 |
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thriller
I am quite happy for any of you to tell me that half of my post-game comments are absolute rubbish (but please, not more than half!), if you will all give me yours. That’s the only way I’m going to learn how the devil Nathan is able to get a SS victory by 1555 (not to mention build a power level 4 times that of his nearest competitor by 600AD!) and Catt (at Demi-God, no less!) is able to build the UN by 1460 and win diplomatically by 1515 from an empire consisting of only 3 islands, without ever having conquered the Japanese!
|
I'm glad to see you're so keen about learning how to get better at Civ3. However, the onus is mostly on you to learn from the reports posted here. You know what you did, now compare it with what others did and see which way is better.
It would be great if all the veteran players could analyze each and every game and dish out advice, but let's face it this is time-consuming and rather boring after a while. You will get tidbits of advice here and there as players read your report if something jumps out at them, but generally you're better off asking direct questions than waiting for others to comment on your game (especially if you're playing Emperor and so are clearly pretty good already).
So, how about I turn one of your questions around: why do you think Nathan managed to be so powerful at 600AD, and how is this different from what you choose to do?
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 13-02-2004 at 10:46
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
When, if ever, is it worthwhile to delay available tech trades in the early game for X or Y number of turns?
|
When you plan to conquer one or more AI civs on a secluded continent. This is what most of you did with Japan.
Generally, I would say that if a secluded AI civ can pay a reasonable price for your techs I see no reason to delay trading with that civ. An AI civ may have a good economic base but still be horribly backward in tech simply because it's never entered the tech loop. This was the case with Russia in many of your games. With such civs I like to gift all my techs so that they start researching something useful. Since I'm the only one that has contact with them, I'm always the first that gets to trade with them, to obvious benefit. This is a much better use of that civ's Commerce than letting it waste away on already-researched techs.
Keeping civs backward may make you feel powerful because you have a tech lead, but you'll actually do better if everyone is current and you're the one pulling strings behind the tech race.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mountain Sage
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
Okay - no one has taken up my request  Let me phrase it another way. On a landmass that is shared, or that you suspect is shared, by numerous civs you take a real risk in not trading techs as soon as you meet a new civ -- if you don't trade, the newly met civ may trade with other civs and make your holdings worthless. On a map that you suspect may be an archipelago, is such risk reduced enough to justify withholding trades during the time you continue to explore?
Catt  |
Sorry being a bit late 
I used to withhold techs as much as possible (I prefer to play archipelago), but now I'm convinced it's not a clever strategy. Let me explain:
If I find an isolated civ and know it will stay isolated (because I discovered it via a galley which did not manage to suicide), then I would withhold my techs as long as they don't pay me a sizable amount of gold (anyway, they will be useless for a long time).
As for the other civs, my experience is now that as soon as a trade is economically feasible, like enough gold, or another tech, or a luxury, it should be made.
Why? because gold (even 20-50 gp) will enable you to research techs faster and/or hike up the luxury slider, thus cashing more gold in. In other words, it's a positive feedback.
However, I would withold techs for a few rounds in a certain number of occasions. For instance, if some civs are just behind the front-runners, I'll try to wait and sell my tech to everybody on the same turn, instead of having another civ selling 'my' tech around.
I would also withold a tech if I plan a war and need allies/RoPs, or if I 'sense' that a civ is going to declare war to me (that lonley galley/galleon heading out of the blue towards my shores...).
The bottom line is that techs will be researched and traded anyway. I prefer to have the other civs dance to my tune instead of the contrary. A 1-tech advance (or knowing you will research one before the others) is often enough to manage the game.
PS: I will be away next week, so don't please.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
When, if ever, is it worthwhile to delay available tech trades in the early game for X or Y number of turns?
|
Sometimes, in the very early-game when I have an expensive tech (Masonry, Alphabet) that one of my contacts does not, I'll hold out on trading it to them right away for their crappy stuff (Bronze Working, Warrior Code) in hopes of spotting a couple of Workers up for trade in their capital. I'll do this even on Pangea maps.
It's not really that risky because if civ A only has Warrior Code and Bronze Working, the two techs the AI goes for first, chances are that civ B which knows Alphabet probably knows those too, so the A has nothing to trade for Alphabet. Except Workers! Sometimes you miss out and the AI never finishes its turn with Workers in its capital, so at some point you have to accept a "normal" trade for Alphabet. It's better not to wait too long as you can miss your opportunity to make that trade too.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
When, if ever, is it worthwhile to delay available tech trades in the early game for X or Y number of turns?
|
Dom said most of what I was going to say, but left out some minor points.
How aggressively are you scouting for contacts? Aeson's thread On Scouting details reasons to be extremely aggressive as well as reasons to not trade "on contact" and is a regular re-read of mine.
Most of us built a curragh in the first 1000 years or so - how many of us saw AI curraghs that early? We had a reasonable expectation that it was likely we were the only ones out surfing the waves. In that case, I'd wait a few turns to see if I can find another AI and push my costs down. If not, I'll go ahead and trade if for not other reason than to speed the tech rate and attempt to manipulate the AI into researching things I won't.
I traded somewhat sluggishly while finding Japan, Sumeria, Hittites, and was cautious what I trade when I found Egypt, but once I found Russia and lost my curragh, I decided it was time to start pushing, and hard.
My exception, like most, was Japan. I agonized over Japan quite a bit, IIRC. I didn't want them getting Swordsmen and if I didn't crush them before contact, I'd have to worry about allies. So I traded them enough to keep them dirt poor, but did so in a way that I hoped would manipulate them away from techs that could make my eventual invasion more difficult.
Aside from the early delay and some minor sluggishness until I'd met half the world, I traded "on contact" and got as much as possible for as little as possible.
On a continents/pangea map, or on a map with mostly the American culture group(so many expansionists show up here, it seems), I'd worry about waiting even just one turn to trade, especially if their scout is heading the same direction I am. On 'pelago, especially with ultra-early curraghs, I felt I had a lot more leeway to wait and see, though I didn't have to wait long.
So, I guess the definitive answer, for me at least, is "It depends," like so much in C3. Certain situations I trade as soon as possible, even at not-so-great prices, just so I'm not left out of the loop, and sometimes I'll let an opportunity slip through my fingers simply because it doesn't seem like much of a loss or I'm overly confident in my abilities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
I was not able to finish to course due to real life popping up and preventing Civ for a while. I just came to terms with the fact that if I ever do finish the course, everyone else will have moved on to 502. So, here is my response (in my game I am at war with Japan and just about to discover Military Tradition, if anyone cares).
1. What did you learn about the power of Seafaring?
I love it. I think that this is the most fun trait, ignoring the actual bonuses it gives. I agree with the sentiment that 25% sinking is way too low for balance, but I love the trait. It's a fun one, and valuable. The coast trade bonus and the movements (coupled with GL or Magellean) are huge.
2. About Civ3 in general?
This was one of my first games in which I really kept never stopped building workers. I've always known that it is important, always said I would, and never followed through. The difference in a small or large worker force is night and day... and I am preaching the choir.
3. Was there anything you would have done differently?
Bigger armies. First, I thought I had enough horsies and Med Inf to take out the Hittites. They overwhelmed me with countless spears and archers. It was so depressing. Then, Knights and pikes fell to Japans raging hordes of Ancient Cav, horses, spears and archers. My armies were a *little* too small for most players... but hardly too small for the tasks I thought they would be attempting. Severe defeat is embarassing, and I'd build bigger armies to prevent it next time.
4. Which civ gave you the most trouble, and why?
Well, I didn't finish the game, so Japan and the Hittites. Why? My wars with both were slaughters because of their numbers. And the three Hittite cities I took defected back shortly after peace. Maya, and the Netherlands are all shaping up to be real KIAs. Egypt is slightly behind I have to laugh when I read about Russia the powerhouse that annexed Egypt in everyone elses game. In mine all Russia did was build the Great Library, which Egypt promptly stole from them as it wiped them off the face of the Earth.
5. What did you think of the Plague?
Effected one city for a few turns. I'm glad it's in the AU mod, an I'm glad that it didn't set me back too much!
6. How did the AU mod affect gameplay?
I haven't really played stock rules since the AU mod first started coming out...
7. Did you find any Easter eggs?
Those sea lanes were how long? 
Regarding the Scenario Maker Debate:
One of the things I like best about AU courses are the fact that they are tampered with a bit. Not created from scratch, but tweaked. We see more KIAs, more interesting choices, and more flavor than the Map Generator can give us. I would play AU games just for the maps even if they had no lesson.
Dominae's choices make for an incredibly interesting game, and I love it. I wish I could comment having been through the industrial resource shortage, but I will say that I would have enjoyed it.
I've never wanted Ultimate Power. In fact, my favorite games are when I'm #2. Or even when I'm fighting for the #2 spot. Resource scarcity in C3C in general, and this map in particular, help that out, and I like it.
Dominae, if you ever want to crank out a dozen maps with no lesson attached I'll be the first in line. Thanks for the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aqualung71
|
 |
Lord Desolator of the Desolation Row, C3CDG
Oct 2002
time: 12:33
|
|
Most of this has now been covered, but I will generally try to trade as soon as possible unless it's unlikey the other civ's will contact each other any time soon, which is obviously most likely on archipelago maps and sometimes on continents maps.
One factor for me is that I simply don't like getting too far behind in techs, because one missed trade can have a serious multiplier effect. If you don't stay reasonably close to the leaders in the Ancient age, you may find that the 1 tech you were researching that you'd hoped no-one else had and so could trade it for 2 or 3 others is now held by everyone. You then have nothing to trade and no prospects for anything else soon, while the AI continues to trade between themselves into the Middle ages and you're stuck in the Ancient age up to 6 techs behind. At that point you're in despotism, little income (without currency), slow research rate and in real trouble. This is probably my biggest concern with withholding tech trades, and so for me the risk of doing so is usually too high to accept since a miscalculation at this point can almost ruin your game.
I also try to keep my science rate up as much as possible, particularly after selling techs for cash. I am always weak militarily in the Ancient age and regularly have AI's knocking on my door demanding cash. The less cash you have, the less you lose.
And one thing that really bugs me is when you have cash but a negative earn rate because of high research, then an AI demands all your money and suddenly "your barracks has been sold" pops up. So %^$*# irritating!
quote:
Originally posted by ducki
I'll go ahead and trade if for not other reason than to speed the tech rate and attempt to manipulate the AI into researching things I won't. |
On this specific point ducki, is your reason for speeding trade like mine....ie, basically to make the game move more quickly towards your victory? Or is there a deeper strategic reason for this? I recall reading in one of Catt's earlier DAR's where he said he was deliberately withholding trades in an effort to slow down the research rate, which I guess is partly where this topic started. I can't recall whether this was a specific strategy in itself or just a consequence of the "withholding tech trades" decision. Perhaps Catt, you might also elucidate a little more on your thinking here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
I guess speeding the game in general might be a subconscious goal, though it doesn't really get to be drudgery until late industrial for me.
I think what I was getting at, and stated poorly, was trying to speed the branch I'm not on - if I'm zipping towards, say, Republic, I'd rather have the AI working on the Monarchy branch, or the Construction branch. Not quite Machiavellian(sp? ) but a semi-manipulative attempt to (effectively) research 2 or more techs at once.
It only occasionally works as well as I'd like, and with flavoring probably even less so - I don't want to know the mechanics of that well enough to predict, so I won't.
In the later game, I will very often trade on discovery of a new tech, even to just one well-paying client, and then squeeze everyone else for what I can get, or let my client be the middle-man so they have enough income to hopefully research something I'm not.
It's probably non-optimal, andI usually just do what "feels" right, as opposed to what empirical knowledge held by some here would dictate. I admire those that know enough to be truly manipulative, I just don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aqualung71
|
|
Lord Desolator of the Desolation Row, C3CDG
Oct 2002
time: 12:33
|
|
[Moved to correct thread]
Last edited by Aqualung71 on 14-02-2004 at 17:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
Those sea lanes were how long?
|
In retrospect, it was probably a bad idea to put a sea lane all the way to the Maya or the English. Frankly I did not consider what effect the Great Lighthouse would have with respect to this map feature. The ability to trade for every single Luxury so early was not something I intended.
By the way, an "Easter Egg" is a funny little game feature that does not affect gameplay (usually graphics-based). The "The King" Elvis graphics is an example from Civ3 (when it's Elvis' birthday, your King units all look like Elvis). So, by this definition, the only Easter Egg in this scenario was the whale breeding grounds. I guess it's not as funny when you point it out...
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 14-02-2004 at 11:54
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
1. What did you learn about the power of Seafaring? |
The extra naval movement in the Industrial and Modern Era's is huge. After capturing Magellan's my navy sure was fun to play with, and ship/island chaining wasn't prohibitively annoying either.
quote:
2. About Civ3 in general? |
The AI has a funny quirk late in the game when your map is complete. They will buy your map, and then buy it again and again (price seems set based on attitude?). For instance, the English would pay me 8g for my map the first time, then 5g immediately thereafter when they were Gracious. The Russians would pay 8g, but then drop to 1g thereafter when furious. It wasn't a big deal as I didn't need/want any gold from them at that point (especially not at the price per click), but could be something really exploitive.
Learning how to use specialists the right way was probably the most interesting part of this game. Never played long enough to use Civil Engineers or Policemen before. It's a clickfest though.
quote:
3. Was there anything you would have done differently? |
Marine Armies, more Bombers, and focus more on settling the smaller islands. I was beat to Aluminium and Rubber which both were a hassle to trade for later on.
Oh, and avoid Volcanos with your SOD...
quote:
4. Which civ gave you the most trouble, and why? |
Japan. Even without the Volcano. It's just they were the first target, and the first target on Deity tends to be the toughest to crack. Once you're past that, you're caught up, and it plays out more like lower difficulty levels.
quote:
5. What did you think of the Plague? |
I think it's invisible. Don't think I had it, and pretty sure I would have noticed if I did.
"Bring out your dead..."
quote:
6. How did the AU mod affect gameplay? |
I can only guess...
quote:
7. Did you find any Easter eggs?! |
Things I noticed were resource placement, and bonus production placement under some bonus food sources (after clearing Jungle and Marshes). Makes for some very powerful tiles. There were at least two Iron Works city possibilities on the map, which is pretty unusual.
The lack of a Sea tile near the Egyptians stood out too. Coast to Ocean never happens with the RNG. The Whales...
I felt the resource placement wasn't too bad though. I've had games that were about the same, only with earlier resources being terribly scarce in certain areas. One game there wasn't any Iron on my continent (two continent game). That so many of the resources were distributed like that in this game is the part that sticks out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ducki
Additionally, I think if Dom had simply not told us that any resources had been adjusted, there would have been minor grumbling about C3C resource scarcity and noone would have questioned that the Generator put things where they were. The assumptions under which we strategize do not always bear fruit. That doesn't mean the mapmaker changed the rules of the game, it just means we need to reassess how we define the word "likely" and admit that we don't always get to play the same way. |
To the best of my knowledge, Dominae said nothing about having tampered with resource distribution until I got suspicious and asked him. Even before I had the techs to see where aluminum and uranium were or had all of the remote islands uncovered, the set-up looked improbable enough that I figured deliberate tampering by the map designer was the most likely explanation.
I do think that there are two ways iin which Dominae's tampering could have caused people to take wrong lessons away from this game had it gone unnoticed, and one of those is probably a subliminal threat even in spite of all this fuss. The bigger danger is that we will all remember how common resources were on remote islands in this game, so even if our conscious minds keep in mind that the distribution in this game was highly artificial, it could still affect our thinking about how valuable remote islands are for resources in future games on a subconscious level. Had the degree of Dominae's tampering not become widely known, the danger would have been far worse because we would tend to deliberately factor our experiences in this game into our thinking about the probable value of remote islands in other games.
The second, smaller danger is that assuming I'm right and Dominae removed at least one rubber source from the lands we could most easily claim, the experience of this game could easily lead people to think that the risk of having huge amoungs of jungle and forest yet not having rubber is significantly higher than it really is. Knowing that this map was deliberatley gimmicked should render that danger largely irrelevant, but had the artificiality of the map not become highly publicized, I think the danger would have been very real.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
The bigger danger is that we will all remember how common resources were on remote islands in this game, so even if our conscious minds keep in mind that the distribution in this game was highly artificial, it could still affect our thinking about how valuable remote islands are for resources in future games on a subconscious level. |
As I've mentioned before, this is almost always true in my RNG games - if there's a tiny remote island somewhere, it probably has a resource. This happens over and over and over in my games, to the point that as soon as I saw the islands in this game, I beelined for them, even changing production in a couple of cities in order to get settlers/defenders/ships ready as close to the same time as possible.
It did - and normally does - pay off for me, whether it's a hand-made map or a completely RNG-generated map.
Am I the only one that has noticed the RNG having a tendency to put resources on these tiny remote islands? Is this a case of the way the human brain works, in that I've seen 1-tile oil islands just enough times that my brain has created a pattern where there's not one, similar to the Super Spearman Phenomenon? Do most people tend to use Settings that are more likely to put them on one big landmass with more probability of at least 1 of everything?
There has to be something more here, more fundamental, more human. My experience with the Map Generator is clearly not the same as yours - to the point that we're just rephrasing the same arguments and not influencing each other's viewpoint at all.
You say potato, I say tomato.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
Nathan,
While I do see your point, here is the situation in a game I recently played with my gf*:
We started on the larger of two continents. There are also 2 smallish islands off the southern coast of this continent, and one medium island in the middle of nowhere.
My continent and the other each contained 4 civs. By the time I researched replaceable parts, I owned roughly 85% of my continent, with only the English left, crammed in the northernmost portion. Having now taken the continent in total (plus the 2 offshore islands), I check in at roughly 55% of the world, not too far from domination.
There was a massive (and I do mean massive) jungle to the north and west of our starting spot. I've spent two ages clearing it, with hordes of workers.
I did have 3 coal sources, and was quite pleased by this, especially since my FP city has both coal and iron . However, upon finishing research of replaceable parts, I find out I had NOT ONE source of rubber. There was, in fact, only one source of rubber on the entire continent (6 total in the game. The other 5 are all on the other continent). It was on a forest tile in English territory (controlled by York, a city I had captured and had flip on me back when the English messed with me in the middle ages, taking a 3x knight army and a couple of musketmen with it!). This is why the English are now dead. I was actually going to let them live... until I found out they had my rubber.
So, on the one hand, my experience with CivIII led me to believe (wrongly) that I should have rubber. I controlled a HUGE area of used-to-be jungle, and nearly 50% of the world in total. On the other hand, there was no rubber on the game's 3 islands either. :shrug:
-Arrian
* - sort of... she was active at first, but I've pretty much taken over the empire at this point. Once the discovery phase is over - navigation at the latest - she loses interest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
Regarding how I managed my space race victory so early, there were several keys.
1) First and foremost, my willingness to micromanage. I virtually never automate a worker (aside from the ones I accidentally put on clean-up trying to enter diplomacy - Firaxis or Breakaway really blew it giving shift-D different purposes at different times), and I decide for myself which tiles I want my city laborers to work rather than relying on the city govorners to be competent at it. (Most notably, I tend to focus more on food than the governors do because growth is an investment in future production.) It is impossible to overstate how much of an advantage good micromanagement can bring.
2) The early free settler was a significant help.
3) I went with a relatively dense city placement strategy on the home island, so dense in fact that I eventually disbanded one of my cities. That gave me more early wealth and production capacity than I could have had otherwise.
4) Trading techs for luxuries plus gold is a good way to support a higher research rate, both by helping to set the luxury slider lower and by bringing in extra income. I'm not sure how much relative advantage it provides since the AIs also benefit from the deals, but my belief is that I tend to benefit more. And in terms of the overall tech pace in the game, the advantage is huge. In this game, the combination of the Lighthouse and Dominae's sea lanes allowed more of that kind of trading earlier than is normally possible.
5) With the bombardment capability of trebuchets and dromons, and the Statue of Zeus to provide a few extra units, I was able to focus essentially my entire production capacity from a bit before the beginning of my golden age all the way into the industrial era on peaceful building yet still conquer about as much territory as the corruption rules let me make good use of. (The fact that the Hittites were late getting iron hooked up also helped.) Early in my Republic, unit support costs were pretty bad, but once I conquered enough territory and grew enough cities to size seven or higher, support costs became a non-issue.
6) I generally make courthouses and, once available, police stations my top priorities in cities far enough from my capital to have significant corruption problems. Making cities useful as quickly as possible is a big help.
7) Once I had as much territory as I could make good use of, I didn't divert resources away from building to try to get more. With the ability to use a Forbidden Palace to establish a second core eliminated in C3C, the return on a military investment in trying to take the Russian/Egyptian continent or the French/Mayan continent would have been minimal, so I didn't bother. Nor did I panic when I saw the absence of rubber and disrupt my plans trying to fight a war to get some right away. Instead, I waited until I could fight on the most advantageous terms possible using units built with what was essentially spare production capacity from cities that already had all the improvements they needed.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Actually, I did put a disclaimer in the scenario description/download thread:
quote:
The amount of map "tweaking" by the scenario creator is ~5-10%. This means that you can expect a pretty standard game of Civ3, but if you're very familiar with the map generator some things may strike you as fishy. Hopefully this will not detract from your enjoyment.
|
Nathan, I think we've reached the point where we need to "agree to disagree" regarding this entire issue. As a final point, I would like to ask exactly how many C3C games you've played out to completion (or, at least to the mid-Industrial era). It is my suspicion that your reaction to the resource distribution in this scenario is based on little experience regarding C3C resource distribution in random map games.
Indeed, many other players have commented that although the resource scarcity in AU501 is clearly aimed at the human player, it is nonetheless quite indicative of the kinds of maps the C3C map generator serves up these days.
I am currently playing a game where, despite my 4-turn Settler-pump, have found myself without access to a single Strategic resource until Oil. In another game, I was on a mid-sized island with the Celts, with no Horses, no Gunpowder and one Iron to share between us. I can tell you for a fact that there is no one to blame for either of these games but the map generator.
What I'm trying to say is this: learning that the resource distribution in C3C sometimes "sucks" and how to deal with it when it does occur is a far more important lesson than how to estimate where resources will lie given a certain land mass and tile distribution. C3C challenges our previously-gained Civ3 knowledge, and it's a good idea to learn to adapt. You may be involved in a C3C PBEM where you find yourself without Gunpowder or Coal...what will you do then?
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
In this game, the combination of the Lighthouse and Dominae's sea lanes allowed more of that kind of trading earlier than is normally possible.
|
As I mentioned elsewhere, the sea lane to the English, Mayans and French was probably a mistake. I did not even consider that with the Great Lighthouse you could have access to all the Luxuries in the Ancient era. Silly me.
Dominae
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-02-2004 10:21
for making the effort not just to play but to record, in detail, your thoughts and views with respect to the game. Even without detailed responses on your game from others, compare and contrast what you did with what others did -- by comparing you can get a real sense for what worked well for you and what didn't.
|