10-05-2005 04:36									#1
	Strategy Thread: Growth vs Militarism Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Okay...This discussion continues to grow and spill from thread to thread.

Let's put the issues on the table and put some structure to it. It looks to me that the government question really is a strategic issue that has far reaching implications for us.

Let us each make our cases here. If you are a "numbers" player or a "feel" player or a "passion" player matters not. Whatever the reasons, this group has had both individual and collective success at this game that goes way beyond the average. All points of view need to be considered...as all have advantages.

So, before I become so long winded as to lose your attention, let me ask what I see as the fundamental question:

Are we to be purely militaristic and seek to end the game through the continual state or near state of war...or...Are we to build a civilization that is growth oriented while maintaining a military that will achieve political as well as military victory when called on?

_________________

Here is my case: The recent war with AM was really no contest. We were going to crush them. Even the other teams were firmly aware that the outcome was not in doubt. BUT...Even our militaristic ones were telling of this certain victory being far into the future. The point? Militaristic thinking only weakens us as others grow stronger. Did we really want to face another civ that had cities of 8 or 10 with the infrastructure to produce quickly while we were standing on ruins and hoping to pop rush a defense?

The answer is obviously "no". ormuzd made it clear when he said he would destroy his own cities before letting them fall to us. A purely militaristic thinking leads to short term win vs, long term loss when facing highly skilled human players.

My conclusion: We must adopt a balanced approach that includes growth, expansion, and military production.

Now, I have not addressed the government issue specifically because it is not the issue. It is the means to best achieve the goal. If you agree with my conclusion, then I submit that the best government to pursue our strategy should be obvious.

End of my case.

______________________

Now make yours...and remember, victory is the goal of all The Great Council Leaders!!!

LONG LIVE THE HORDE!!

	10-05-2005 08:18									#2
	Re: Strategy Thread: Growth vs Militarism Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Just a couple of quick replies to some of your points. I will make my case later.

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Are we to be purely militaristic and seek to end the game through the continual state or near state of war

Yes. Experience teaches us that in this game bigger military carries the day. This is even more so on small pangea maps.

quote: Originally posted by PLATO ...or...Are we to build a civilization that is growth oriented while maintaining a military that will achieve political as well as military victory when called on?

It may be possible to play that way against AI opponents in single player games. However in MP games on small pangea maps it is virtually impossible to concentrate on growth and avoid destruction at the same time. AM is the best example. They chose to concentrate on growth and culture and suffered a swift defeat at the hands of a vastly superior foe. If we neglect our military we may end up being on the receiving end of one such swift attack.

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Here is my case: The recent war with AM was really no contest. We were going to crush them. Even the other teams were firmly aware that the outcome was not in doubt. BUT...Even our militaristic ones were telling of this certain victory being far into the future.

Had they defended well, pop rushed more and on time, and generally played better from the onset of the war, we would have been forced to retreat our attacking stack in order to avoid losing it. But they were not very good at either defending or counter-attacking. It seems they were only good for growth. And look how they ended up.

quote: Originally posted by PLATO The point? Militaristic thinking only weakens us as others grow stronger.

Growing fat cities isn't a sign of strength but weakness and misguided play. Only military makes you strong. Remember this simple truth PLATO and you will live to see another day.

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Did we really want to face another civ that had cities of 8 or 10 with the infrastructure to produce quickly while we were standing on ruins and hoping to pop rush a defense?

Yes, we would like to face such civ and capture those big fat corrupt cities. Then we would pop rush them to size 1 just to show we have no respect for big grown cities. We are Mongols and our settlements are small, but filled with fierce warriors.

quote: Originally posted by PLATO The answer is obviously "no". ormuzd made it clear when he said he would destroy his own cities before letting them fall to us. A purely militaristic thinking leads to short term win vs, long term loss when facing highly skilled human players.

A purely militaristic thinking leads to long term win while anything else leads to short term loss. I would like to face a highly skilled human player that will beat my militaristic thinking with his growth strategy.

quote: Originally posted by PLATO My conclusion: We must adopt a balanced approach that includes growth, expansion, and military production.

I agree we must balance our approach. But military must take precedence to anything else.

	10-05-2005 10:28									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

My response. Ljube is making some valid points. He is also missing some. Population-rushing cities into insignificance can be useful, but prove to be an impractical way to wage war. We currently have small cities (called towns in Civ III). That is not likely to remain a popular position as our UU costs 20 turns to build in such a small city. Meanwhile, our capital is just about to (or has only just) reach 10 spt. This allows the city to build the Statue of Zeus in 20 turns. The comparison between 1 Keshik and the Statue of Zeus is like the comparison of a banana and an apple orchard.

In a large empire (more than 13 cities will be more than the 'optimum' for this scenario) cities that are distant from the capital will be hopelessly corrupt, but the cities that are close will NOT be hopelessly corrupt. If we choose to keep all of our cities small, the uncorrupted ones will take prohibitively long to produce, just as the corrupted ones will. This is not a recipe for militaristic conquest, it is a recipe for militaristic defeat.

While I believe that we need to use our militaristic trait to win the game (i.e. we must ultimately win by conquest or dominance), failing to grow will not achieve that goal. We need to balance the two. Thus...if we don't need to produce aqueducts, then we have one of the major obstacles to growth already solved (AND WE DON'T NEED TO PRODUCE AQUEDUCTS!!!!).

Growth, in this case, is likely to mean that we must balance trade, threats, military police and research to optimize our military strength. We are likely to need at least a few cities that can yeild 15-20 spt. The only way to achieve that is by growing them.

	10-05-2005 11:27									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Im right with Rob here my thoughts exactly but put more concisely than I ever could

Ljube if we fail to grow we will die, nothing is surer!!!

	10-05-2005 16:22									#5
	Put an end to popups!

I couldn't agree more. We must grow our core productive cities. However, I suggest we build many more small cities in addition to those in our core. These small cities can be used for pop rushing and military maintenance. They can better perform this duty if we stay despot or switch feudal.

Feudalism has no drawback. For every city grown beyond 6 we can build 2 new small towns and keep them small. These can be towns built in desert, jungle, etc. Also, relying on building expensive units such as keshiks is a very poor management of military resources. We must have incredible number of horses and a large sum of money in our treasury before chivalry to upgrade those horses if we want to make an impact. The key wonder for us is not the Statue of Zeus, although I wouldn't mind having it, but Leonardo's Workshop.

And one last thing. There is no bigger mistake than switch to a government you are not prepared for. I did it once in a single player game and from that time on I always do numbers before switching.

	10-05-2005 16:39									#6
	Increase Your PM Length

@ Ljube: where are we going to get the settlers for these small cities?

	10-05-2005 16:48									#7
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

From our two settler factories (FA and Bloodview). Later from the small cities themselves (by means of pop rushing).

	10-05-2005 23:43									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

While this debate is very tied into the government debate, I would ask all the Great Leaders to focus here on what we want our civ to be in 100 turns...and 200 turns. While there is a good chance that the game will end before 200 turns, imo there is an equally good chance that it won't.

We need to concentrate on the best strategy to maintain the superiority that we now have. Government is just one aspect of that. If we are going to take a time out for debate, then let's set a plan that provides a framework for where we want to be.

	11-05-2005 17:35									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

For the purposes of addressing Plato's request: (sorry for the long post that follows)

I believe that as the Mongol civ, we must try to win militarily. Any other option would mean that we chose the wrong civilization. We have started out extremely well (and we got extremely lucky that one of our neighbors 'gifted' us with their incompetence). We must keep up the momentum, but we will not be able to do this without good planning.

If we wish to be the 'biggest, baddest, meanest' group on the pangea in 100 turns, we will need to make sure that our opponents don't gain an edge on us. Diplomacy can do some of this by getting them to fight each other. We can fight to some extent, but the 'real' fighting needs to be done when we actually have an advantage. The only way we can get this advantage is by growing our core cities and taking advantage of Wonder-building whereever it presents.

The Statue of Zeus will cost 200 shields. It produces a 3/2/2 unit with +1 hp. This unit has only a marginally smaller chance of winning an attack than an equivalent Immortal (equivalent meaning that both are vets, so the AC has 5 hp and the immortal has 4 hp) and has the chance to retreat if things don't go well. It has a better defense than Immortals (and swordsmen). The SoZ in a city that possesses a barracks can, and often does, produce 25-50 units! Meanwhile, those units are capable of taking out any unit in the Middle Ages (albeit somewhat less than 50% against muskets). The win/loss ration of a vet AC vs a Vet pikemen is 58.3% win, 41.6% loss; against a musket the w/l is 41.9/58.1. These figures are for an unfortified unit.

Now...As the SoZ produces units until Metallurgy, there is a great chance that we would produce >25 Ancient Cavalry before obsolescence. Further, if we choose to not get metallury, we can keep producing them.

I have been informed that we may be at war soon, so some think that we can't invest in the SoZ. To that I respond: just how soon do you expect the 6 2/3 horsemen that could be produced from KBH to get to the front? Sending them 1 at a time is a clear recipe for disaster. Even sending 6 horsemen (alone) into a major battle 20 turns from now would be a dismal failure. Our army is some 12-14 turns away from our homeland (at least much of it is). The SoZ would be built in 19 turns, so it would finish before our army could reach us, nevermind anyone we are likely to be at war with. It takes only 25 turns before the SoZ has more than paid for itself with the strongest military units on the board.

Now...as for expansion, well, since, within about 50-60 turns, we would actually more than break even on military production by building settler-groups, I firmly believe that we need to use our relative 'moment of peace' to build some cities. Bloodview can be switched to a settler and finish in about 8-9 turns. We also need to irrigate our dry plains (in order for our cities to grow and get decent production), Bokhara can produce a worker right after it finishes its current horseman. This worker will greatly increase our ability to grow our core cities.

As for FA: the city has two irrigated flood plain squares. If we switch to a granary, it will take 4 turns to build it (if we use a the population rushing) and then the city will grow every 2 1/2 turns initially and every 5 after that. This kind of growth is enormous and allows a settler/worker factory that will give us much of the growth that we require. Thus...we can build units in Bokhara and Ta-Tu, keep growing these cities (after the initial investiture of the workers) and keep using them to build up our military for the early strikes.

Now...much of this plan will require that our military investiture for wars in the next 30 turns are minimal (provided we are on the attack). Bokhara and Ta-Tu can build horsemen, but only about 1/8-10 turns. So...for the next 30 turns, we are likely to see only 5-6 units from them combined. However, we do have an army that is moving out of A-M and can be used elsewhere if need be.

Now...if we push for the SoZ and then use the dye city for a wonder factory (probably building Leo's Workshop as Ljube suggested); we will have built some 20 free Ancient Cavalry in the next 120 turns. Meanwhile, we could also build about 33 horsemen (assuming we did not get Chivalry in that time, which is actually a bad assumption). If, instead, we choose to build only horsemen, we would build 40 of them.

Again, let me stress that the 7 horsemen we would be able to build in our capital have nowhere to go currently. They are not going to garner significant help from any other of our cities in the next 20 turns because we can not build much in our other cities. So...I see the choice between building the SoZ or building 7 horsemen that sit in our own territory, gobbling up 1 gpt per unit.

Last edited by Rcoutme2 on 11-05-2005 at 17:40

	11-05-2005 19:02									#10
	Remove this text

This is a very good analysis. However, 19 (actually 18 now) turns is an unacceptable long period. We can shorten this period to 13 turns and get two bonus settlers in the process if we apply a radical wonder building procedure.

Paddy will send a memo about it.

	12-05-2005 01:54									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Excellent analysis!

	12-05-2005 12:09									#12
	Remove this text

Any strategy involving SoZ and settler factories get my immidiate attention


Problem is of course that everyone got ivory Oh well, I think we should try anyway..


Settler factories is the way to go, that way we can achieve the growth we need to fuel our military. We can(and should) ease a bit on our military production to promote some growth.