View Full Version : Four basic starting strategies


BillChin
Jan 31, 2002, 12:19 PM
A lot of strategies are for certain map sizes or difficulty levels. Here are three basic starting strategies for playing the game on standard size maps on Regent, Monarch or Emperor difficulty. Each can be modified to fit your own playing style, and each is a decent plan. They are not strong enough for Diety on a standard map but may be adaptable for Diety on a large or huge map.

For almost all game starts I like to build the first two cities very close to the capital. This makes early defense easy, provides an early production boost, makes it easy to connect these core cities to share luxuries. The downside is that these suburbs can not grow to huge size latter in the game, but a dense build is almost as productive as pop rushing (hurrying production using the whip) without as many long term negatives.

Swordsmen conquest
Build four to six cities. Research Bronze Working and then Iron. Claim an iron icon. Build 10+ swordsmen. If no iron use archers. Attack the nearest enemy and claim all their land. Enjoy. After the first early war, the swordsmen can go crush another nearby enemy. If the next enemy is relatively far away, horsemen or knights may be better for the next war. Swordsmen conquest is a good strategy for cramped maps.

Horsemen conquest
Build 8 to 15 cities (most of the available open land on a standard map). Research the Wheel to see horses, then add Horseback Riding, Iron Working and Mathematics. Claim a horse icon. Build 20+ horsemen. If no horses use swordsmen. Catapults help if the enemy has hoplites, legionaires or pikemen. Pick one enemy. Bribe the others. Attack in force and crush the enemy. Enjoy. Sometimes there is very little land and I have to build cities very close to each other to get the unit support for a large army. This basic strategy has allowed me to survive some of the worst imaginable starting positions on Emperor difficulty, standard size map, random civ, default Barbs.

Open land build out
As I said, I like to build two cities very close to the capital as I explore a bit. If there are no enemy units in sight that means a lot of open land. In this case, research Monarchy and make an early switch to gain the additional production and food. Build cities nicely spaced and claim luxuries. This results in a position very similar to the two conquest strategies after the first war. At this point, a player has many options. A knight conquest war is good. Cultural victory is achievable on Regent, but tough on higher levels. Domination, Spaceship, UN, or Histograph victory are also options.

BillChin
Feb 02, 2002, 10:55 AM
A fourth strategy seems very popular in the January Game of the Month. I'll call it Warrior Gambit.

Warrior Gambit
Send the first two warriors looking for an enemy city. Attack. You have about a 65% chance of victory. Some players reload if they lose this battle and wait a turn and try again. You can increase the odds of success with an archer and a warrior (militaristic civs), or three warriors. If the defender is a spearman the odds go way down, I estimate 25% with two warriors. If the defender is a hoplite, maybe 10%. For civilizations with a warrior unique unit, such as the Zulu Impi or Aztec Jaguar Warrior, this is an excellent starting strategy.

There is a nice flow into the next strategy. So a player could theoretically go from Warrior Gambit, to Swordsmen Conquest to Horsemen Conquest and then be in a similar position to that of a vast open land build out. Cheers.

kittenOFchaos
Feb 13, 2002, 12:55 AM
Any player who reloads after a failed battle is of dubious worth.

Zouave
Feb 19, 2002, 06:25 PM
I agree. That is taking cheating to an unacceptable level, even considering AI cheating.

Beam
Feb 19, 2002, 06:36 PM
Back to the original topic it all sounds very reasonable. IMHO the number of AI civs matters a lot here since it very much depends on the space you have to expand. Meeting other Civs can be an advantage as well since it offers more options for Tech trading to a certain extent: these guys are still in your way!

Kitten states reloading very subtle, I would say it is not done!

Anglophile
Feb 21, 2002, 12:39 PM
BillChin, I promised to read your strategy guide to try to mend my erroneous ways re good start positions. I agree that your outlined strategies will be effective within the stated limitations (map size and difficulty levels). I am not convinced that they can be extended to larger maps but think that they should be effective at higher levels. The reasons that I am dubious of the value on very large maps are simply distance and, to a lesser extent resource scarcity. First the simple bit, resource (strategic)abundance - as the size of the map increases, the relative abundance decreases by the square of that map size increase. Double the map size and the relative abundance of resources decreases by 75%. As strategic resources are critical to winning - and a great addition to the game - your empire must encompass all the required the resources and that requires a lot of cities. You can do that by expansion or conquest or usually the two in whatever combination suits your preferred play style. That brings in the real issue, which is distance. Huge and fully expanded (my preference) maps are just that - huge. It takes a long time to even find another civ, let alone to mass a major army to march across those huge spaces to conquer them. Very early wars are hampered by the thousand or so years it takes just to reach the opponent plus the fact that culture reversion will be brutal when you don't have any and are so close to his capital and far from yours. By the time one is prepared to go to war effectively, i.e. there is some kind of quasi-border formed between the civs, the AI generally will have 10+ cities, often more, sometimes many more - and an army to match. The AI is not very good on defence (too passive in my view) but in my experience is very good at sending swarms of units into my territory, tieing up most of my forces in defence and counter-attacks. Trading cities will just result in falling behind everyone else, even if you do eventually conquer some, most or all of your chosen victim.

My own preference is to go to war for very specific reasons (a key resource, unblocking my expansion, or to take a key city) and for as short a time as possible. The rest of my effort is spent on expansion, infrastructure and defence - in that order. My preferred strategy involves rapid early exploration (to get a tech lead and find key future city sites) and expansion. I need a good starting position to do this effectively so I am afraid that I will remain a restarter; however, even I draw the line reloading after a lost battle. Maybe once I get good enough to win from good starting positions on higher levels (Emperor for the second time), I'll try bad starting positions for that extra challenge.

BillChin
Feb 22, 2002, 10:39 AM
Anglophile, thanks for taking the time to read and to comment.

A couple of points: I agree that the outlined strategies need major changes for play on a huge map. A better outline for a huge map might be to build 20 to 30 cities, find horses and iron for Knights and attack with an army of Knights. Again, resources need to be a high priority, with early scouting parties, and early research of the Wheel and Iron Working. If no resources, build Longbowmen. With the new fast unit retreat rules for 1.17, Longbowmen might be the best choice for an attack force because they are cheaper than Knights.

War is the tool to overcome a poor starting position. Scout out the good land, and claim it from whoever owns it. A common misconception is that war is difficulty and costly. That is true if a player stumbles into a war. However, with preparation, a plan, and allies, a war is often the best way to expand an empire. In Civ III, a player needs resources, concentrated forces and a plan of attack. Size of empire, overall size of army, and technology are not critical.

For example, on Emperor difficulty, standard size map, I often face pikemen when I am ready to attack with swordsmen and horsemen. Pikemen are four techs ahead of where I am at the time. The enemy may have a large army, but it is spread out over many cities. A few catapults and big stack of units usually does the trick. In the age of Knights, a player may face Musketeers (four techs ahead of Chivalry), again this can be overcome with concentrated stacks and a few catapults.

From reading some strategies, I have come to believe that huge maps are easier to play on than standard size maps. Early mistakes are not so costly. It is difficulty to actually lose the game in the Ancient Age. On a standard map, I sometimes have to fight two wars just to get into the top four power rankings. On a huge map, it is likely that one decisive victory, doubling the size of a player's empire is enough to put them near the top of the power rankings.

On a standard map, alliances and diplomacy are critical because two front wars are common and a disaster to be avoided. On a huge map, there is no need for subtlety--crush the opponent quickly and alliances will not come into play. On a standard map, the AI trades tech more quickly, providing another hurdle to overcome.

On the other side, the building phase is critical on a huge map. A poor builder will have an impossible time, because they will never be strong enough to build that first conquest army of Knights or Longbowmen.

Richard III
Feb 22, 2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Any player who reloads after a failed battle is of dubious worth.

We are of the same mind. I generally don't reload at all unless the game freezes.

Western society has grown soft and weak.

R.III

BillChin
Mar 01, 2002, 11:09 AM
Time for a 1.17f strategy update. The big changes are new pop rushing rules and limited retreat for fast units, and faster tech trading among AI players.

The three strategies in the original post and the fourth (Warrior Gambit) still work as is. However, some minor tweaks can make them more effective.

I can add the additional hint of taking two or three turns to find the best tile for the capital. Move the worker, to a hill if possible, and then pick the best tile from the ones visible at the time. Settling on a luxury icon or near fresh water helps a great deal.

1) Pop rushing. I do not favor using slave labor, but those that do still have a loophole in 1.17f. Use cities to produce workers, send the workers to "garbage" cities that process them to produce units. The garbage city eventually has one entertainer, a worker joins and gets popped in the same turn. Captured workers are additional fuel. This loophole will probably be closed eventually, so players that use pop rushing, enjoy it while you can with this work around.

2) Fast unit retreat rules make a stack of Horsemen a lot less effective. On most maps, I now favor a mix of units. Instead of 20 Horsemen maybe something like:
4 Horsemen
10 Swordsmen
3 Spearmen
2 catapults
1 settler
If the enemy has hoplites, legionaires or pikemen, increase catapults to 4 and subtract from others as you desire.

If there is no iron maybe something like:
6 Horsemen
6 Archers
3 Spearmen
4 Catapults
1 settler
Archers have the same attack rating as Horsemen, but cost 20 shields vs. 30 shields. So I use Archers as the first wave of attackers if swordsmen are not available (no iron).

If there is no iron or horses:
12 Archers
4 Spearmen
5 Catapults
1 settler

If the enemies are right on top of you, cut the attack stack to ten and attack much earlier. I like to start a Swordsmen Conquest around 900 B.C. and a Horsemen Conquest around 10 B. C. Later than that and the resistance becomes tougher.

3) Faster tech trading makes a run for Monarchy in isolation a risky strategy. Better to see what techs are cheap at each step. Techs get cheaper as more players acquire them.

Again these are suggestions. They are effective on Regent, Monarch, Emperor difficulty, on standard size maps. On larger maps a longer build out and a latter war is expected. The first war may be with Knights and Longbows after building 20 or 30 cities. The basic tactic of concentrating troops is a good way to go.

Anglophile
Mar 01, 2002, 12:21 PM
BillChin, I agree with your revisions with respect to 1.17 as well as your views on the differences with larger maps. I think you are correct about larger maps being easier, at least for builders. And whatever level or map size, the advice on concentration of force is key.

Squiggy
Mar 02, 2002, 06:58 PM
When sending out the force you have mentioned, I don't see the point of including 3 Spearmen in the attack group. They're fine for defense, but wouldn't 3 more Swordsmen be more effective?

Including a settler in the attack group is a great idea which never occured to me before. It could make conquest go much faster as you don't have to worry about quelling a massive resistance.

The horsemen are ok if you're really in a hurry (in my opinion), but with the new rules about retreating, I much prefer swordsmen. I'd rather have 10 dead swordsmen with 10 more at full health than have 5 dead horsemen with 15 more at 1 hp left. I've tried both attackers and I find that the swordsmen are much more effective and suffer much smaller casualties.

Anglophile
Mar 04, 2002, 08:34 AM
I can think of three reasons to include spearmen - and two of those are largely due to the first reason. Primary reason is that they are cheaper than swordsmen/horsemen and have two defence. Two, if your stack is attacked, the spearmen will be your first defenders and if they lose, its only 20 shields. The other reason is that they make excellent garrison troops, cheap and effective. So I always include them (and then pikemen, then musketmen) in my attack stacks unless it is a fast strike force in which case its fast stuff only.

BillChin
Mar 04, 2002, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Squiggy
When sending out the force you have mentioned, I don't see the point of including 3 Spearmen in the attack group. They're fine for defense, but wouldn't 3 more Swordsmen be more effective?

Including a settler in the attack group is a great idea which never occured to me before. It could make conquest go much faster as you don't have to worry about quelling a massive resistance.

The horsemen are ok if you're really in a hurry (in my opinion), but with the new rules about retreating, I much prefer swordsmen. I'd rather have 10 dead swordsmen with 10 more at full health than have 5 dead horsemen with 15 more at 1 hp left. I've tried both attackers and I find that the swordsmen are much more effective and suffer much smaller casualties.

Anglophile already gave a good response, and I'll add my two cents. Spearmen are to absorb the counter attack and to garrison. Spearmen are 20 shields so you can produce three Spearmen for two Swordsmen. The Horsemen are good to have to counter the enemy fast units and to cut off resources (iron, horses) deep in enemy territory. They also add a good deal of flexibility to an attack plan. Fast units can stay to quell resisters then catch up with the main attack force. Horsemen can also cover ground quickly if a second civ declares war to open a second front.

Again, in almost all cases, a mix is usually better than a pure stack of swordsmen. One negative of swordsmen is that there is no upgrade path. Having a few Horsemen lets a player upgrade to Knights to fuel the next war. Spearmen upgrade to Pikemen to defend against enemy Knights. Depending on the difficulty level these upgrades may save the bacon.

Siegfried
Apr 19, 2002, 09:49 AM
I always play Germany on a huge map at Regent level. I have noted after at lot of experimenting that early increases in population and the number of cities you have before finishing the first tech advance seem to have a direct correlation with the number of turns the next tech advance will take, and subsequent.
Basically, if you have two or three cities by the time you finish your first tech advance, the number of turns for the second can decrease to as few as 29. After the first settler from the capitol, I place the next city in a food rich area and use that as my source for settlers. The third city is to build the Colossus. I let the capitol build in population as much as possible. It seems to have an effect on the number of turns required for subsequent tech advances. How you start seems to determine how the rest of the game will go, and trying to compensate for a bad start later seldom seems to work.

Ronald
May 22, 2002, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by BillChin
A fourth strategy seems very popular in the January Game of the Month. I'll call it Warrior Gambit.


The warrier gambit seems a bit too risky for me, so I changed it to what I would call an archer gambit:
It has the same intention as the warrior gambit, to weaken the closest civ next to you. If you start with a civ that has warrior code or research warrior code first, you can send about three warriors to your next neighbor, kill a settler and worker of them and get one city from them. This is mostly sufficient enough to slow them so much down, that they never become a threat in the game

Ronald
May 22, 2002, 09:12 AM
It must of course state: three archers instead of three warriors

el_kalkylus
May 24, 2002, 09:08 AM
Wouldn't that slow you down too? I mean, it takes quite a while to produce 3 archers in the beginning of the game most of the times.

punkbass2000
May 24, 2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by el_kalkylus
Wouldn't that slow you down too? I mean, it takes quite a while to produce 3 archers in the beginning of the game most of the times.

I find you can typically build two archers, one settler, and another archer with no slow down, especially with a good start or if you're industrious too (Chinese) and build a mine quickly. Hell, even if you aren't industrious, build that mine!

el_kalkylus
May 24, 2002, 10:38 AM
I just tried that tactic on gotm2. When I was finally done, my 3 archers, 2 warriors were outside a roman city at 1750 BC or something. At that time, I had 2 cities and 4-5 workers.

They destroyed the city, but lost 2 archers in the process. I then had my damaged archer fortify to heal, and the stupid AI went with a settler and an archer just next to my archer, so I gained two workers. My warriors explored the roman cities. I could have fortified my archer there, because not late after, the AI built another city at that precise spot. It seems it just HAD to have that spot at the price of many settlers.

So there could be a tactic. Even if you will be very late to develop yourself, you could make an early attack, and post your troops and wait for enemy settlers to wander by.

Exsanguination
Jun 04, 2002, 07:47 PM
I haven't read all the replies, but I'd like to mention that 2 5-6 stacks of immortals vs spearmen is barely adequate. Thats 4 attack vs 2 defense (in town), and at that I can barely capture a couple cities. With that said, 10 swordsmen/horsemen would be less useful, esp now that horseman don't always withdraw.

Ronald
Jun 05, 2002, 09:19 AM
Archer gambit

My intention of the archer gambit is not to completely destroy a civ. The aim is to get one or two workers, kill a settler just sent to build a new city and conquer one city. For that, having 3 archers and 2 warriors is most of the time enough.
Then I settle for peace and get mostly all the techs they have, all the cash and maybe one city.
The effect is, that they are reduced to one or two cities, have no cash, no workers and therefore are slowed down so much to never become a threat again. Instead they will be the source of techs and cash.
For additional info, I am playing mostly on standard maps and monarch or emperor difficulty.

Grey Fox
Jun 05, 2002, 11:44 PM
The best thing with archer gambit is that you can upgrade all those archers to Longbowmen later.

Longbowmen, almost as good as Knights! Combine them with Pikemen and you have a slow knight that don't withdraw ;)

MirandaCore
Jun 28, 2002, 10:42 PM
Skip the knights and chivalry. It only takes 6-7 more advances to get calvary. And hordes of calvary are unstoppable if the other civs don't have rifleman.

sysyphus
Sep 08, 2003, 05:13 PM
Yeah, but chivalry is only one tech off course, and it's worth having all those knights if someone decides to have a go at you before you can get to Cavalry.

Siv
Jul 20, 2004, 03:24 AM
Nice Post! - I will try your archer gambit on my next game. I have never tried to "maim" a close civ, but your tactic has alot merit. Cant wait to try it.

James I
Oct 18, 2004, 11:22 PM
I'm considering playing as the Babylonians...... As such the Archer Gambit idea could be very useful (as it also allows some expansion so my GA doesn't completely go to waste)

Blanchflower
Aug 02, 2008, 02:28 AM
I agree. That is taking cheating to an unacceptable level, even considering AI cheating.

Well, if the AI can cheat, why can't we? We should level the playing field!! LOL! Of course this is a different matter when it comes to playing against humans!

:lol::lol::lol:

micklaboom
May 05, 2011, 07:43 PM
i love cows in the city's ohh yeah hail me a god

RickFGS
May 06, 2011, 01:01 AM
Warrior Gambit upgrade.

Build CxxC and CxC style near river, get a barracks up on your second city using a chop, build vet warriors, connect iron, upgrade to 10 swords, grab a settler for healing base and cultural border snatch, workers to road to weakest enemy and go kill!

For money, pop huts, disband barb camps, sell lower techs, run 0% for a few turns, connect luxs, get curraghs to make contacts, micromage everything, work tiles near rivers or just kidnap and ransom enemies daughter.

spoiler2010
Mar 31, 2012, 05:45 AM
Having devoted a year of leisure time to the trivial pursuit of this highly addictive game, I've discovered four basic principles that I think newbies may find helpful in advancing along the road to SID or wherever your goal may take you...

WHEN IN DOUBT, THROW IT OUT
As I'm sure you've learned, the average game can take days to complete. If you have a bad game in progress (bad map, poor resources, AI beatdown), ditch the game and start over. Winning boosts your spirits and psyches you for your next challenge. Losing a week-long struggle dampens your enthusiasm and may send you back to Half-Price Books or Amazon for an easier strategy game. Send your warriors out immediately, cut through the fog and see where you're located, what resources are nearby, and the position of the closest enemy. If you don't like what you see, be a good poker player and FOLD. You often find that the next hand is a lot better; it's possible they programmed it that way.

FIGHT ON THE GROUND OF YOUR CHOICE
Map position is *very* important. Find a spot near the water where you can build coastal cities for naval and seafaring advantage. Keep your capitol at a safe distance to avoid naval invasions, but close enough for reinforcement if needed. Hills and mountains are also great for military defensive positioning. Also, if there are ponds and lakes nearby, they will work well in cultivating the land. You also would like to be near small islands or peninsulas on other continents for quicker expansion.

RESOURCES --- OF COURSE!!!

Iron, horses, saltpeter...don't get caught without them. Iron will get your horses if you have to swipe them from an enemy, and knights may help you confiscate an enemy saltpeter resource. On the whole, you're far better off having your own. If they're nowhere in sight, FOLD...or you're in for a long, hard (and probably losing)game.

BAIL OUT FROM AN AI BEATDOWN

If you just started the game and the enemy declares war for no reason, sending in warriors who are taking out your archers and horsemen...or even if you're in the second period and the enemy swoops in and starts gobbling up your cities like Pac-Man...FOLD!!! Sometimes it just goes down that way, and there's no reason to stick it out and watch your civ get annihilated. As you gain more experience, you may start channeling Bobby Fischer and grow fascinated by snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. As a beginner, winning makes the heart grow fonder.

If you're in first grade and I'm the substitute teacher, here's your ABC's. Enjoy!!!

tR1cKy
Mar 31, 2012, 02:51 PM
:bump: wow! another zombie thread

spoiler2010
May 02, 2012, 06:00 AM
Any player who reloads after a failed battle is of dubious worth.

In our Spoiler Civ III League, it's called 'taking a knee', with a three-knockdown rule in effect. If a player reloads twice, the third one is a final knockdown and the player is required to resign the game.

The logic behind this: if a player decides to attempt an all-out attack and gets double or triple-teamed by the AI, it should not be the cause of resigning what could well be a winning game (especially if well ahead on the histograph). The second reload is actually a last chance to salvage what may be a winnable game though with limited success options. Third knockdown: off to the shower, chappies!

vmxa
May 02, 2012, 07:33 AM
Wait why would it not be a cause for losing? You start a war and lost and now you reload to gain an advantage, because you can.

Reloading for testing and learning I can understand. Reloading for a hardware failure or a game crash, no real choice.

MysteryX
May 02, 2012, 03:25 PM
You don't have to risk being double- or triple-teamed by the AI if you use your diplomacy wisely. It is a part of my standard routine of declaring war to go around and be sure to buy off the assistance or non-interference of other AIs.

spoiler2010
May 04, 2012, 08:04 PM
Wait why would it not be a cause for losing? You start a war and lost and now you reload to gain an advantage, because you can.

Reloading for testing and learning I can understand. Reloading for a hardware failure or a game crash, no real choice.

The double and triple-team is just one of the possible pitfalls. You also get the squash jobs where AI spearmen are taking out your cavalrymen at a rate of four to one. Granted, it was Carthage against AI Greece's Hoplites, but...gimme a BREAK! I've also seen games where tank assaults were stonewalled by riflemen at fairly even strength (something that I've seen the experts moan about on this site). There are just some games where the AI gets all the breaks, just as the human player has games where absolutely nothing can go wrong (ah, don't you just love 'em?).

Bottom line: as an intermediate chess player, I don't feel guilty about taking a stupid move back in a computer game now and again, but if I've got to take more than two moves back in one game then it's obvious I'm playing a level over my head. Considering the fact that a Civ game takes as much leisure time as twenty chess games, well...first reload, shame on the AI, second reload, shame on me.
:scan:

spoiler2010
May 04, 2012, 08:21 PM
You don't have to risk being double- or triple-teamed by the AI if you use your diplomacy wisely. It is a part of my standard routine of declaring war to go around and be sure to buy off the assistance or non-interference of other AIs.

I'll tell you, I think I'm going to have to shop around for some kinder and gentler game versions! :lol: I've had games where I made mutual protection pacts with the AI, and they sued for peace with the enemy four moves later (even after I had paid them off fairly well!). I've also had games where I agreed to a deal with the AI, giving them a good deal on a tech and had them declare war against me on the next move.

Bottom line: the AI is a dirty pool player, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I always think of the Terminator monologue: they have no feelings, no conscience, no remorse, they will not stop until you are dead. Generally, you are playing against four nations aiming to bury you, and if you win, brother, you deserve it.
:king:

MysteryX
May 05, 2012, 09:47 PM
I'll tell you, I think I'm going to have to shop around for some kinder and gentler game versions! :lol: I've had games where I made mutual protection pacts with the AI, and they sued for peace with the enemy four moves later (even after I had paid them off fairly well!). I've also had games where I agreed to a deal with the AI, giving them a good deal on a tech and had them declare war against me on the next move.

Bottom line: the AI is a dirty pool player, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I always think of the Terminator monologue: they have no feelings, no conscience, no remorse, they will not stop until you are dead. Generally, you are playing against four nations aiming to bury you, and if you win, brother, you deserve it.
:king:

Oh, it is true that the AI civilizations aren't great at honoring their commitments. But I have discovered a few things with Military Alliances.

One is that even though AI allies will drop out of the alliances before 20 turns, I don't think I have ever had the situation where they have broken the alliance and immediately turned on me. I think after the first turn or two of war, my AI enemies are devoting so much of their money to fighting me, they run out of resources to pay off the other AIs to join them.

The second is that if I can get to AI civilizations to fight each other- and actually have a few battles- they tend to stay furious at each other forever. And if they are furious at each other, they are more likely to start more wars against each other later, and less likely to get into Military Alliances and Mutual Protection Pacts with each other later.

I always use Military Alliances and never Mutual Protection Pacts- I have learned my lessons on the MPPs. But I just find that I get great benefit from the Military Alliances, and I have found that using them has done a good job of the AI gang-ups that once plagued me.

I think the trade agreements also help somewhat- except in the case where an AI is willing to give me a gpt offer that looks too good to be true. When the AI buys a tech today for hundreds of gold per turn over the next 20 turns, they start getting buyers' remorse after a couple of turns.

Richie0
May 09, 2012, 06:48 PM
military alliances are extremely useful for when someone declares war on you and don't have the units, infastructure or desire to go to war. usually occurs in the ancient age with militaristic civs.

if you can get the entire world ganged up against them then you can sit back and blast ahead in money and science while they launch useless attacks against each other

it works even better if you have war declared on you, and then decare war yourself on a 3rd civ before getting all the remaining civs to fight the 2 you're at war with

means there will be constant wars and fighting amongst the AI with 100000 betrayals and ruined pacts. while you win