 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Alex
|
 |
Brasil
Mar 1999
time: 02:23
|
|
Nice thread.
Some ideas:
- I think that mastering the 'seven pillars' warrants a victory for any player, but the game offers another options that are not necessarily linked to total control of all the aspects. Using the military might represents a tool that, when properly handled, can allow the player to overlook certain peculiarities of the other pillars, focusing the game on a more tactical level. Sure, every aspect is related to another aspect (a big military force needs updated units, which need advanced tech, which requires money -- both to researching and buying --, which, in turn, facilitates the maintenance of a large army in representative governments and so on), but I think that it is possible to focus in only one aspect more than in other(s).
- a victory is often achieved through the means of small things, such as building a wonder at the right time, winning a war in a quick manner, or sewing a brilliant diplomatic patchwork.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncnunn
|
 |
Maryland Heights, MO
Sep 2002
time: 23:23
|
|
The 0% (+1 scientist) is an Emperor / Diety tactic only.
It makes no sense on the lower levels, where it's easy to get a branch lead even in the anicnt era.
Things are different on the Emperor level, where the AI has a 20% science edge. You can't possibly consitantly outresearch the AI until your Forbiden Palace is complete at this level. The techs that you can ourreserach the AI to are off the main branches of reserach and can be done in the 40 turns. In the Ancient Era, set the scince breaker as low as you can such that you still have one beaker, and pick the most expensive tech. Peroidaclly check in with other AIs to buy every tech as it comes adviable. Tech whore both techs that you buy from an AI and the ones you get for 40 beakers. (If there's few enough AIs: Polythesism & Monarchy are the best candidates for this.)
Sometime during the Middle Ages, your Forbiden Palace should be complete (along with lots of Market Places and Court Houses where needed.) Then you can start reseraching profitably along a single branch and try to keep it as close to 4 turns as possible.
The general prinicple is either go all-out for reserach (preferably along a beeline path), or else don't bother. The middle road is inferior to both.
Check in with the AI at least every 10 turns to see what techs you can buy. When you buy the techs, do it as much as possible in GPT rather than one time gold. This is because some AIs are very agressive at the Emperor level, and if they attack you while your still paying for a tech, you've gotten a discount on the price. And before you hit the "Leave or Declare War" button, always buy all the techs they have in a pure GPT deal and then hit the "Leve or Declare War" button the same turn. This gives you all their techs for free when they declare war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I've been concerned with the "10% Science" line of thought that I've been running into on 'Poly. Isn't it sometimes better to go 90% to get that tech sooner. In my recent games as the Carthaginians, I try to research Bronze Working ASAP, for obvious reasons. Usually (depending on the start location), putting Science at 10% or 20% gives me Bronze Working in 30 or 40 turns, but putting it all the way to 90% brings it down to 23 turns. Of course the exact numbers change once I start building Settlers and new cities pop up, but those early beakers don't go to waste! Can anyone explain to me why hovering around 10% in the early game is best?
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
On Regent/Monarch, I often drop my research rate to 30% for the first tech.
My reasoning is that if I go down to 20%, I don't save any extra money or go any slower, if I go to 10%, I don't get any research done, and more than likely, I'm going to buy/trade for most of the first level techs before I've had time to finish researching one; but on the off chance that I'm alone, I still want to get some research done.
After the first round of trades, then and only then do I have a clear picture of where I can research and hopefully get a lead, or at least a tradeable commodity, at which point I can decide whether to increase or decrease research.
With PtW, like I said earlier, though, I am getting outresearched by the AI as though I were the village idiot and they are all reincarnations of Einstein and Aristotle.
It's definitely got me started looking at different strategies for ancient research that don't entail constant war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
Theseus - great job  It's very difficult to articulate "game wisdom" above the tactical level.
First, I will come back later to challenge your point in the sidebar regarding a "production strategic advantage" which you anticipate may be a major point of contention.
Second, my only significant disagreement with your strategic layout of Civ 3 is with respect to the "Key Enablers." The partner of gold, in Civ 3, is shields. Happiness is a means to an end. Happiness is critically important -- but its purpose is to allow citizens to labor contentedly. Happiness therefore produces both shields and gold. One must manage a happy (or reasonably content) empire -- combined with the lessons to be learned in the "Developing Infrastructure" requirements -- which will produce shields and gold, each of which buys a piece ("enables") the Strategic Advantages available to the player. Happiness, by itself, buys nothing. Happiness, combined with the right strategic (and tactical) game choices, puts a player in the position to pursue a strategic advantage and a game breaker.
Finally, my two cents on "warmongering vs. building" or, in the context of this thread, "0% research" -- or more accurately, the concept of ignoring one facet of the game to pursue an overwhelming advantage in another facet, and using that "facet advantage" to secure advantage in the overall game itself [obviously dipping far more into personal preferences here, now]. Not only is it doable, but it is the surest way to ensure success. An ultra-early focus on warfare against the AI will generate success more often than any other early tactic, IMHO. But such an approach will too often represent an avoidance of the challenges of the game -- it is a variation of the end result of Vel's unbelievably accurate early work on Civ 3 strategy, but an approach that also focuses more on the AI's inability to perform than it does on the player's ability to make the most of the game rules. You can beat the AI consistently, but you can't beat the AI "at its own game."
Great thread
Catt 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Robber Baron
|
 |
Commonwealth of Commonsense
Jun 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
Tottering on One or Two Pillars
First let me say, awesome thread, Thes! This one really got me thinking.
Now, purely on an elevated and impersonal strategic plane, a successful player has to develop a balanced array of objectives and imperatives, particularly at the higher levels of play. Leave one or two pillars underbuilt and your civ will topple, sooner or later (sooner at Deity; later but eventually at Emporer). The logic here is indisputable.
But then, from a roleplaying/gameplay point of view, I find myself regularly leaning heavily on one or two pillars, and trying to compensate for weakness elsewhere in the structure. Partly because specific game circumstances create specific, limited arrays of opportunities. But also partly because it becomes fun. As I play, a game-specific personality emerges, and then I find myself over-playing the personality. Don't just be war-like, become "Evilgrin Autoraze," bane of the world and the terror of his own troops. Don't just be an assiduous builder, become "Johnny Hop-lightly," cultural patron of your planet.
What's truly unique about CivIII (even more than Civ II) is the extent to which the game allows one to try to construct a range of strategies, and compensate tactical weaknesses with strategic strengths. You can research techs, or try to buy them, or try to bully them out. And so on.
Only occasionally do such one-dimensional players pull out victories. The logic here is right: usually an unbalanced strategy runs a player into serious trouble.
But that's fun, too. It makes for epic, tragic stories. By the time "Evilgrin Autoraze" is sending waves of knights into deathcharges against rifle-defended cities, or "Johnny Hop-lightly" is kneeling in Bach's Cathedral to pray for divine intervention, while outside the walls of his once-glorious capital a stack of enemy infantry and artillery is approaching that his valiant muskets and hoplites will not be able to withstand, I'm way into the drama.
(In any event, for me, winning is kind of boring -- the modern era game is rather tedious to plod through.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
On topic:
In trying to balance my play better, after reading this thread, I adopted a more involved relationship with my military advisor in the AU 205 game. Boy did that pay off early. Thanks for the eloquent strategy writing, Theseus. I might even convert it into some sort of "worksheet" for analyzing games - you know, like those career planning worksheets or those pages that they have in DayTimers about "What are Your Goals" etc.
Probably a good analysis tool for those that don't really care about the numbers game, but need a closer look at what they are doing right and wrong.
Off topic:
quote:
Originally posted by Robber Baron
(In any event, for me, winning is kind of boring -- the modern era game is rather tedious to plod through.) |
Amen!
Besides, unless you are going for either Diplo or SS victory - and even usually then - don't most players know whether they've won by the time the Modern Age begins, at the latest?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thrumble
|
|
Most excellent thread, it has difinitely improved by gameplay! Thanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
|
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
First, I will come back later to challenge your point in the sidebar regarding a "production strategic advantage" which you anticipate may be a major point of contention. |
Nah, I won't challenge. A production advantage only enables one of the true Strategic Advantages, or game breakers, and more easily enables the Warfare route. There really aren't effective ways to convert production (shields) into either gold or other tradeable assets, and though a modest tech advtange may be assisted by wealth or by building universities more quickly than a lagging production empire, ultimately the production must be turned to wasteful wealth or units, and units need to be used to have much value.
So I don't think a strong production advantage is a true game breaker.
quote:
Second, my only significant disagreement with your strategic layout of Civ 3 is with respect to the "Key Enablers." The partner of gold, in Civ 3, is shields. Happiness is a means to an end. Happiness is critically important -- but its purpose is to allow citizens to labor contentedly . . . |
It is hard to underestimate the importance of happiness. It is critical to population growth, and population growth leads to shields and gold. Shields and gold are the key enablers to the three principal pillars, the game-breaking strategic advantages.
But I would still label happiness the enabler of the "Enablers." As such, I would put it in the lower level of "pillars" along with tile working and building. I see the strategic as one of 3-1-3: The three strategic advantages; the Enabler - shields and gold (i.e., city output); and the three necessary infrastructure projects; happiness, tile working, and build choices.
Again, great job on articulating the Seven Pillars.
Catt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
I just re-read this for the first time in... a long time.
With the commentary and suggestions, I still stand by it, so:
BUMP. |
Ha! I just reinstalled Civ (can't find PtW, argh!) and was reading from your Must Read Threads thread.
Not 60 seconds ago I was thinking 'I wonder if Theseus still feels the same or if he'd modify the Seven Pillars' and lo! and behold! Here you are, reaffirming said Pillars.
Once again, thanks for such a well-written strategic level post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Thanks guys. I'll prolly re-visit this with a bit more C3C under my belt. |
Hey, it's been 3 months, man. Still stand by(on) your Pillars?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2002 19:56
|