16-03-2002 06:59									#31
	Now introduce starting positions!! Support Apolyton

So, Egypt or Japan for the earliest fastmovers...

I, like many, Ctrl-Shift-Q several times to get a good starting position.

How do you like... on a river, two cattle, and a horse directly adjacent? As Japan?

Random map, so China and India nearby. I feel badly for them.

R

	16-03-2002 07:05									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I prefer random maps; I know lots like Earth maps but IMO earth maps take away a lot of what is fun about the game. I'm indifferent about the cultural link. I also think it is good to experience lots of different settings. I really enjoyed some of the tourney games I played because they used settings I hadn't played much with and provided new strategic tests.

I like the Egyptians, as should be obvious by now. However, below deity it is more a matter of taste, since you have more flexibility. Playing to the strengths of whatever civ you choose is IMO always what is important.

	16-03-2002 08:46									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Nice to see there are a lot more Egypt fans out there.

	18-03-2002 18:36									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DrFell,

Egypt has become, overall, my favorite civ to play. I hardly ever use them for early warmongering, though. To me, they're a builder civ, and I've had a lot of success with them. I play on Monarch, and the importance of that cheap war chariot isn't nearly the same as on Diety. I usually build up peacefully and wait for Greece or Rome to do something stupid.

rpodos,

Yeah, Japan is a great warmongering civ - unless, of course, you can't find any horses.

Your start sounds nice, but I've had many such spots, only to find out that the surrounding land is terrible. Good luck.

-Arrian

	19-03-2002 09:07									#35
	Remove this text

Arrian, you've described yourself as a Monarch builder, which is how I try to play... once I've fought my way to a decent size, and if the AI leaves me alone. I'm curious as to why, when playing Egypt, you avoid using the War Chariot, and bide your time.

I am now playing a game as Egypt where I have been successfully at war until 1500; more to the point, my immediate neighbors were the Greeks, and the chariots had to overcome the hoplites. In my experience, it almost doesn't matter what civ you have, if you're determined to expand.

If you agree with this last statement, then why wouldn't you be as aggressive early on with the Egyptians as you might be with, for example, the Japanese or Aztecs? In other words, why wait significantly to expand?

	19-03-2002 09:18									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Imortals lots and lots of imortals.

if you want to crush early, who cares about the legions, give me the power of persia!

industry and a uu that will last you up until the industrial age.

as long as you NEVER defend with the imortal, you can crush knights, samurai, those pathetic chariots, and legionaries. hoplites die quickly as well. the whole time i am expanding at a rapid rate and just plain rampaging and kicking ass, i smile smuggly knowing that i will be able to rule once i hit the industrial age first. :

persia is just plain awesome if you want to warmonger early!

	19-03-2002 09:24									#37
	Support Apolyton

MP will be interesting. Should settle this Immortal vs Legion debate.

Somehow, I don't think either the Persian or Roman will be too happy. 4 to 3, 3 to 2... sounds like chopped liver(s) either way.

Salve

	19-03-2002 15:46									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Iroquois: Neighbors Aztecs & Americans. Aztecs are dangerous - but the AI doesn't realize it, giving you time to start building the best UU in the game. The Americans may expand well, but they have nothing that can deal with the Mounted Warrior. You expansionist trait can be used to locate your prey. A+

Alas, it does. I started my second "warmonger style" game, after a great game with the Zulus. I'm the Iroquois (Monarch, standard, continents), and have Aztecs and Egypts as neighbors, and the Germans and Romans as other civs at my continent. All are polite, except Bismarck (cautious). It's about 1800BC, and I just bought Horseback Riding from the Germans; I have science at 0% and only 1 scientist in a jungle city. I have 5 cities, 3 of which are crappy (jungle and not yet irrigated plains). They are defended only by Warriors, I just built barracks in 2 cities and my first 2 vet MW's. Planned to rush Egypts first and Aztecs second.

Suddenly I see about a dozen Jags approaching my best productive city. Although I knew what would come, I asked them to go away. Of course, Monte declared war. I killed 1 Jag with a MW (who got wounded), triggered my GA (too early!), and got the 2nd MW in the city. Next turn, Cleo and Caesar allied up with Monte, and I see the first 3 or 4 War Chariots approaching from South. I can rush another 2 MW's, but I doubt that will save me. I had to stop the game (it was 2am already) and will continue this evening, but if either I lose my 2 productive cities or the Romans come with legionaries, I will be toast and this will be my 5th loss.

Thanks Monte, for the early rush!

	19-03-2002 16:08									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Txurce I am now playing a game as Egypt where I have been successfully at war until 1500; more to the point, my immediate neighbors were the Greeks, and the chariots had to overcome the hoplites. In my experience, it almost doesn't matter what civ you have, if you're determined to expand.

I agree. In my experience, the Egypts are an awesome civ for both builders and warmongers. For builders, because they combine 2 of the best (cultural+improving) traits, for warmongers, because they have an early, cheap and powerful UU. If attacking early with War Chariots, even Greece has no chance, because their Hoplites usually aren't vets and 2 regular hoplites can be taken out by 3 or 4 vet chariots, 1 or 2 of which hopefully retreat after losing. Same (in a less amount) with Romans, because they have to research 2 techs for their powerful UU, while you have only 1.

	19-03-2002 20:01									#40
	Inflate your Upload Space

Sir Ralph, do you play out a game regardless of starting position? I play out maybe 80% of mine, because of the challenge and variety; the exception is usually when I'm surrounded by jungle. My mantra is that no moment is more important or dangerous than the start of the game, and your current experience seems to prove it. You have mostly crappy cities, and your opponents probably do not. That is a huge disadvantage at this point, and it is doing you in. This is a case where having one of the first UU's (Aztec, Zulu, maybe Babylon and Egypt) may have made the difference, as they could have been pumped out in sufficient numbers to possibly prevent your being overrun. Those civs give you some immediate options when adverse circumstances have limited the rest.

Speaking more generally, I think that the Aztecs - while clearly capable of rushing! - do so in the uniform "moderate" AI way. They don't dedicate themselves to it the way human players do. And the JW is too weak an individual unit to succeed in the long run unless one takes full advantage of its cheap price. From this perspective, the AI is likely to do better with the Immortal, for example, or its favorite early soldier, the swordsman.

Back to your game: if I were in your shoes, I'd probably stage a tactical retreat to marshal and augment my forces. The problem is that you can only kill so many JWs in one turn. Good luck.

	19-03-2002 20:14									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ok, well, occasionally the Aztecs do decide to pick a fight. Ouch. Sounded like a terrible staring spot anyway, though.

I have been trying (a couple of times last night) warmongering with Egypt. With a twist, however:

I refuse (for now) to waste my golden age in ancient despotism. Accordingly, I build up a large force of horsemen instead of war chariots (either by building the horsies straight up or building WC's and upgrading them for 20 gold). I use this force to attack.

The wars have been successful. I have wasted whomever I've hit. The big problem, though, is unit promotion. Lack thereof, actually. In two games, I essentially destroyed 4 civs, and gained a total of roughly 8 promotions to elite. No leaders.

The strategy requires at least one leader (forbidden palace). Expanding is only really useful if the cities you capture are productive. Sure, gaining territory and resources is good, but the real power of the early war is in doubling your productivity very early on. As the Japanese, this wasn't an issue for me. I gained 3 leaders while destroying 2 civs. *sigh* Last night was frustrating as hell.

I am convinced that the theory is sound. I may, however, mix in some swordsmen. I lost a couple of elite horsemen last night while trying to defeat the last defending spearman in an enemy city. I like the idea of using swordsmen as "finishers." Even though I still think mounted troops are far superior, there may be a place for the footslogger in my army.

-Arrian

	19-03-2002 20:25									#42
	Support Apolyton

Oh, my starting spot was great, my capital has cows and a river. That was the reason why I continued playing. The 2nd city site is also quite good. But to the north (Aztecs) I have a huge jungle and to the south (Egypts) I have hills, plains and desert mangled. Not optimal. Aztecs and Egypts they have so-so terrain.

I think my problem in this game is, that both the Aztecs and the Egypts have UU's, that are both early and cheap. The had a lot of time to stockpile them, while I had to struggle to horseback riding. I suppose, both decided to pick a war for a GA. I am not prepared yet.

Oh well, it's not the first loss, and not the last one. I think I won't return to the game. It was my first try for the Iroquois though. They are good for warmongering, and I think I'll start another game this evening .

	19-03-2002 20:37									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Arrian As the Japanese, this wasn't an issue for me. I gained 3 leaders while destroying 2 civs. *sigh*

In my Zulu game, while finishing the Persians (with Impi at their iron ), I also made 3 Leaders. An army (2 Horsies+1 Impi, a great mix), the Great Library and the Sistine. Seems, militaristic makes a huge difference, at least more than 16:12

quote: Last night was frustrating as hell.

Yours too?

	19-03-2002 21:10									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Like you Arrian, I've had trouble getting both leaders and promotions as Egypt (any non-militaristic civ, for that matter). For early warmongering, I've kind of fallen in love with Persia. Those immortals are wonderful units. But, I just don't generate the elite units in any kind of regular fashion -- even starting off with veterans. I have, however, seen the computer get GL's regularly!

Has anyone else experienced this?

When playing Germany or the Iroquois, this has not been an issue. I get upgrades all the time.

It can be frustrating.

	19-03-2002 21:37									#45
	Increase Your PM Length

No matter what level you play on with a builder focus you want 15-20 cities Unless you are lucky this probably implies some early conquering to get those cities up asap (no point in hanging around ). IMO opinion the only difference by difficulty level is the optimal timing of the rush.

	19-03-2002 22:58									#46
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike No matter what level you play on with a builder focus you want 15-20 cities Unless you are lucky this probably implies some early conquering to get those cities up asap (no point in hanging around ). IMO opinion the only difference by difficulty level is the optimal timing of the rush.

Depending on map size, of course

I play on Normal maps (continents), Monarch, and usually end up with about 10-12 cities after peaceful expansion. If I plan to warmonger, I build a few less, and spend more energy on barracks and units.

-Arrian

	20-03-2002 05:58									#47
	Remove this text

I'm relieved to hear that others playing non-militaristic civs have trouble generating GL's. I average slightly less than one a game, and have never had more than two, even though I basically war my way to Dr. Spike's optimal city range, thought I had a reasonable number of elite units, and use them almost exclusively as finishers.

Does being militaristic increase the odds of generating elite units by a whole lot?

	20-03-2002 14:21									#48
	Got spare money?

It's funny this should come up, cos thinking back over my games I can't remember that much difference. In my most recent game (Egyptians, deity) I fought an early war against the Germans with my war chariots. It wasn't a protracted war (completely over by 600BC), but I got a bunch of elites (some even from the early barbs) and 2 leaders! I could have just been jammy I suppose. The game I fought most was the tournament 4 (my favourite game of all) game, where I was the Germans and got no leaders from 20 times as many battles. I guess this too experieces might not be indicative of the overall picture, but I don't remember too large a difference. IIRC the militaristic trait only gets you more promotions though, and thus only indirectly more leaders.

	21-03-2002 20:21									#49
	Remove this text

Yeah, leader generation is very random. I've played Germany and fought a bunch, gaining no leaders, and I've had 8 leaders as the Egyptians once (true, 3 of those were in "garbage time" at the end). Yet, when deliberately picking fights early on as Egypt, I've failed miserably in the great leader department.

I have an Egyptian game going now, but it's at least 1/2 builder, maybe more. I've fought a lot, though, and have gotten leaders. It's a little bit tainted, though, since I got an army from a hut (I have been unsure whether I got the "good" or "bad" 1.17f since I downloaded it, but I finally, after countless games, encountered in-game proof that I have the "bad" one) and used it.

I may just forget about my Egyptian horseman rush theory. It just doesn't work the way I figured it would. The Japanese, on the other hand...

-Arrian

	21-03-2002 20:50									#50
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The Japanese UU is great, but for a builder game with early conquering (most of my games follow this pattern) you don't need the militaristic trait as much as some of the others. One leader is nice for the FP quickly, but it's only 200 shields now and start it in an early conquered city and it'll be fine. You don't need leaders on Monarch to get Sistine's, which is the first wonder I want.

I see your point about the golden ages, and on monarch I would feel the same. If your point in mentioning the Japanese was that you can warmonger early with Japanese horses then save the samurai for a more aptly timed golden age (whereas with Egypt you use the chariot and waste the GA, or hold off on the GA and waste the UU), this seems consistent with your other posts. IMO The traits are still wrong for your preference though.

From your posts I'd say try the Babs and use horses early on to conquer territory. If you don't get a leader don't lose any sleep, you can probably get it in a 100 turns, and most of those the conquered cities will not have enough pop to be productive anyway. You can hold the bowman back and use it to start a golden age when you like, as long as it's not too late.

	21-03-2002 21:05									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

DrSpike,

Ahh, the Babylonians. My old favorite. They're fantastic, but I find the 2x worker bonus sets up a quick conqest much better... well, it sets up everything better. True, libraries and universities take a while to build as Egypt, but that early boost from the workers is beautiful. Maybe I will try warmongering with Babylon, just for a change of pace, but I still think Egypt is (potentially) the best for an early rush/settle down and build game.

Good point about the FP. I normally like it a LONG way from my palace, getting the maximum number of totally corrupt cities within its radius. This optimal placement usually means building it in a 1 shield town. 200 turns. Ugh. The point here is to double your productivity early on. I've seen the power of this, as Japan. It's incredible. Maybe that's why it's hard to pull off

The main problem with my perfect game strategy is that it depends on luck. Getting a leader is a matter of luck, and if you don't get one, my strategy fails. The game is still winnable, but I'm going for ultimate power

-Arrian

	21-03-2002 23:13									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I think the simultaneous ownership and consumption of one's cake is hard, even in civ3.

quote: Originally posted by Arrian DrSpike, I still think Egypt is (potentially) the best for an early rush/settle down and build game. The main problem with my perfect game strategy is that it depends on luck. Getting a leader is a matter of luck, and if you don't get one, my strategy fails. The game is still winnable, but I'm going for ultimate power -Arrian

The point is you can't have a good early UU and a later golden age and profit from both. You may as well pick the best builder traits. If you feel they are industrious and religious then Egyptians all the way. You can always trigger the golden age with wonders.

I don't actually think industrious is that critical to early conquering, or even the subsequent building. You're going to have a load of workers anyway. IMO the babs really seem the choice for the preferences you have indicated.

As for the leader thing, I think you should never plan on getting a leader. You have to play the percentages so you can benefit but are not unduly upset by missing out.

	21-03-2002 23:59									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Anyway I should apologise Arrian. You have this thread about warmongering, and another I just noticed about builders. From my first post (where I advocated the babs and the egyptians) I was inadvertently pushing the discussion towards what's good for early warring then settling down to build, because this is how I play.

For what it's worth my thoughts on civs for early warmongering followed by more warmongering:

Definitely militaristic is the first trait. A good early UU you plan to use and trigger the GA is best, because it helps with production and you don't care as much about forgoing the later GA. My top 3:

1) Japan. Mentioned a few times in the thread. Militaristic for promotions, religious for cheap temples etc. Start with the wheel, and you can use horses and upgrade later.

2) Rome. I'll let notyoueither make this case. Summary: they are good.

3) Zulu. Impi/horseman pairs, nice. I wont comment further, Aeson has made this case above (he'll probably track me down and give me a good kickin' for putting them 3rd though)

	22-03-2002 00:44									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DrSpike,

No apology necessary. The thread is about "early warmongering" and I definitely had a "kick butt early, then settle down for a bit" mindset when I started it. This was basically what I did in my Japanese game recently, and wow did it work well.

I guess that I am still looking for the "game of ultimate power" just like I used to in Civ II. It was easier in Civ II, because the AI was worse, there were no tech caps or "ages" to break up the tech tree. Plus, Diety gave you two settlers (I always thought CivII Diety was easier than Emperor for that very reason). Anyway, I am definitely trying to have my cake and eat it too. I know that, and I accept that it shouldn't be easy.

Essentially, I'm trying to gain the success of an early warmonger, with a builder civ. I've just been unlucky with leaders, that's all. I don't care about the war chariot/golden age problem, because it's easily remedied. WC's upgrade to horsemen for 20 gold each, and one often has a bunch of gold as a despot.

If one's goal is to fight to expand territory early on, to secure some more resources/land/etc. and deny those things to the AI, and then build, then Egypt is a great choice. My goal is the total destruction of 1 civ, and the crippling (1-2 cities left) of a second, and a shiny new forbidden palace. It seems Egypt is not the best choice for that.

-Arrian

	22-03-2002 00:56									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Personally I would rather play the babs on Monarch for the type of game we are discussing, with the Egyptians as my 2nd choice. Egyptians will always be my first choice on deity, because of the different ranking of the early golden age in that case. But that is by the by, and already discussed. The point I wish to emphasise is that as a builder you shouldn't _plan_ for a leader. I empathise with your wish to build the FP in faraway places with 1 shield no matter what, but it isn't the percentage strategy if you aren't willing to wait 200 turns. IMO the strategy that hedges best is space cities slightly closer and build the FP as far away as you can subject to the constraint that you still need to get 2 shields at say pop 4 or so with a courthouse. Also, IMO playing a militaristic civ in hopes of generating the leader in the type of game discussed just isn't worth it.

	22-03-2002 01:00									#56
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Arrian DrSpike, No apology necessary. The thread is about "early warmongering" and I definitely had a "kick butt early, then settle down for a bit" mindset when I started it. -Arrian

Really? I didn't get that, since you rated all the civs like Egypt and Babylonians badly. Which lead to my first post pointing out that if you want to conquer early then build..................

	22-03-2002 01:29									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, keep in mind that the ratings were done with the assumption that culture linkings was on, which means Egypt will most likely face Greece and Rome, while Babylon must face Zululand and Persia. I concede, however, that I may have rated them too low. Perhaps Egypt merits a B- and Babylon a C or C+... I also gave out better grades to civs powerful early/mid-game UU's, such as Rome, Persia, the Iroquois, Japan and China. The war chariot is a quick build, and I may have undervalued it a tad bit, but it's still a 2.1.2. The bowman sucks, any way you cut it.

My new goal, early conquest with Egypt or Babylon which results in a great leader for the forbidden, came about during the course of my two threads. I may be getting a little carried away with it, and it seems to be a low-percentage strategy, like you said. But if I could just get it to work... man, that would be awesome.

I disagree that playing a militaristic civ in order to do this isn't worth it. To me, the whole point of being militaristic is the better unit upgrades, and the whole point of that is leader generation. The Japanese worked great for this when I tried them.

-Arrian

	22-03-2002 02:03									#58
	New thoughts Get a bigger avatar today!

Interesting dialogue you guys are having.

So here's how I would summarize the building consensus:
- Early warfare is desirable for GL creation, punishment / denial, and expansion.
- Balanced players still want to pursue a builder strategy, so religious or scientific can be helpful.
- The right UUs can help with relative strength.
- Militaristic helps with unit promotions, but GL creation is still a crapshoot.
- The thinking on GA timing is still open... some prefer as early as possible for faster early unit building, some prefer later for greater results in the build phase.

Previously, I've voiced a preference for being religious with a fast mover... Egypt, Japan, China, etc., with a leaning toward militaristic.

I have discovered, however, the power of the Immortals.

A four attack!!!!! At Iron Working!! (starting with Bronze Working, no less, so only one tech away). From a relative strength perspective, there is nothing like it. And unit promotions are not a problem... a bunch of warriors go out, some fight barbs, most survive and get promoted. Putting up barracks is easy, so by the time you are ready for war, most if not all of your Immortals are veterans. AND THEY NEVER LOSE!!! (almost). Last night I had 10 elites by 1000 BC. In order: Pyramids, Army, FP. All by 500 BC. A two-Immortal Army is UNSTOPPABLE until Rifleman, for God's sake. Then I added a Pikeman!! 9-5-1...I felt like the Incredible Hulk!!

The only civ that has a CHANCE of standing up to you are the Romans... everyone else is TOAST. I mean really, you'll go 2000 years faced by attackers and defenders at 1 or 2 values (think about it: Warrior, Archer, Bowman, Chariot, War Chariot, Horseman, Jaguar Warrior, Impi). Hoplites don't do it, and the Iroqouis are too weak defenseively.

And they maintain value... by the time you build Knights, they are ALL elites.

Persia is Industrious, which I like as both a builder and warmonger, and Scientific, so at least some building is cheap. The timing of the GA is OK; although a bit later would be better as a builder, it works great for a committed warmonger.

Try it... you'll like it.

R

	22-03-2002 02:14									#59
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Oops... correct stats on my Army of Death: 9-7-1!!!

R

	22-03-2002 02:31									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Persia are admittedly awesome but I hate the fact that swordsmen based units don't upgrade. If you can do your early conquering with them great, but on deity where I've played the last few games you're pushing it.