26-02-2003 20:29									#1
	Overcoming Parity in the Medival Age Tired of ads?

Alright, don't scoff. "Oh, if you haven't achieved dominance by the end of the ancient era, you're not a real Civ player." There are those of us who, despite our best efforts, can find ourselves still "tied" come the medival era. This thread is dedicated to them.

This thread is meant to apply to any game. I generally play against the max # of opponents on a huge map, SP, but this thread is meant to generate discussion for any scenario: a small MP game, a huge deity level game with few opponents, you name it!

So feel free to post your own questions, or random advice. Just make sure you're clear about what difficulty level you're dealing with, # of opponents, size and type of world, etc.

I'll just start out by asking one basic question:

If you reach the medival era and you don't have a great cavalry unit, and you're not necessarily ahead in tech, or only slightly so, what do you do?

I play Regent level on a Huge continents map, 4 billion years, roaming Barbarians. I have had trouble winning as the Romans under these conditions, so I now include a mid-game .SAV for you all to consider my conundrum.

But please, pitch in with your own questions, advice and .SAVs, so this isn't just about my game (I already have a thread dedicated to just Rome alone!)

I hope this will generate some interesting discussing. I appreciate any input.

Attachment: romeromeromeromerome.sav
This has been downloaded 4 time(s).

	26-02-2003 21:05									#2
	Support Apolyton

Personally, if I am not behind in tech I tend to favor getting feudalism ASAP. Then I attack an opponent that either doesn't have it or doesn't have iron.

pikes + med.inf vs spearmen + swords or horses is not a pretty sight.

	26-02-2003 21:15									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I agree with that. But what if you lack iron, and aren't playing as the Scandanavians, Indians or Mongols? Do you just quit, or try something else?

	26-02-2003 21:27									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

It depends. There are different types of parity. Tech parity. Military parity. Score graph/Power graph parity (ignore that, for the most part).

Military parity can be overcome simply through better tactics. The AI's tactics are terrible (though I remember CivII, and the CivIII AI looks like Rommel compared to that). Draw their good units (like knights, given the time period we're discussing) out onto open ground to kill them, or try to get them to attack you at a disadvantage (up hills, mountains, across rivers, etc). Meanwhile, cut their iron. All of a sudden, you're facing longbowmen instead of knights. Pikemen you kill cannot be replaced. Muuuuuch better. Don't throw your own units away in piecemeal attacks. If you have 10 knights, don't split them up! Send all 10 to attack at once. Take that city, hole up & heal, bring up pikemen to defend and any new knights you build, and move to the next city. Don't rush it. That's a recipe for heavy casualties. I only divide my forces when I know I have enough to have 2 (or more) groups that can each take cities FOR SURE on their own.

Tech parity. Again, it depends. One way to gain a lead is to simple beat up on the AI. That will cramp their research just a bit A variant of that is to get them embroiled in wars against each other (if you are still a Monarchy, and WW isn't a problem, you can jump into a war and pull in even more civs... no need to actually fight much - except maybe sneaking in a grabbing a luxury ). I don't really do that, though, because I do not feel confident that such manipulations will work out for my benifit (AI wars occasionally produce a superpower AI). I'd rather opportunistically jump in to wars already in progress and grab what I can.

Another, more peaceful, method is to draw off their income by selling them things for gold per turn. Luxuries, resources, tech (Printing Press is a great one, since they tend to research that late or even not at all). That will slow their research and speed yours. Only buy things from the AI if you think you need it. Once you reach tech parity, the goal should be to out-research them and (when you choose) sell them the tech that you get to further drain their economies.

One of the reasons I target luxuries in war is that it's a double whammy to the AI. 1) you hurt their ability to keep their people happy. Take a lux away from them, and they now either have to import one (perhaps that very one... from YOU), raise their luxury spending, or accept higher unhappiness. 2) you help your ability to keep your people happy, and now you don't have to import that luxury and you can sell it to the other AIs (as the former owner was surely doing). Taking control of a luxury represents an enormous shift in power. So, if you're fighting and you have limited offensive capability (you can only take a city or two), I suggest you hit the luxury supplies. Often those cities are out on the fringes, have low population and weak defenses, making them easy to take.

-Arrian

	26-02-2003 21:52									#5
	Put an end to popups!

I think Continent is easy. I would just go for Chivalry, get massive Knights and pikeman to conquer my Continent. This should give you good amount of leaders to blow on GWs. After that, I'd make marketplaces, temples, libraries, aquaducts, second FP, banks, and basically solidify my holdings until I try to cross the ocean to make contacts with other civs. If you're playing the Romans and have massive legions I would use them instead for defense or upgrade them if you have PTW.

Make sure u kill off the civs in ur continent whom you have broken treaties before to erase any wrongdoings. But leave some to use as contact deals. Distant civs will pay huge money and/or contacts for ur world map and contacts to the civs in ur land. This way distant civs will not know what happened and you will get cheaper and better deals.

Having owning your own continent in a huge world with correct FP placement is a wonderful thing. First of all you get a huge landmass to work on for the next age or two. There is limited chance for warfare in ur continent, as AI civ barely ever gets the Intelligence to successfully load galleons of troops to land in your continent to ever pose a dangerous threat to you. Third is the possibility to incite wars in which you really take no part of

To further explain my last point, I'll give you an example. In my last game as a Babylonian, after finishing up my continent with medieval wars, a screen popped up that said "England have finished Copernicus Obs" in the other continent. Right away I researched Education all the way to Navigation and started sailing galleys to find them. After contacts I bought off the remaining techs that they have and luxuries.

Then I went and declare war against France, signed an alliance with England, and every other civs in the continent against France. Spain decided to attack England but I managed to stay out of that war and continue to profit from trades of techs, luxuries and resources.

The trick is that because there was no actual war that included my units and none of my units were in enemy territory and vice versa, there was little or no War wearriness. While the other civs builds military, I proceded to equipping every cities in my continent with Universities, banks, etc. In the end of the medieval era, I reached tech supperiority and so on.

	26-02-2003 21:53									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

This leads to the next question:

WHO do you attack when you are at, say, "total" parity (i.e., same size, tech level and resources) as your neighbors? Assume, for now, that they have no luxury resources you want, and no wonders you especially need, but are working on building the same wonders you are.

Do you attack the most agressive neighbor?

The smallest?

The one with the easiest front?

Do you not attack anyone until much later in the game?

	26-02-2003 21:54									#7
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I just had another thought:

If you have parity with the powerful AI civs, most of the time there is one or more weaker AIs out there. Pick on them.

For instance, in my current game, I finishing conquering my continent (destroyed Arabs, Mongols, Vikings), I wasn't all that strong. I had blown my GA in despotism (ack! big no-no for me). There are 2 very strong AIs on the "other continent", along with one that used to be fairly strong, but got ground down in a long, meatgrinder war against one of the others. Korea and Egypt are the strong ones, the Celts got beat up by Egypt.

Then there were the Zulu. There they sat on their little island off the coast of Egypt & Korea. They had 10 cities. They were behind in tech. They were broke. They had spices.

Until the Roman army showed up, that is. My offensive armed forces in this particular game are unimpressive at the moment. The wars to secure my continent were long and bloody, and due to the lack of a well-timed GA, my "builder mode" has been longer than normal. I did not feel I could spare the shields for more military units.

I was successful in destroying the Zulu without much trouble. At the end of the campaign, my offensive military consists of 11 Cavalry, 1 knight, 1 med inf, 1 horseman, and my 2xlegion + 1xmed inf army. That's it.

Upon first making contact with the Zulu, Koreans, Egyptians and Celts (Great Lighthouse was useful on this map), I found myself roughly at tech parity with the big boys, and ahead of Zululand. Via trades, I attained parity. Via my own economy, I slowly began to pull away (nailing the big wonders helped to, I admit. I have Sun Tzu, Leo, Sistine, Bach, Copernicus, Smith, Newton and Magellan). But the clincher game with Navigation. Now I could trade with the big boys. And trade I did. I have been selling my luxs to Korea for a while now, for heavy GPT payments. Egypt got off lighter - I had a 4 for 1 lux trade for a while, but recently switched over to selling to them for GPT instead of importing. I was able to do that because of my gaining spices from the Zulu war.

Not exactly middle ages parity, I admit. But militarily, I was close to parity... I did NOT have the offensive punch to invade Egypt or Korea. Invading the Celts would have been pointless, as they lost their luxury to Egypt in their war. So I found the weakest target that gave a return, and hit them.

Now I'm in the Industrial Age and I have a decent tech lead. They have nationalism, and I don't, but I have steam power (korea has, egypt no - maybe now, since their faux war ended), industrialization, medicine, electricity, sci method, replaceable parts, atomic theory and electronics. 2 leaders from the fall of Zululand give me Uni Suff & ToE free of charge. Hoover due in 2.

Game, set, match. If I had taken on one of the big boys, I probably would have managed to take 1 city (at most) and been forced to produce more military, hampering my industrialization plans... not to mention earning the hatred of that civ. Though Egypt now apparently is furious with me... I assume because of my atrocious treatment of the Zulu and my power lead.

-Arrian

	26-02-2003 21:55									#8
	Support Apolyton

Cross-post! Short answer: the weakest. Long answer: see above.

-Arrian

	26-02-2003 22:03									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

In my current game, I intend to attack the Babylonians, take them in no more than 20 turns I think, and then move on to Japan, and India, successively, bringing me 2 more luxuries (the Babs are just "in the way")

My question to you all is, with all the other AIs already resenting me for being slightly ahead of them, how do I prosecute these wars and not have wars brought upon myself?

Obviously I will try to bring the others into coalitions with me, but if I can't, what then? I can't risk a war with certain of my big neighbors, especially more than one at once. (see saved game above for more detail)

	26-02-2003 22:26									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Bringing them in on your side is the safest method.

Failing that... well, make sure your border defenses are solid - enough to hold long enough for reinforcements to arrive from elsewhere.

From your posts, it sounds to me like you have direct borders with China, Carthage and Babylon. Carthage has been a real pain, China is powerful but hasn't been a problem (yet) and the Babs are weak.

I've been in that situation, and I hate it. It is another reason why I love having my own continent - no enemies behind me.

I think I need to see the save (or at least some screenshots) prior to giving more advice. There are so many variables.

-Arrian

	26-02-2003 23:36									#11
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I generally keep all of my cities with 3 of the best defensive units, obviously rushing interior cities' def units to the front(s) when needs be. I am considering adding a 4th def unit to my China and Carthage fronts for this game, and then taking on the Babs.

Of course, that takes away from time I could spend building my army... but I could wait until I get MT to do that anyways, and skip the knights entirely.

btw, how do I post screenshots? How do I capture screenshots to begin with?

	27-02-2003 00:00									#12
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I sometimes do what you just mentionned: skipping knights and beeline for MT and cavalry. If you're lucky, you might get to fight cavs vs. pikemen (or spearmen if facing a REALLY backwards civ). But Cavs vs. musketmen will do the job alright!

You press the PrntScrn button on your keyboard (usually located at the top right of the instrument...) Then, you get a graphic editor (Paint will do the job) and paste. TADAM!! You just need to save as a jpeg (because bmp's take a lot of space.)

To post it here, when submitting a reply, use the attach file at the bottom of the reply form...

	27-02-2003 00:03									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

3 top defenders in each city????

Wow. That's WAY more than me.

I might have that in a border town (perhaps a bit more), but in the interior? That's just a waste!

If you are running a republican or democratic government, those interior units are doing nothing but drawing paychecks. Now it's true, in my games I tend to have 1 unit in each of my "home" cities (my continent), but if there was ever a threat - like a border with another civ - I would pull my units from all non-coastal interior cities and put them up on that border, either in the cities or on key defensive terrain at or near the border.

So you could probably muster 5-6 top defenders in those border cities w/o building any more units!

By the way, I often have more attack units than defenders. At least when I'm intending to fight. You're investing a lot of shields in defense, when it's offense that wins wars. Sure, you need some defense, but the fact is that having 50 Cavalry and 10 riflemen is probably better than having 30 Cav and 30 Rifles. Having tons of attack troops will allow you to break through the enemies defenses and capture or destroy his cities (production centers) and thus hamper and eventually destroy his ability to continue the war.

-Arrian

	27-02-2003 00:10									#14
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Actually, the main reason I keep 3 defensive units in each city is to police them. I generally skip Republic. I tried it for the first time in a long time during one of my recent Republic games, and found it quite dissappointing; didn't bring me THAT great a tech edge, and led to consistent unhappiness.

During Democracy, which I always switch to at some point (definitely by the industrial era's beginning), I drop this rule... although I'd hate to lose out to some punk sneak-attacking me via ship and grabbing an important coastal/"interior" city...

	27-02-2003 00:37									#15
	Got spare money?

If memory serves, only 2 units per city matter for MP purposes under Monarchy. I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure about that...

Regarding government choice... sometimes I do what you do (Monarchy until Democracy) and sometimes I go republic to demo. It depends.

I grant you that government switching as a non-religious civ is painful, and thus you have to cut down on it as much as possible (the Monarchy -> Demo route works for that).

Monarchy is good for having a large military - and even better if you are using that military (no war weariness).

My basic rule of thumb is this: Monarchy is better if I'm still fighting for my continent and my infrastructure is weak. But once my cities have their marketplaces & libraries, and my conquest is winding down, I want out. Depending on how close I am to Democracy, I will either stick it out in Monarchy (and deliberately prolong the mop-up operation vs. the AI on my continent hoping for leaders) or switch to Republic.

In my current Roman game, I went straight from Monarchy to Demo (but I switched ASAP, not in the industrial age!).

In games as religious civs, though, as soon as I think my infrastructure can support paying for my military, I switch. Hell, if I need to fight more, I can always switch right back. I love the religious trait.

The representative governments (rep/demo) are generally superior to the others in the game. This is particularly so if you aren't a raging warmonger (you're not) and if you can grab one or both of the key happiness wonders (Sistine or Bach). Sistine is obviously more powerful for religious civs, but Bach rocks for all civs (though, once you make the required investment of building cathedrals all over the place, the Sistine wins, IMO).

The reason I'm a raging warmonger is so that come the mid-to-late game, I can play builder! That's the point of all that ancient/early medieval slaughter. If I conquer a 4-civ continent, I'll have 4 luxuries and be strong enough to snatch a couple more from weak overseas AIs. Those wars will be short, and won't upset my fickle people too much.

-Arrian

p.s. Fear not the luxury slider.

	27-02-2003 00:56									#16
	Remove this text

Sir, I resent the accusation that I am not a raging warmonger.

I would also like to add that my general progression in the game is:

1. REX

2. Build and switch to Monarchy

3. Enter medival era with either the HG or the GL or both.

4. Go to war using mounted units, or medival infantry if I'm in a pinch.

5. Conquer (most) of my continent (I do play a huge map, after all, with 15/16 other civs). Around 2-3 medium-large civs subjugated generally.

6. Build Sun Tzu's, Sistine, JS Bachs, Leo's. I can generally do this while at war.

7. Switch to Democracy before researching even Gunpowder sometimes; definitely before Chemistry etc. Build build build build.

8. Get all the other wonders I can from that era. My "possessions" should be entering the level of standard cities by now.

9. Enter industrial era and get steampower

Then, if I need it:

10. Go get MT and war again

By this point, normally, I'm powerful enough that no one will attack me in earnest and I can wait to take them on on my terms.

Normally this progression serves me well, with variations, for always every civ. If I'm playing as the Aztecs, Celts, Iroquois, I'll blow my GA just to conquer conquer conquer. But I'll generally wait for Knights and their (better) UU equivalents, to do my conquest.

But all this is damn hard when play as an early-game disadvantaged civ, such as the Romans, and I imagine the Spanish and Koreans as well.

As as mentioned before, the 3 units in each city I build when I have spare time, and to police them (up to 3 under Monarchy; 2 despotism and 4 communism, which i almost never use)

	27-02-2003 01:19									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ah. 3 under Monarchy. *shakes head* Ok, didn't know that.

So you build first, then fight, then build, then maybe fight more. Fairly standard progression. And as you point out, it tends to work.

Here's mine:

1) REX

2) Massive military prebuild phase and then upgrading. Goal is approx 10 swords, 15-20 horse.

3) Kill. The hope is that during this phase I will generate a leader or two (or five, or ten... GIMME! MINE! MINE!) for the FP and various wonders. This phase lasts until either my neighbors get feudalism + they have iron, or they are wiped out. In the first case, we go back to stage 3 once we have chivalry.

4) Build like crazy.

5) Pick off weak civs for their luxuries.

6) Win (either domination or SS).

Doesn't always work... not by a longshot! But that's ok, I accept a high failure rate given what I'm shooting for!

-Arrian

	27-02-2003 01:25									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I dunnno why ppl hate Communism so much. It's actually a decent government for long wars with multiple continents. Democracy would surely fail in this case, due to massive anti-war sentiment.

Sure your big cities would not produce as much as before, but consider also you can pop rush and less corruption on the other continent which is way far from your capital.

Somebody in the threads also pointed out you can draft more in Communism. These units can make good cannon fodders and defensive unit.

Especially with Religious trait, Communism is godsent. Communism for long overdrawn war, then switch back to Democracy to take the lead again. With communism you can scale back entertainment to 0 if you have enough luxuries/happiness modifiers, and not ever worry about war wearriness. I'm not saying that I would use Communism solely from the time that I discover it. Just for specific occassions.

	27-02-2003 01:25									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I do like it when presented with the opportunity to:

1. Pick off a city with a wandering veteran archer early early early in the game.

2. Get attacked by a weak civ while I'm weak, crank out swordsmen, and take them down, usually with something like the Pyramids, Colossus, etc.

But I generally save the conquest(s) for the medival era.

What size world do you play on? # of civs? (I forget, honestly, not trying to be a jerk)

	27-02-2003 01:30									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

For taking that unhappy size 12 city and slaughtering your citizens so that it's a size 4 city with a cathedral, communism is golden. Definitely worth it... if you're religious.

But what do you use in the middle ages? when at parity?

	27-02-2003 01:33									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

Standard Maps, 8 civs. Clealry different from Huge/16. When I think about taking down my continent, I'm talking about conquering 2-4 other civs. On your settings, how many neighbors do you typically have?

The single biggest difference that I see on huge maps versus standard maps has to do with luxuries. On standard maps with 8 civs, there is 1 luxury per civ. Take out a couple of civs, and you have a bunch of luxuries. On a huge map/16 civs, there is 1/2 a luxury per civ. A continent of 4 civs would probably have 2 luxuries. OUCH!

-Arrian

	27-02-2003 01:36									#22
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth 5. Conquer (most) of my continent (I do play a huge map, after all, with 15/16 other civs). Around 2-3 medium-large civs subjugated generally. 6. Build Sun Tzu's, Sistine, JS Bachs, Leo's. I can generally do this while at war.

If you can do those two things, the game is won - no parity questions at all. If you can do one or the other of those two things, the game should be won (it could still be botched, I think).

I would think that the Romans are an early game advantaged (as opposed to disadvantaged) civ in the hands of a human player -- legions are nasty little guys when used well.

Catt

	27-02-2003 01:48									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Catt speaks the truth. 5 + 6 = a sure win. It might not be "coast to an easy SS launch" win, but I can't see a civ that big and wonderous actually getting beaten.

-Arrian

	27-02-2003 01:48									#24
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ah, but Catt, what happens when you arrive at the medival era at parity and don't have any sort of edge whatsoever?

The Romans, with their useful for a smaller map legionaries, will leave you there on a huge map...

But that is a topic for another thread, that we would all gladly have you join. Please visit "Winning as Rome on a Huge Map", also in the Strategy section. I would appreciate it, as I started it.

I was wandering off-topic earlier when I posted my general game strategy. A better question, for all y'all, is: what do I do when my civ is not hopeless, but tied with everyone, and lacks a good offensive unit? (I hope this whole thread isn't too broad to be interesting)

Arrian, to reply:

If I'm starting on lousy land, I'll generally have 3-5 neighbors on a large continent. If I'm starting on rich land, with nearby several luxuries, I'll tend to be on a HUGE continent with as many as 10 neighbors (my current game is me plus 9 others). If my land is very rich, too, most of these neighbors will be quite nearby.

	27-02-2003 01:57									#25
	Suffering from ads?

Nine neighbors. Yeesh.

I'd probably try to take out 2-3 in the ancient age (reduce to a city or two, take their tech, move on) and build for a bit, then hit a couple more with knights.

But I'm not sure how fast tech flies in that situation. With 9 civs, plus you, it could be really fast (which I don't really like much). Even adjusting for the huge map tech cost.

-Arrian

	27-02-2003 02:04									#26
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Yeah. In my current game, with which you are pretty well aquainted, and everyone else can find the details in the "Winning as Rome on a Huge World" thread, the techs "get around" in 1-2. I was hard pressed just to keep up. Had 4 neighbors working on Sistine when I was, plus 4 more working on Sun Tzu's. Thankfully, I got both, but oy vey!

Tech goes QUICK on these games. Playing as the right civ, it's not hard to keep up. Particularly industrious, religious and scientific civs.

But as someone just catching up in this situation, arriving at the medival era, how to win? How to gain an edge?

	27-02-2003 02:16									#27
	Support Apolyton

Opportunistic fighting, I'd say. Build a respectable strike force (not designed to take out your continent, or even 1 civ, necessarily) and wait for war to break out. Pick a side, jump in, and gain what you can (luxuries, man, luxuries!).

-Arrian

	27-02-2003 02:18									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth Ah, but Catt, what happens when you arrive at the medival era at parity and don't have any sort of edge whatsoever?

But you always have an edge because the AI is predictable and not flexible. (more below)

quote: The Romans, with their useful for a smaller map legionaries, will leave you there on a huge map...

I don't disagree that slow-moving units do better in tight confines, but for me, wider spaces just means more workers to build an efficient road network quickly. I tend to play random civs, and haven't played a ton of games with Rome -- but when I have, I've used legions right up until riflemen start appearing. Even againt muskets in cities, stacks of 6 - 8 legions, with the occasional knight or two, can really cut through an AI empire. The AI (so great in so many ways) is woefully outclassed in warfare tactics, and even an outnumbered and technologically inferior human force can usually give more than it takes in the hands of a moderately experienced player.

quote: But that is a topic for another thread, that we would all gladly have you join. Please visit "Winning as Rome on a Huge Map", also in the Strategy section. I would appreciate it, as I started it.

I've been reading and enjoying it! But I don't really have anything to contribute -- for one thing, I've never played Rome on a huge map and haven't played a huge map in a long time (but have played with slowmovers where the distance between capitols makes the standard map feel huge -- i.e., lots of roads needed for an offensive); for a second thing, I think Arrian and vmxa1 are providing all the advice you need. I'll add only one bit (and do it here rather than there) -- don't count games as lost or likely lost in the ancient or middle ages - from the descriptions of your games, and the comments back from vmxa1's downloads, it sounds like most of the time you're in a position to win easily but you don't see it that way because you haven't acheived a clear leadership position in all facets just yet. With more experience playing games out, I suspect you'll come to see, at some fairly innocuous point in your games, that the game is almost assuredly "won" even though you're behind in tech, behind in empire size, behind in military strength, etc.

quote: I was wandering off-topic earlier when I posted my general game strategy. A better question, for all y'all, is: what do I do when my civ is not hopeless, but tied with everyone, and lacks a good offensive unit? (I hope this whole thread isn't too broad to be interesting)

It's a little broad . I tend to play Emperor, standard maps, random civs and conditions. Sixteen civs is harder than eight civs, no doubt. But on a standard map, if I find myself more or less on parity with the leading AI civs in the early middle ages, then the game is almost certainly won. The ability to control the tempo through selective warfare, alliance diplomacy, and tech trading means, barring something really unusual, I should win. AI's will almost always engage in some wars, and AIs manage wars badly -- not only do they lose far more units than a human player would, they tend to drop all pretense to doing anything but make war -- all builds go to units, etc. A good AI war, with the right diplomacy, can set back the entire AI world, while you plod along at your own tempo, in your own direction.

Again, I think that the human ability to control the game tempo means parity = victory. This wasn't always the case for me, but since I've gotten used to being in that position, it has morphed from "fretting about the future" to "planning how to win." Which is why I say that if I have maintenance-free barracks in every city, half-cost unit upgrades, and no happiness issues whatsoever (the wonder list in point 6), then I can be one of the smaller civs in the game and I'll still be pretty confident about victory.

As posted in other threads, I've been experimenting with more peaceful approaches to the game recently, and it's pretty fun to play the middleman - whether economically or diplomatically. It is not the most efficient way to play and win, but it offers some interesting lessons and interesting games. The lesson most relevant to this thread (I think) is that parity at the middle ages offers you much better than average chances to win, provided you've been in a parity situation often enough to not fret unduly about your situation.

Catt

	27-02-2003 02:39									#29
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Thank you for the lengthy and daoist reply, Catt (yes, that is a compliment). To respond to your several points:

Yes, the AI is predictable, but I haven't learned their exact repetition yet. I have noticed a few things; Monarchy almost ALWAYS comes last, which can help. Any other pointers/hints? (though maybe this is a subject for another thread)

Yes, the AI does launch idiotic and poorly-waged wars often. But occassionally, some power will come along and utterly conquer the other, leaving you with a genuine superpower to deal with. I'm not talking about the Europeans offing each other. It's generally something like the Carthaginians taking ALL of Egypt, Babylon or wherever, or the Zulus doing the same to some country. This is quite problematic, as I am fond of the classic maxim "divide and rule". It's certainly an improvement in PTW from standard Civ3, IMO.

I do get impatient and give up games with a lot of potential, often. I probably wouldn't if I was playing as an industrious civ. But those Romans. Bah! I especially hate dealing with a tech deficit, and slow growth. Because Huge games are SO SLOW, waiting to conquer the good wonders isn't as appealing, sometimes, as just starting over.

	27-02-2003 02:40									#30
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Opportunistic fighting, I'd say. Build a respectable strike force (not designed to take out your continent, or even 1 civ, necessarily) and wait for war to break out. Pick a side, jump in, and gain what you can (luxuries, man, luxuries!). -Arrian

I can see this; wreaking havok to gain an edge. Like real-life colonialism. The problem is what comes AFTERWARDS... breakdown. How to prevent this, as well as ambitious AIs taking down your new colonies?