.
I do not have that much trouble with happiness at Republic form. Yes if the war is started by me and is really never ending, but when they start them....
Just get those marketplaces and luxs. Very very late in the game, the city size handles the happiness with lots of surplus citizens.
I just wish I could recall or fiure out how to get the governors to stop putting people back to work after I move them in those conquered cities. Soon as one starves, boom they put them back to growing food, argh.

vmxa1 · February 27, 2003, 03:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Yes, the AI does launch idiotic and poorly-waged wars often. But occassionally, some power will come along and utterly conquer the other, leaving you with a genuine superpower to deal with. I'm not talking about the Europeans offing each other. It's generally something like the Carthaginians taking ALL of Egypt, Babylon or wherever, or the Zulus doing the same to some country. This is quite problematic, as I am fond of the classic maxim "divide and rule". It's certainly an improvement in PTW from standard Civ3, IMO.

I do get impatient and give up games with a lot of potential, often. I probably wouldn't if I was playing as an industrious civ. But those Romans. Bah! I especially hate dealing with a tech deficit, and slow growth. Because Huge games are SO SLOW, waiting to conquer the good wonders isn't as appealing, sometimes, as just starting over.

The real danger in the game, especially a huge map is that a large land mass will develop a superpowered AI.
If one AI does what you do, that is conquer all the civs on its land mass, that is bad news.
I work hard to prevent this. Lend a hand when I can to the others, get others to go to war against the growing civ. Do the things Arrain mentioned such as getting them to pay for luxs to slow them down on their research. I may even sell techs for 1gp or a mapto allow them to fight back some.
If they emerge with all that land, they will have massive troops and be a real bugger to dislodge.
Those that play SS or culture can get over, but if you are doing Dom/Conquest, you have work to do.
Every one of your games that I have looked at were sure winners for you, if you played them out.
I figure, I have won for all practical purposes, once I make up the tech lead (if they ever had one). I look at the military and see them with lots of extra troops, but as Catt said they will squander them in piece meal attacks and poor tactics.
To me the game is satisfying when I had to come from a defict. The other thing that keeps going is I want to get that pay back for any percieved wrongs. Oh you demanded tribute when I was in no position to go to war huh? Take this and this. Ok that is a bit strange for a game.

Yahweh Sabaoth · February 27, 2003, 10:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
2) Buildup phase. Since I had a small territory I built temorary cities for unit production, loosely based on the Ralphing scheme

Excuse me, but what is the "Ralphing scheme"?

minke19104 · February 27, 2003, 11:33

Sir Ralph made a city placement strategy not so long ago. Search the threads for it. It's something to do with having lots of cities, some for growth and some just temporary for military or settler production. Then the temporary ones get abandoned later on.

Master Zen · February 27, 2003, 14:45

The concept of Ralphing is that you would have core cities (the ones which all your improvements would be made) with would overlap with 2 squares, one at the top right and the other at the bottom left (or top left and bottom right). Then you would have "camp" cities which would be disbanded after you get Hospitals, these camp cities would be located 2 squares north and south of each city. These camps would be only used for unit or settler production (only improvement would be barracks.)

Catt · February 27, 2003, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
My point is, parity in the medieval age is quite possible when you get Knights. Beelining to MT is a possibility but remember that by the time you get Cavalry the AI will have many cities over size 6 which will to a certain degree negate the advantages of Cavalry over the best medieval defensive unit, the Musketeer. You will need to bombard the cities but Cannon at that age is notoriously ineffective. You can have a stack of 10 and most will be failed bombardments. Not an easy way of taking a size 12 city. The only other solution is a stack of 10+ Cavalry attacking from a square right beside the city to guarantee that they will retreat if beaten. You'll suffer atrocious damage taking Musketman-defended cities but hopefuly few lost units. Just fortify in the city once you take it and wait for them to heal and repeat.

While militaristic expansion is often the most efficient method of reaching parity, it is not required. If you have a decent empire (by no means the largest, but at least large enough to justify an FP and second core -- even if smallish), it is usually quite possible to reach parity, and zoom ahead, through peaceful means.

Quote:

Another issue is that most civs will end up hating you. Every civ in the world at this time is Annoyed or Furious at me (especially the ones that got their butt kicked - the Persians, U.S. and Russians). It's a price that us warmongers are willing to pay since securing the continent is the ONLY way of leading a peaceful life until you can beat the game with a SS or hopefully if you make amends, a diplomatic victory.

Again - warfare is generally highly efficient, but securing the entire continent is by no means the only way of leading a peaceful life until a non-military win. (And depending on how one defines peaceful, securing the continent may be no more peace-inducing than not securing the continent).

Catt

Yahweh Sabaoth · February 27, 2003, 15:37

Playing a huge world, securing your ENTIRE continent is quite a dask, irregardless of difficulty, thanks to corruption alone. It's a goal of mine, don't get me wrong, but if you have a huge continental empire with few fronts, you can be in good shape.

As long as I NEVER have to import an resource (besides maybe 1 or 2 luxuries), I consider my empire to be top-notch. But I'm talking about all of them, up to uranium and aluminum, here.

Master Zen · February 27, 2003, 15:54

Catt, you say give peace a chance.

NO WAAAAYYYY!!!!!

Catt · February 27, 2003, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Catt, you say give peace a chance.

NO WAAAAYYYY!!!!!

Yours is a perfectly valid approach. I just had to speak up and remind folks that there are other potential levers one can pull to control the tempo and direction of the game.

Catt

Master Zen · February 27, 2003, 17:45

You're right about that Catt, there a million and one ways to play this game, and choosing the peaceful route is challenging and rewarding.

Too bad my patience with the enemy civs is rather limited. If they threaten me with war unless I pay up the anwer is usually NO! If I am weak, I will pay up. But I will never forget...

revenge is sooo sweet.

Yahweh Sabaoth · February 27, 2003, 17:51

Here's to that! Tonight we feast on human blood!

BRC · February 27, 2003, 18:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt

Yours is a perfectly valid approach. I just had to speak up and remind folks that there are other potential levers one can pull to control the tempo and direction of the game.

Catt

Catt, the Angel is a bit much!!

I'm sure you'll hammer out a more formal declaration some time, stating what is required (with reference to Theseus' Seven Pillars), for those who have yet to be enlightened.

The more I think about it, the "safer" it seems. This may end up with a stronger following than the Dark Side. I should be able to add to it in a few weeks.

Yahweh: I used to play on huge maps, and those games lasted forever. Standard seems to keep the game as it was meant to be played, without straining the relationship with the gf.

I agree about the strategic resource problem. However, as long as you keep your reputation intact, it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Arrian · February 27, 2003, 18:02

I just take pre-emptive revenge. I know they're gonna try to screw me eventually, so I just beat 'em to the punch.

-Arrian

BRC · February 27, 2003, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I just take pre-emptive revenge. I know they're gonna try to screw me eventually, so I just beat 'em to the punch.

-Arrian

Haha. First UP, now "pre-emptive revenge". Trademarked to Arrian.

Yahweh Sabaoth · February 27, 2003, 18:04

Quote:

Originally posted by BRC
Yahweh: I used to play on huge maps, and those games lasted forever. Standard seems to keep the game as it was meant to be played, without straining the relationship with the gf.

What in God's name is the GF? The Great Foolishness of playing Civ too much? Que est-ce que c'est?

BRC · February 27, 2003, 18:10

Yahweh

Girlfriend

brc

Yahweh Sabaoth · February 27, 2003, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by BRC
Yahweh

Girlfriend

brc

Oh.

Too late for that I'm afraid.

Mountain Sage · February 28, 2003, 09:58

Another way to gain an edge is to give the impression that you do NOT want to gain one, but in reality you are the puppet-master behind the game. Let me explain:

Your're a middle-sized Civ, with a modest military, not much Gold (lets say around 1'000), barely at parity in the Tech race etc... and you still want to win?

Well, then,

- Be a diplomatic charmer: sell them every 2 turns your World map, even for 1 Gold. It makes them happy, they have a bit Gold less and usualy stay 'Polite'. If they're not interested, give it 'graciously' for free.

- Be a tech broker: sell and buy anything you can, your goal is to keep parity with the strongest and fastest, not getting into the lead.

- Build up your treasury, LOTS if Gold, I'll explain later why.

- Do NOT go to war: keep a strong defensive force but forget conquests. You really covet that luxury? Buy it, trade it, bribe it, whatever, but stay home.

- Build every improvement you can afford and makes sense, your building age will soon come to an end.

- if somebody attacks you, use the MAR strategy. MAR= Massive Allied Retaliation. You bribe every other Civ to join your war against your attacker, then just defend. First of all, your attacker will be too busy to bother you much and then it will slow down the tech research for ALL other Civs.

Now you are in the late Industrial Age. I admit, the last centuries were quite boring.
Now you make peace with everybody, buy the latest Techs, crank up the Science slider and go into the 4 turn/Tech. Damn the deficits, this is why you have lots of Gold.
Then you build more Workers (except if you are French).
Then you start a Palace.

As soon as you enter the Modern Age, go for the UN with your pre-build Palace. Then go for a Diplomatic victory.
Conversely, hold off your diplomatic victory and go for a Space Race by putting all your cities to 'Wealth' and Techs/4 turns (it's amazing the deficits you can run then!). Don't trade any Techs and don't worry about pollution (this is why you build all these Workers).

And... welcome Alpha Centauri.

Yahweh Sabaoth · February 28, 2003, 10:45

Hmmm, I must say that I had completely forgotten about the diplomatic victory. I've always been too scared to use it when I build the UN in prior games... I'm always worried my agressive past will come up to haunt me.

But as far as spaceflight goes, I guess I'd be worried about getting all the resources I need for it. Not to mention NOT GETTING COAL. That is always a major concern.

Mountain Sage · March 3, 2003, 03:26

Yahweh,

For your speceship you only need aluminium and uranium. If you don't have some, buy it, with gold or with Techs, but don't let this simple detail waylaid you on your race.

On one game I did not manage to get ANY coal. It's a pain, but you can even win without. Wait till you have rubber and go directly from Galley to Battleship!
Well, not having a railroad network was a pain, though!

Just be careful with the diplomatic victory. A couple of times I thought I was the nice guy (everybody was Polite/Gracious to me) and then I got beaten by ... Ghandi (who was at war with 3 other Civs

)

God luck and keep us updated.

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 3, 2003, 11:06

One day I will overcome my fear and go for a diplomatic victory. I'll save before I opt to hold elections, of course.

minke19104 · March 3, 2003, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Sage
On one game I did not manage to get ANY coal. It's a pain, but you can even win without. Wait till you have rubber and go directly from Galley to Battleship!
Well, not having a railroad network was a pain, though!
God luck and keep us updated.

I would've certainly go to war if I had no coal... Managing a huge empire is hard without 0 turn movement. Also considering the huge disadvantage of production that would not be available had I not have railway tiles+mines everywhere around my cities....

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 3, 2003, 11:54

Yes, I too would use all my resources to procure coal. It's happened to me before (no coal), and man, you can go from #1 to the bottom on little time if your enemies start building railroads to and fro, and you don't...

Mountain Sage · March 4, 2003, 07:49

This is the exact reason why I did NOT go to war. I got coal only later on, at the beginning of the Modern Age, when I Civ got wiped out and a coal became available. Since it was a bit too late to get boosted for a space race (even with my fast French workers!), I opted for a diplomatic one... and I lost it to Ghandi, the guy who sold me the coal.

The gods were really against me ...

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 4, 2003, 09:49

Hey, serves you right for not getting that coal, man. The community of nations smiles on the strongest, not the coalless.

But back to topic. If all of you all could have ONLY ONE wonder of the medival era, what would it be? Assume you are at parity in every way (tech, military, borders, etc.)

Arrian · March 4, 2003, 10:22

Only one? Depends.

Are you religious?

Are you planning a large horse -> knight > cavalry upgrade?

If you're religious, and are not relying on a large upgrade, I'd go with the Sistine.

If you're not religious, the argument can certainly be made for Bach over the Sistine.

Clearly, if a massive upgrade is your plan, Leo's has to be the one.

Sun Tzu is nice to have and nice to deny the AI, but it's not a big deal if you lose it.

Adam Smith's is a very powerful wonder - and is more powerful the bigger your empire is. But if I'm restricted to only one ME wonder, I'd go with a happiness enhancer (Sistine/Bach).

Other factors include what AI civ(s) are likely to build the ones you don't get. If you're thinking about conquering a neighbor, it sure would be nice if they built a key wonder, huh?

-Arrian