 |
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
MS,
I loaded up several saves from AU207 last night and scribbled down the vital stats. I almost forgot, because I've got an amazing game as Carthage going. Anyway, here we go (just for reference, I played on Monarch level)...
30AD: Despotism, 1196 gold, Currency in 2 turns
+156 gold from cities, +0 from other civs, -35 corruption.
Army: 10 workers, 3 warriors, 22 spears, 10 swords, 1 cat, 1 galley, 10 WC.
F11 stats: 78% approval (2nd), 247,800 pop (1), $156million GNP (1), 83 mgt (1), 38,400 sq. miles (1), 25% literacy (2), 8% disease (11), 27yrs (3), 1 child (3), 6 yrs service (15), $5 per capita (1), 248 productivity (1).
510AD: Republic, 1328 gold, Monotheism in 2, Golden Age.
+687 from cities, +0 other civs, - 115 corruption.
17 workers, 2 warriors, 23 spears, 11 swords, 1 pike, 1 cat, 1 galley, 5 horsemen, 37 war chariots.
79% approval (1), 6,056,000 pop (1), $687 mil (1), 280mgt (1), 48,700 sq. miles (1), 32% literacy (6), 6% disease (12), 30 yrs (2), 1 child (4), 6 yrs (15), $6 per capita (1), 898 (1).
Note: at this point the only war I had fought was vs. Babylon
1020AD: Monarchy, 1543 gold, Chemistry in 3.
+698 from cities, +43 from other civs, -100 corruption.
10 workers (but lots of slaves), 1 warrior, 1 sword, 35 pikes, 5 muskets, 35 knights, 9 cats, 1 galley, 1 army, 5 med inf.
73% approval (3), 14,447,000 pop (1), $698 mil (1), 345 mgt (1), 91,600 sq. miles (1), 39% literacy (4), 2% disease (11), 55yrs (1), 1 child (11), 3 yrs (15), $7 per capita (1), 1002 (1).
Clearly I have a FP/Palace axis set up at this point. My corruption is way down, and despite running a Monarchy, I'm bringing in about the same money I was pulling in as a Republic in a GA earlier. Warfare made it possible.
1680AD: Democracy, 11,296gold, Motorized Transport in 4.
+5220 from cities, +506 from other civs, -1159 corruption.
30 workers (countless slaves), 5 knights, 60 cavalry, 92 infantry, 24 artillery, 5 galleons, 1 transport, 13 ironclads, 3 destroyers, 7 armies.
99% approval (1), 77,386,000 pop (1), $5220 mil (1), 3105 mgt (1), 230,900 sq. miles (1), 53% literacy (6), 0% disease (2), 1 ton pollution (8), 74 yrs (1), 1 child (9), $11 per capita (1), 7507 (1).
I've moved my Palace again, switched to democracy, built railroads, hospitals, policestations, stock exchanges, and I'm workin' on those commercial docks. The only cities that are slightly neglected are my Scandanavian possessions, and my three small island cities off my west coast. But the $11,296 I had kicking around could easily have changed that at any time.
Warfare made it possible.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
 |
The Heavens
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
I have an interesting question to pose to all of you, and it pertains to warmongering on a huge map.
For those who play with cultural linking on, do you find you have an order in which you off your enemies?
Obviously each game is different, and if you're normally nice to the Romans but they've got some silk you simply must have, you might take them on before a weak but resourceless Egyptian empire, for example...
...but assuming you don't have a pressing need to procure one thing or another from any given civ, which ones do you take on first?
I would say that, depending on ability, I make Carthage and Babylon priorities, and beyond them, Persia, Korea, Greece, Spain, and the Iroquois. Why? Simply because these civs often manage to keep up with me in the tech race, and often commit agressive actions that are relatively well-coordinated.
In terms of "easy prey," I look for the English, the Americans, the Mongols, Japan, and, to a lesser extent, the Ottomans.
Maybe this question is too difficult to answer. Still, I bet we can all agree that there are certain civs we don't like to see grow to adulthood on a huge map...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
I don't have a predetermined order of civs to go after, but there are several factors:
1) do they have a nasty UU (particularly a defensive one), and if so, does it require a resource?
2) do they have nice land?
3) how close are they?
4) do I have any other particular opportunity (hmm, a warrior/settler team just walked right next to my elite archer...)
I hate having the Greeks as neighbors. 20 shield, no-resouce required, 3-point defense units... ARG! The bane of my warmongering existance. Plus, the AI seems to do well with the Comm/Sci trait combo. I hates 'em, I tell ya! I try not to mess with Greece before Cavalry. But if they're my immediate neighbors, I've got problems. I admit the Greeks are the major reason for turning cultural linking off when playing Egypt or Rome. However, if I do start near them, and see an opportunity to hurt them that doesn't involve hurling horsemen/swordsmen at Hoplites, I'll do it in a heartbeat. Letting Greece sit around and build often results in a PitA later in the game.
My battle plan usually is to hit my neighbors, and take advantage of any edge I've got. So if I get ironworking and note that I can deny Rome iron, I'm goin' Roman huntin'.
I've taken down Carthage as Rome in the ancient age. They have a nasty unit, but it is somewhat mitigated by its cost. I used horsemen + legionaries and crushed them. Some of it was luck: my horsies did exactly what I wanted them to do (take 1hp off of regular numidians and then retreat so my legionaries could finish the job). Why did I take on Carthage? Because they were close and had nice land. My only other neighbor, the Vikings, were much further away (and also had nice land) but I didn't want a potential enemy at my back while I sent my army to the other side of the continent. Hence, Carthage had to die first.
I tend to like picking on religious civs early, because they are more likely to build temples in their small towns, so they don't get autorazed (because as we all know, the AI will poprush its towns down to size1 trying to hold you off).
If I start next to a civ with a badass attack UU (say, oh, Persia) I will most likely table all other plans and try to kill or at least seriously wound them. Resouce denial is key.
The Zulu I tend to leave alone. They're garbage (terrible traits, particularly in the hands of the AI), but have a nasty little defensive UU. I love horsemen, but Impi love killing horsemen. I don't ever expect the Zulu to become a power, so leaving them be usually isn't going to cause problems later. I will actually go out of my way to appease them if possible. I typically try to connect up road systems and then gift them a luxury. I just don't want to deal with them.
-Arrian, the rambler
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Qilue
|
 |
Australia
Dec 1999
time: 15:26
|
|
Another factor with huge maps is what I call "The utopia syndrome".
This occurs if through some miracle, the entire map stays at peace for most of the game. Then sometime in early to mid industrial era, a small border clash starts. Then it starts sucking the rest of the civs in one at a time.
Suddenly, a pile-on occurs, sometimes against a civ that wasn't one of the two who started the whole mess and a world war has erupted with civs declaring war, changing sides, breaking treaties etc until almost every civ is at war with almost every other civ. There are no friends, just enemies and who your currently shooting at changes almost every turn.
Most of the primitive units are culled during the first 20 turns. By 50 turns, the entire map is communist or monarchy and around 100 turns, it all starts to wind down. Mostly due to exhaustion or a lack of enemies since a few civs get wiped out or reduced to a point where they are no longer relevant.
It's also at this point that every civ you speak to is a 'known liar and cheat' according to your foreign advisor and you get them coming to you with "they offer mpp, they want mpp+gpt" followed by "they get finger and 10g for their world map".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mountain Sage
|
|
Qilue,
Yep. It happened to many of my games, and it usually means that I won the game. How? This is the best moment to keep cool. Stay neutral. All other civs will scale down research dramatically to pay for the military units upkeep. Then you go for a 'militaristic' tech and sell it around asap. The warfarings civs will give you everything (sometimes even a city!) to get gold of it, and then they will be broke for the next 1'000 years.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TheArsenal
|
 |
Sunny Southern California
Mar 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
I don't generally break treaties until the late game where there are a two or three civs left and it doesn't really matter what you do, there is not much outside entering into unwanted MPPs that will keep them from being anything but annoyed with you any way. And even then, MPPs at this point are hard to get.
The latest, and most typical example: In 1950-something, long time ally and the only other nation left standing on my continent, the French back stabbed me and attacked. Something an AI would do, but a human would think twice about. I have over two to three times as many cites, a great number of which produce MA in one to three turns. But on a huge map France still has a good number of large cities. So as a non-religious Chinese Democracy, I fight until my population is screaming and starving in protest, sue for peace, change to Communism, and go to treaty breaking war the very turn I get it.
To bring it on topic, it is the huge map, and the inability to finish a war as a Democracy without throwing my civ into chaos, that makes me break the treaty. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
|
The Heavens
Dec 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
On a huge map, fighting a war as a democracy isn't the end of the world - you just have to bring the war upon yourself, and make sure that you've got a. the troops in place to do the job quickly, and b. JS Bach's, Sistine's, and every other happiness wonder you can spare. Plus plenty of luxuries!
If you've got sufficient cavs, or whatever, in place to hit the enemy hard, then Democracy is no problem. Of course, it's nice to be able to slaughter your newly-subjugated victims under Communism, but in PTW no longer efficient enough for me personally to consider using Communism... might as well just go for Monarchy and be able to spend your newly "liberated" money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
The biggest difference between a 16-civ huge map and an 8-civ standard one is that corruption is much less of an issue. Your civ is roughly the same size in absolute terms unless and until you start conquering other civs, but the corruption rates make allowance for building a significantly bigger civ. Of course AIs also benefit from the lower corruption, which can result in AI armies' tending to be significantly bigger relative to the size of the civs than on standard maps.
I suspect that the lower corruption rates, in turn, may tend to make earlier GAs more profitable on huge maps. On a standard map, waste and corruption eat away a lot of benefit from a despotic GA and a pretty good chunk from a an early Monarchy or Republic GA if there aren't lots of courthouses in place yet. (Of course, the flip side is that a GA can help build courthouses.) But with waste and corruption lower in the early game, the degree to which those factors undercut the GA's value would tend to be lower. I've never tested my hypothesis, mostly because I just thought of it  , but it seems worth some consideration.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
On standard maps, it's not too rare for me to play straight builder until the era of cavalry if I have plenty of room for REXing and I don't have a UU that's begging me to use it earlier. The basic premise is that if I can use peaceful expansion to build up a major tech lead, I can do more conquering during the era of cavalry than I could in the entire game up until then if I fought with less potent units. And by focusing on building and researching, I can get to the era of cavalry faster, with a bigger window to use them before Nationalism cuts into their advantage. (Cavalry work a lot better for conquering large amounts of territory without serious war weariness problems than slower units do.)
But then there comes the time when my bigger, more productive cities have pretty much built what they need to build prior to the industrial age. At that point, they can start prebuilding for cavalry; if the strategy is working perfectly, I'll have Leo's and have deliberately avoided getting Chivalry so I can build and upgrade massive swarms of horsemen. Then I unleash my cavlary and conquer civ after civ until my prospective targets start getting Nationalism. That gives me the size and industrial base to do rapid research in the industrial and modern eras; without conquest, four-turn modern research is rarely if ever possible on a crowded map.
I've never really played a game following that principle on a huge map. I play mostly standard maps, give or take a size, because that's where the AU games and CivFanatics GOTMs tend to be. But based on the success of the builder-style games in AU 207, I think that type of strategy has a lot of potential for civs without early fast-mover offensive UUs - if the map cooperates and if the player has sufficient skills relative to the difficulty level he's playing on to build up the necessary medieval tech advantage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
The reason I like going straight from horsemen to cavalry if my situation lets me is that I can build about twice as many horsemen as I could knights for the same shields. (Knights cost a little over twice as much, but horsemen are likely to average higher wastage due to cities' producing more shields than are actually needed.)
Rush building costs four gold per shield. In contrast, with Leo's, upgrading horsemen to cavalry costs only one gold per shield. So I can get an excellent return on my investment leaving my less productive cities building improvements while my more productive ones (which are already fully improved or close enough to it) focus on horsemen. To get the same number of knights, I would have to put a lot more cities on troops at the expense of their ability to catch up on city improvements.
On a standard map, a cavalry war I start with horseman upgrades almost invariably involves over forty cavalry and on rarer occasion as many as sixty or more. With that kind of invasion force, distance and Nationalism are the only limiting factors in how fast and far my conquest can reach. On a huge map, judging from my experience in AU 207, I'd probably want about twice the cavalry strength to get the same kind of decisive overkill if I'm taking on a major power, especially one with musketmen. (Note that I normally play on Emperor; smaller forces should work at lower levels.) And a hundred horsemen, give or take a bit, are a lot easier and cheaper to build than a hundred knights!
One other reason I'm not a big fan of fighting with knights is that they don't generally seem to move fast enough to take out entire civs (even on standard maps) without war weariness starting to become an issue under Republic. And dropping out of Republic to fight with knights would cause unacceptable delays in obtaining Military Tradition. (Of course Riders and Ansars don't have that speed problem.)
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-05-2003 18:46
deleted my files, but not my screenshots (but I did not know then that I would be preparing a new thread about UP, I thought about it only after your postings).
Let loose the Cavalry!
|