 |
| |
|
|
Txurce
|
|
Santa Monica CA USA
Mar 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Alexman, you're right - I'm still awaiting the Mac 1.21 patch. I'm starting to get a little restless, by the way.
Sir Ralph, that's a good strategy against Greece, assuming those peace negotiations don't drag on forever. One of my more satisfying Egyptian games started in a grass-less peninsula, and the Greeks invaded. I took one of their cities with the only offensive guys I had, and the pussies agreed to peace, even though they had me.
Arrian, I can see how Greece would be a problem if you're playing one of your "leave no witnesses" games. Otherwise, leaving them for later isn't a big deal, because the Romans or Persians are usually around, and you want to polish them off fast before they build too many super-swordsmen. But as Egypt, you can't beat finding yourself next to Germany, England or France... even Babylon. Any two of those give you a guaranteed biggest-nation status by the early middle ages, and you can put the game on cruise control.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
A couple of things regarding religious vs. industrious:
-60 shields for a temple is brutal. Especially when you want to rush temples in captured cities. Yikes.
-Anarchy sucks. I endured a despotic golden age in the early middle ages rather than switch to republic (I probably would have had mass riots once I got to rep) or to monarchy, only to switch to republic soon after.
-160 shield cathedrals suck.
-Fast workers rock. You can set up a number of high production cities really, really quickly.
-Overall.... I still prefer religious. The workers set you up nice and quick for the bare essentials, but paying full price for temples/cathedrals/libraries/universities... it adds up.
|
After playing Egypt many, many games in a row, I decided to start playing random civs, random maps, etc., and altering my strategy as dictated by my civ traits, my neighbors, geography, etc. I wholeheartedly agree on a couple of points -- I still can't get used to 60 shield temples (and 160 shield cathedrals significantly alter my perception of Sistine's utility).
There are alternative tactics, though. When I'm not a religious civ, I will tend to focus on building a library before the temple -- the 20 shield cost difference isn't that great, and you generate 3 culture points instead of 2 (faster border expansion). You have to watch happiness a bit more, but on the upside, you also get the university as the "next step build" which generates 4 culture to the cathedral's 3. Industrious workers do allow you to set up high production cities quickly, and the ability to produce mobile units, move them across your industrious road network, and disband them in order to speed library construction (assuming you don't have the cash to hurry them) is a very helpful tactic (though not complete solution) to counter the cost of your religious improvements. (Do some view the unit disband method as an exploit? I've mixed views myself -- but that's for another thread  )
The anarchy is what really hurts. It turns the decision whether to change governments, both on tech advances and war / peace time, from a no-brainer to a challenging tactical problem, and, for me, significantly heightens war weariness concerns (as I often want to be in Rep or Dem as soon as available) and therefore alters my war-making goals / ambitions.
I sympathize with your attachment to religious, and I consider it right up there with industrious, but I still favor industrious (for the many reasons on this thread!).
Catt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Txurce
|
|
Santa Monica CA USA
Mar 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
When you say border expansion, do you mean they've probably built temples? Is this why some size-1 cities survive captures, when others don't? Am I learning something here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Txurce
|
|
Santa Monica CA USA
Mar 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Thanks, Catt.
Your library gambit is interesting, and could work if you rack up two early luxuries and you don't let your cities get too big while you warmonger.
The government switch is a big deal, and I guess your first choice is whether you hope to win peacefully or by domination. If it's the latter, I'd just go for monarchy and take the good with the bad. If it's the former, going into republic again seems like a no-brainer, but your behavior as a republic will be constrained by your inability to switch governments at will. But if you're going for a space-race win, for example, haven't you expanded all you need to by the time you're ready to switch from despotism to republic?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
Catt,
Good point about the Sistine. It's sooooo wierd when coloseums are cheaper than cathedrals. Oh, well, I just made sure I got Bach's too. Actually, I got (or am presently building uncontested) every middle ages wonder except for Shakespeare.
I don't usually disband units to help with building construction. The exception is veteran (not elite, of course) Cavalry once I have Tanks. I've been using my rather substantial treasury to rush things with gold. When I finally switched from despot to republic, I had something like 3800 gold saved up. The first things I rushed were temples, then courthouses and marketplaces. The latter two significantly boosted my economy, which allowed more rushing. I do it in a sort of haphazard way, generally refusing to pay more than 300gold for any one rushed building (the exception was a university in Beijing at more than 500 - I needed to get going on Copernicus).
Bottom line: gold is easier to come by than uncorrupted shields. That is the basis for my whole gameplan, actually.
In the end, like you say, it's the anarchy that's a killer. That's the final straw for me.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
|
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Txurce
Thanks, Catt. |
You're welcome (I just beat Arrian to the question since I had been drafting my longwinded answer in the religious / industrious discussion).
quote:
The government switch is a big deal, and I guess your first choice is whether you hope to win peacefully or by domination. If it's the latter, I'd just go for monarchy and take the good with the bad. If it's the former, going into republic again seems like a no-brainer, but your behavior as a republic will be constrained by your inability to switch governments at will. But if you're going for a space-race win, for example, haven't you expanded all you need to by the time you're ready to switch from despotism to republic? |
Well, I generally favor a builder approach (or, as I like to say, NYE's buildmonger approach) unless circumstances dictate otherwise; I like to win via diplomatic, spapeship or cultural (I used to turn these off as a newbie!). If I am warring a lot, I definitely favor monarchy (over despotism or communism).
But even playing a builder-style game, there is always the chance that I will need to make war to: 1) secure a chokepoint or other highly valuable real estate; 2) secure a luxury which has simply become too expensive to trade for; or, of course, 3) secure a strategic resource (must have rubber - must have oil - must have aluminum ). And if one or more of these situations don't occur, you can bet that one or more AI will declare war during the game. As you say, I may have expanded enough for a space-race victory by the time republic is available, but some warmongering AI (Zulu, Germans, anyone?) will have fought many wars, have many more militray units than I (even if less advanced) and will therefore believe I am a patsy. Largely defensive wars (even very successful ones) can make negotiated peace a challenge -- if I have to build a large expeditionary force and then move it to the AI's perhaps distant territory before I can scare him/her into peace on reasonable  terms, war weariness can cause problems.
I have also played builder games where I got far enough behind early that I couldn't seem to ever build enough units of sufficient power to effectively take out a powerful neighbor. When subsequently attacked by such a neighbor (as I'm closing in on the UN or have achieved a two or three tech advantage, either of which seems to do it) I have had to fight grinding, defensive wars that last 20+ turns. A revolution in my democracy at that point is a painful thing indeed if not playing a religious civ, because not only do I suffer the revolution, but when the war concludes, I probably need to go through it again to get back to my democracy!.
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
I don't usually disband units to help with building construction. The exception is veteran (not elite, of course) Cavalry once I have Tanks. I've been using my rather substantial treasury to rush things with gold. When I finally switched from despot to republic, I had something like 3800 gold saved up. The first things I rushed were temples, then courthouses and marketplaces. The latter two significantly boosted my economy, which allowed more rushing. I do it in a sort of haphazard way, generally refusing to pay more than 300gold for any one rushed building (the exception was a university in Beijing at more than 500 - I needed to get going on Copernicus).
Bottom line: gold is easier to come by than uncorrupted shields. |
I agree -- but I may disband when, for whatever reason, my treasury is low. And disbanding a unit just to knock the first shields of a building project (to be completed with gold) is very helpful (i.e., cost of the build in gold is doubled if not one shield had been accumulated towards the build).
Catt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
High Lord J
|
|
you do realize that other civs can use the roads you bulid too right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Only AFTER they take your cities and ther roads are no longer yours.
Unless of course you give them a Right Of Passage agreement.
You can't move on their roads either without a ROP or conquest.
If they take all your roads you have allready lost. If you don't have roads you will lose. Even on Chieftan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Travathian
|
|
Chandler, AZ, USA
May 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
Not sure if someone mentioned it or not, but dont forget that double speed workers also chop down trees faster as well, meaning you can build those temples and courthouses in distant lands much faster.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
Vel, I just realized the power of industrious in a few special cases. Although other traits are better in most circumstances, imo, I just started a game in a jungle. I quit, of course.
But you can't just quit a game if you are in a lousy starting position. Industrious is actually great if you start in a big jungle or forest. Of course, I play to win, and even industrious isn't going to save me if I have an awful start.
Roads give commerce and mobility, and I can't see why you can just connect your cities while ignoring gold and research for a while. When another civ gets an advance, that makes the advance easier to get. This lowers the importance of roads for trade. Because of this, you really don't need a lot of roads for mobility.
Industrious is most useful in the industrial era, of course. Its nice to cover your whole empire in railroads in a few turns when they are first available. This results in a huge increase in power more quickly than non industrious civs. Unfortunately, I have already won the game by then. Its a good trait, but I like others more, depending on how my starting location is. It isn't going to be useful in an island map because you are isolated. In a huge pangaea, expansionist would be useful. Industrious is good when you want some really fast mines, not a trade advantage. It isn't as flexible as religious or scientific, but its good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
Ok, roads that are not for mobility either give you gold or science. Both decrease in value as time goes on. A comp will sell you a tech cheaper if it has been around longer. Gold isn't as good later on because buildings and units are more expensive. Therefore, you can get away with making less roads than normal early on. The trade isn't as important as the speed at that point. Even a non industrious civ can make the roads quickly enough for military use.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
True, but happiness isn't an issue early in the game when you are pumping out settlers and workers. I don't let any of my cities get bigger than size 4. 2 warriors and a temple is perfect, luxuries come into importance later when the land rush is over. By that time, I will have them connected without the help from industrious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
High Lord J
|
|
wait a sec... so if you are in your terriorty and you are at war with your enemy your roads won't improve there speed just as much as yours? what about in neutral terriorty?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by High Lord J
wait a sec... so if you are in your terriorty and you are at war with your enemy your roads won't improve there speed just as much as yours? |
Correct. The enemy can't use your roads and you can't use his.
quote:
what about in neutral terriorty? |
There both sides get the road movement bonus.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-05-2002 20:11
|