All Leaders Challenge Pre-Game Show:
Game #8 - Greece/Alexander

http://www.civfanatics.net/~civrules/Article/Leaders/AlexanderSM.jpg

In the next ALC game, I'll be playing as Alexander the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great), leader of Greece. This thread is to discuss, before the game, how to best exploit that particular leader's characteristics, which is the main feature and purpose of the ALC series.

(A couple of minor notes: I have not purchased Warlords, so the ALCs are still based upon vanilla Civ IV. Also, I need a bit of a break between games, so I won't be starting the game thread on this one until this weekend at the earliest. On the plus side, that gives us plenty of time to talk here.)

The fact sheet:

Traits: Aggressive and Philosophical
Starting Techs: Fishing and Hunting
Unique Unit: Phalanx (Replaces Spearman; Strength: 5, Movement: 1, Cost: 35, Unique Abilities: +25% hill defense, doesn't receive defensive bonuses, requires copper or iron)

I get the impression that Alexander is somewhat more popular than some of the other ALC leaders I've utilized so far. Certainly, Helmling made wonderful use of that civ in his outstanding Philosopher Kings Series (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=160928), which I highly recommend reading if you have not done so already.

And yet, though I'm a classical history fan, I have yet to play a game as Alexander. Maybe it's the odd trait combination, which seem to pull in two different directions. Maybe it's the unique unit, which replaces and barely improves upon a secondary (and sometimes unnecessary) unit, the Spearman. Maybe it's just that every time I encounter the AI Alexander, he's a jerk, declaring war even earlier than Montezuma, the second he sniffs the slightest advantage. I dunno. But this is why I started the ALC games, to find out how to make the most out of a leader I've dismissed and avoided in the past.

So let's talk traits first.

We really highlighted the Philosophical trait in the previous ALC (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=178995), which featured Frederick of Germany, who shares that trait with Alex, and my first time around with a specialist economy. Thanks to the boost to Great Person generation, the Philosophical trait has terrific synergy with a specialist economy as opposed to a cottage-based one. So we could try a SE again and refine it further.

However, the SE--correct me if I'm wrong here--really relies upon building the Pyramids for early Representation and its +3 research points per specialist. In the Frederick game, we successfully tried a Metal Casting/Pyramids gambit that had the Pyramids built by a Great Engineer rather than stone and hammers by 1000 BC. Eggman pointed out in the post-mortem for the Frederick ALC that Alexander is probably the weakest of all the Philosophical leaders for attempting this gambit, because his starting techs are not on the tech path for it.

So this begs several questions:


Do we attempt to go the SE route anyway?
If so, do we try for the MC/P gambit, knowing we have an uphill battle?
Or do we try to build the Pyramids "honestly"--meaning we're looking to hook up stone ASAP, the presence of which is not guaranteed?
Do you HAVE to have the Pyramids for a SE? It seems to me that the economy would be severely weakened without having the Representation research bonus as early as possible.

I suspect that the answers to these questions may largely depend upon the start, which is probably why DrElmerJiggle suggested I take the unusual step of posting it in the pre-game thread. I'd rather stick to the tried-and-true format of posting it in the game thread, but I'll consent to the group's wishes. Another factor in our decision-making may be any luck (or lack thereof) popping techs from goody huts.

At worst, we could make an attempt to build the Pyramids via the MC/P gambit. If we get the Oracle and Metal Casting but miss out on the Pyramids, we will still wind up with a Great Engineer (actually, two of them) that we can use for another wonder such as the Great Library. And if the specialist economy is not going to take shape, it's early enough to punt and go the cottage route.

It would be really terrific to pull off the SE, because it lends itself to warmongering; this would have very good synergy with Alexander's other trait, Aggressive. Cheap barracks and automatic Combat I: ya gotta love it for game-long conquest. I don't think I warred enough in the Frederick game; part of the idea of the SE, I gather, is to be at war pretty much constantly, unlike the war-build cycle of a cottage economy. We could certainly try to correct that in this game. I haven't notched a Conquest win in the ALCs yet, so we could give that a go with Alex, especially with an always-warring SE to back him up.

The one issue I have with that idea is Alex's UU, the Phalanx. In some ways this is a very good, if not great, early unit. You have its required tech to start with, so all you need is one of its required resources, copper or iron, which are high priorities anyway. The Phalanx has a strength of 5, equal to Axemen, though those units get an anti-melee bonus, so it's still not a level playing field. But against an opponent with mounted units, the Phalanx is deadly, and can probably do a decent job versus Archers as well. The Phalanx, as a Melee unit, can get City Raider promotions, correct?

However, the Phalanx has some strange characteristics. Unlike Spearmen, the Phalanx receives no defensive terrain bonuses--except on hills??? Weird. Also, the Phalanx is really just a Spearman with one enhancement (+1 strength) and one diminshment (no defensive terrain bonus, as noted). I don't exactly base a campaign around Spearmen, and I'm not sure how you can, though I am more than willing to be enlightened. In fact, if I'm not facing any mounted units, I sometimes don't build any Spearmen at all, and I could see the Phalanx getting minimal use if my early opponents lack horses.

Now for Alexander's starting techs. As I noted above, they don't lend themselves to the Metal Casting/Pyramids gambit. That doesn't mean they suck. Hunting gives us Alex's UU as soon as we have one of the early game metals hooked up. If we have a campable resource nearby early on, so much the better. We also get a Scout and can build these right out of the starting gate, allowing us to thoroughly explore the surrounding terrain and maybe get to a couple more goody huts before our neighbours. Scouts also make decent early fog-busters once their exploring days are done.

Fishing could benefit us if we have a lake within our start, as the extra commerce can be put towards research. We should also be looking for coastline and coastal cities. I have yet to build the Great Lighthouse in a game, and this might be worth a try if the map allows for several decent coastal cities. Then again, if we wind up running a specialist economy with Mercantilism, its effects would be mostly lost.

So a lot of what I may do in an Alexander game seems to depend very much on the start, perhaps more so than any other leader. The one thing I can guarantee is that with the Aggressive trait--which we haven't seen in an ALC since the first (Montezuma) game, we'll be seeing a lot of warmongering (which, granted, every ALC seems to feature). I like trying something new in each game, so whether we go with cottages or specialists, why not shoot for a conquest win for the first time?

First impressions ...


Unique Unit: Phalanx (Replaces Spearman; Strength: 5, Movement: 1, Cost: 35, Unique Abilities: +25% hill defense, doesn't receive defensive bonuses, requires copper or iron)


The phalanx does receive defensive bonuses, just like a regular spearman. I think you copied from the wrong column or something.

I mostly agree with you that it's kind of an average but not great unique unit, though it's worth noting that the free Combat I makes its real strength 5.5 instead of the listed 5. With a barracks you can give them Shock to cancel out the axeman bonus. Then you basically have an axeman that's invulnerable to mounted units. I'm not saying you should build these instead of axemen, but I think this elevates them from a niche unit to a fairly useful component of your force.

However, the SE--correct me if I'm wrong here--really relies upon building the Pyramids for early Representation and its +3 research points per specialist.

Everything I've read, and I really mean everything, says this is true. In a game where almost every "rule" seems to be controversial, this is one that isn't.

It's not that surprising when you think about it. In a true/pure specialist economy, all of your science is coming from specialists. A scientist without Representation gives you 3 beakers and artists give 1. This means that the best case scenario, if all of your specialists are scientists, is that not building The Pyramids cuts your science output in half. If you have any other specialists, it's even worse (since they go from 3 beakers to 0).

Conclusion: unless the specialist economy with Representation is twice as good as the cottage economy (it isn't), then without Representation, the cottage economy will be better.



Do we attempt to go the SE route anyway?
If so, do we try for the MC/P gambit, knowing we have an uphill battle?
Or do we try to build the Pyramids "honestly"--meaning we're looking to hook up stone ASAP, the presence of which is not guaranteed?
Do you HAVE to have the Pyramids for a SE? It seems to me that the economy would be severely weakened without having the Representation research bonus as early as possible.




I think it's a good option to consider. The specialist economy excels with Philosophical leaders and war mongering. Guess what? You're Philosophical and Aggressive.
I would argue no. First, it would be more interesting to try it from a different direction. Second, there's no point in trying a deliberately bad strategy.
That would be my vote, and yes, I think stone is a necessity. If stone can't be found nearby, then I think you fall back to Plan B.
Asked and answered. ;)


At worst, we could make an attempt to build the Pyramids via the MC/P gambit. If we get the Oracle and Metal Casting but miss out on the Pyramids, we will still wind up with a Great Engineer (actually, two of them)

I'd have to think about this more than I want to right now, but I'm not sure you would get two. The second engineer comes because the engineer points from The Pyramids help that city catch up to The Oracle to outrace it for the second great person. If it's just engineer specialist (from the forge) vs. The Oracle, I suspect that The Oracle will have enough of a head start to give you a prophet as your second great person.

The first time I heard of "the specialist economy" was from a poster who said he always played Alexander. I'm not sure if he elaborated on his style, but in one post I think he said something like "I can achieve a decent research rate, and I never build a single cottage." I can't find it now; if anyone can, I'd be obliged.

You could look at phalanx as an axeman with 100%vs mounted rather than 50%vs melee. Given that most AI defend with archers that ain't an issue. Where it might become an issue is defending against barb axes, though I suppose you could knock up a few phalanxes (or is it phalanges?) first to get XP vs warriors and archers and produce shock axes a bit later.

As I posted at the end of ALC#7 going for pyramids via oracle/ metalworking/ GE gives you flexibility and you ain't committed to building the pyramids until the GE pops which means no hammers lost if someone beats you to it. If you get pyramids maybe look at monotheism for theology slingshot with oracle GP. If you researched masonry last you ain't committed to pyramid route until the last moment; if you lost pyramids at last minute you could stop masonry, switch to CoL and get CS slingshot from GP, use GE for Glib and get a headstart on cottage economy/bureaucracy+GLib superscience capital.
Doubt I'll be playing a shadow, its more fun (and less hassle) posting.

Try to build the pyramids honestly. After building your first settler, dedicate the capitol to the pyramids. Occasionally whip other stuff and send the overload to the pyramids.

If you want a challenge, how about adding some sort of fun variant? Since you want to be at war more often, how about playing a game where after declaring war for the first time, you need to be at war with someone EVERY turn? The same turn that you sign a peace treaty with one foe, you must declare war on another. I think it could be a neat variant, especially since with a specialist economy (if that's what you are going with) has some advantages with warmongering.

The phalanx does receive defensive bonuses, just like a regular spearman. I think you copied from the wrong column or something.

The CFC Civ IV Info Centre is incorrect, then. In which case the Phalanx gets a +25% bonus defending on hills in addition to the regular +25% defense bonus.

Personally, I think you should move the difficulty up to Monarch since you have won the last several ALCs without any serious problems. It is important that it actually be a challenge.

Well, given that Sisiutil is the pilot, I'd suggest a stone thrower's gambit.


Hook up stone
Gift stone to neighbor
Capture pyramids with combat I melee units


Hunting plus fishing. Sheesh, what a combo. Roll an inland start and you've got no worker techs. Blarg.

As usual, with Hunting I'm looking scout first unless circumstances scream otherwise. Gotta find the rocks, or a bunch of techs to slingshot metal casting. Fun fun fun.

The CFC Civ IV Info Centre is incorrect, then
Yep. Looks that way. I checked various sources before posting the correction, including the irrefutable authority -- the XML unit definitions. They seem to have the same mistake for the quechua too.

As far as I can tell, all melee units get defensive bonuses. Animals and most of the mounted, siege, helicopter, and armored units do not.

Hook up stone
Gift stone to neighbor
Capture pyramids with combat I melee units

:lol: How in-character.

And yet, though I'm a classical history fan, I have yet to play a game as Alexander. Maybe it's the odd trait combination, which seem to pull in two different directions. Maybe it's the unique unit, which replaces and barely improves upon a secondary (and sometimes unnecessary) unit, the Spearman.

I love how the leader you'd most associate with Bronze Working lacks the ability to research it as his first tech. Fishing really adds insult to injury, start inland and you delay Bronze even more being forced to research alternate food sources.


So this begs several questions:


Do we attempt to go the SE route anyway?
If so, do we try for the MC/P gambit, knowing we have an uphill battle?
Or do we try to build the Pyramids "honestly"--meaning we're looking to hook up stone ASAP, the presence of which is not guaranteed?
Do you HAVE to have the Pyramids for a SE? It seems to me that the economy would be severely weakened without having the Representation research bonus as early as possible.

I suspect that the answers to these questions may largely depend upon the start, which is probably why DrElmerJiggle suggested I take the unusual step of posting it in the pre-game thread.

I agree that you're almost entirely dependent on looking at the opening map for planning strategy. As enamored as I am with experimenting on MC/P openings I can't recommend it with Alexander without having a handy commerce tile (gold/silver/gems). Trying to parlay a single lake tile won't really cut it.

Starting near the shore might still prompt an shot at early Metal Casting no matter what else you have going on. Use the GE on Colossus so that the capital can at least produce some early raw commerce to take advantage of bureaucracy. Have a bias for coastal cities so that you can almost have them pay for themselves working shore tiles before you're forced to make Courthouses. With 0% science slider it shouldn't be too much trouble to cover city maintenance.

Mutineer popped in with a claim that you don't need Pyramids to be successful with SE but as far as I can make out it's still totally unsubstantiated. So I'd agree with DrElmerJiggle you're going to have to have some plan for Pyramids, Stone or not, to do SE again. I'm not sure I understand what he is getting at saying you want SE to be twice as good as CE even with representation. Isn't better, better? Even if you think SE is exactly equal to CE at a certain stage then you sholdn't have any qualms going with SE if you're experimenting.

Well I think a non Pyramids, mixed SE is possible, in the sense of making your Super Science city concentrate on Scientists instead of Cottages.

Essentially you concentrate on the Scientist GPPs as opposed to the actual Flasks as the benefit of the scientists... Since there is little Conflict between a Science and a Cottage economy Early on
(Slavery v. Caste can be resolved as Widespread Scientists with whipped libraries or Concentrated Scientists in the Science City)

Without Representation, a Focus on getting Great Scientists... assuming it Starts with Literature, and is preceeded by 2 Prophets from the Oracle

Make the Science Town one that can switch from production to excess food
once GL is built that's 8->16 GPP...once National Epic is buildt switch to excess food, and get 2 assigned Scientists going 15->45 GPP

So assuming~20 Turns to get National Epic the production of Great Scientists would be

Turn (Total Cost=300, 700, 1200, 1800, 2500)
19 (at 304 )
29 (725 total)
40 (1220 Total)
53 (1805 Total)
69 (2525 Total)

Now that is assuming no Other cities as sources of GP, however if you run one or two other Scientist Farms [two Scientists], they can probably get one or two other Great Scientists in that time. So with 7 Great Scientists, 6 Settled 1 Academy, and the Four Running Scientists in the Super Science City, you will still end up getting ~84 flasks from that city for the specialists (assuming No Monasteries)

This is definitely not enough to support all of your science, but enough for you to lower the Slider a bit... and with Oxford you can effectively have as many scientists in the Super City as you want... so Caste system is never really necessary... early on, you want the specialists spread out, because you porbably can't support more than two anyways... later on you want them concentrated in one city so you can actually get the now expensive GSs

You would not give up a Cottage Economy, but you would be concentrating maximizing the economic(scientific) use of your Philosophical trait

Now if you Get stone/are able to capture the Pyramids.... I'd say go for a full fledged SE... otherwise, Great Library, rather than Pyramids becomes your "Build it" Wonder... not for a 'Specialist economy' but for a Specialist maximization.

One final Thing, by Not going for a pure Specialist Economy, you can do a CS Slingshot with those Prophets. (which makes Capturing the Pyramids even better, because then you can get the Pyramids while doing a CS slingshot)... of course that relies on a compliant Neighbor who gets to the stone before you do. (or is just Wonder Crazy)

Been lurking these for a while, figured I'd throw my $0.02 in as someone who is still getting game nuances at Noble difficulty...regarding going to the SE, I think it might be instructive to attempt the SE with Alexander for two reasons. First, because it appears that a "pure" SE is difficult to set up with this set of leader traits & techs, there's the element of the challenge, plus contributes to the community "knowledge base" of getting an SE up and running.

Second, while there has been much (almost exhaustive) discussion on which is better and not much practical info on how to get one going (Wodan's thread here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=180077) and ALC #7, plus thread-delving on the which is better discussions), there is even less (if anything) that illustrates "punting" a failed attempt at an SE. While those who regularly run SE's or the "experts" might say it's obvious, the SE novices amongst us might think otherwise or overlook a "better way" to recover.

Since part of the mission of the ALC series seems to be education, perhaps a (unintentionally) failed attempt at an SE would be just as instructive as a difficult to set up SE.

notopt

I'm not sure I understand what he is getting at saying you want SE to be twice as good as CE even with representation. Isn't better, better? Even if you think SE is exactly equal to CE at a certain stage then you sholdn't have any qualms going with SE if you're experimenting.

I noticed when I proofread that, that it wasn't very easy to understand, but I didn't feel like fixing it. I do think I'm right though. ;) After writing this response, I'm not sure this message is going to be any better, but for what it's worth, the point I was trying to make is something like this ...

Let's say that in Representation, a specialist economy produces X beakers.

Since our premise is that a properly managed specialist economy is better than a cottage economy, we assume that the number of beakers generated by a cottage economy is less than X. How much less than X? At this point we don't know, so let's say it's cX beakers for some constant c less than 1. Maybe it's .99X, maybe it's .9X, we'll come back to that later. Other than the happiness bonus allowing your cities to grow larger, Representation doesn't have a huge impact on the cottage economy, so for now we'll just treat the cottage economy the same with or without Representation (beware of the handwaving :wavey:).

As I discussed in my earlier post, without Representation, the specialist economy will produce roughly X / 2 beakers. If all of your science came from scientist specialists, it would be exactly X / 2. If you get some commerce from tiles (rivers, Calendar resources, the occasional stray cottage, etc.) then it's a little higher than X / 2 since that commerce isn't affected by Representation. If you have some non-scientist specialists, then it's a little lower than X / 2 since their beakers go from 4 or 3 to 1 or 0. In a real situation, you'll have some non-specialist commerce and some non-scientist specialists, so I think X / 2 is a fairly good ballpark approximation.

So given all this, the question we're faced with is can a specialist economy without Representation compete with a cottage economy? In other words, can X / 2 beakers compete with cX beakers? The only way it can is if c is roughly .5. If c is .5, that means the specialist economy with Representation generates approximately twice as many beakers as an equivalent cottage economy.

I don't think that's realistic, and that's my point. If the specialist economy without Representation can compete with a cottage economy, then a specialist economy with Representation must be twice as good as a cottage economy. It isn't, therefore a specialist economy without Representation isn't a good idea.

Proof by contradiction.

I found the most profound view of the Phalanx unit to be that it is identical in power with the Axeman against Archery based units. DrEJ noted that Shock would effectively cancel out the Axeman's +50%vMelee bonus, but it doesn't. However, the Phalanx is still overall a strong unit, in particular because the AI more strongly favors early Mounted units than most human players would.

The idea of the TO/P slingshot sounds reasonable. Certainly, if The Pyramids are missed, using a GE for TGL and then popping some GSs for Academies in some more commerce heavy cities would be a great aid for the CE.

DrEJ noted that Shock would effectively cancel out the Axeman's +50%vMelee bonus, but it doesn't.

Why not? I mean, obviously I'm ignoring enemy promotions -- a Shock promoted axeman would still crush a phalanx -- but shouldn't a Shock phalanx vs. a plain, unpromoted axeman (ex. a barbarian) be 5.5 vs. 5? As I understand the combat calculations an attacking phalanx's +50% would be subtracted from the axeman's, so the axeman's multiplier would be 1 + .5 - .5 = 1.

The question that's been on my mind, though, is whether one scientist is worth not working one cottage. And I think any time I ran Philosophical I'd at least setup one super science city, even if I had to run the science slider.

Axemen, and women for that matter.. ( ha ah) yeah, get 50% V's Melee..So a shock, +25% and combat 1,+ 10% (automatic) Phalanx is actually 5.5 V's 6.25

Axe men get automatic 50% v's melee and the 25% for the phalanx cancels out the axemans full 50 %

so it ends up being Phalanx (5.0 base +0.5 combat 1) V's Axeman (5.0 base +(50%-25%) V's melee *auto*) or 5.5 V's 6.25

P.S. I actually came up with these figures in world builder, so I'm not so smart after all....that's the Phalanx attacking on open grass land, for a 30 % combat odds..or 30.1 or something...:eek:

As I understand the combat calculations an attacking phalanx's +50% would be subtracted from the axeman's, so the axeman's multiplier would be 1 + .5 - .5 = 1.

If the Phalanx's +50% was subtracted from the axeman's strength, then it wouldn't also be added to the phalanx's strength and vice versa.... So a Phalanx with shock would be equal to an axeman with nothing.... either 5 vs. 5 or 5.5 vs. 5.5. This is not taking into consideration the +10% bonus for aggresive leaders. So a phalanx would be slightly better than a non-aggresive axeman. Of course, as Alexander, using axemen would still be superior than using Phalanxes since you don't need that promotion to compete with other axemen. In other words.... if there are no horses around, don't use Phalanxes.

The question that's been on my mind, though, is whether one scientist is worth not working one cottage. And I think any time I ran Philosophical I'd at least setup one super science city, even if I had to run the science slider.

Gah here's somebody else trying to get everybody going on numbers again!

The very brief answer is that in the literal sense, a scientist is better than an actual cottage. You get 3 beakers from the specialist but only one from the cottage. You'll get 2 from the hamlet and then 3 from the village, where you finally have a tie. After this simple comparison is when we starting sharpening torches and lighting pitchforks.

The specialists start better since you're earning a good, fixed number of beakers right away. The cottages finish better since you have 5 from the fully developed town + Printing Press. Add a river and you have 6. Add Financial and you have 7. But I wouldn't go any further with this analysis since you'll have to start making fictional empires to convince yourself that one way of playing is better. If you create a scenario showing when specialists are always superior, somebody else will make their own numbers to show how cottages are so much better and vice-versa. Like everything else in this game it comes down to how you enjoy playing the game the most- how do you prefer to develop cities, what are your favorite civics, what is your prefered victory type and so forth.

Gah here's somebody else trying to get everybody going on numbers again!

The very brief answer is that in the literal sense, a scientist is better than an actual cottage. You get 3 beakers from the specialist but only one from the cottage. You'll get 2 from the hamlet and then 3 from the village, where you finally have a tie. After this simple comparison is when we starting sharpening torches and lighting pitchforks.

The specialists start better since you're earning a good, fixed number of beakers right away. The cottages finish better since you have 5 from the fully developed town + Printing Press. Add a river and you have 6. Add Financial and you have 7. But I wouldn't go any further with this analysis since you'll have to start making fictional empires to convince yourself that one way of playing is better. If you create a scenario showing when specialists are always superior, somebody else will make their own numbers to show how cottages are so much better and vice-versa. Like everything else in this game it comes down to how you enjoy playing the game the most- how do you prefer to develop cities, what are your favorite civics, what is your prefered victory type and so forth.

oh don't copout like that:).

Gah here's somebody else trying to get everybody going on numbers again!Actually, my eyes glaze over when you guys pull out the calculators. I'm just looking for rule-of-thumb from people who have played a lot more games than I. Based on what you said it sounds like 50/50 depending what kind of research curve you want to run.

Alex is one of my two favourite leaders in vanilla (the other being Napoleon). IMO, it's better to have a GP farm or two with him and cottage up the rest. You are Aggressive and have the Phalanx (which I find excellent). Why waste your early turns building the Pyramids when you could be building an early SoD of Phalanxes and axemen? Remember, Aggressive is strongest in the early game. The Great Library later will be nice, given your Philosophical trait. I usually chop everything to get it. It's worth it.

Don't underestimate the Phalanx. Between him and an axeman, I'd take him to attack an enemy with only archers. Like someone mentioned, the Phalanx has the same strength and can't be attacked by chariots (especially in Warlords, since chariots now eat axes). Plus he has better defense against non-axe units when on a hill, which allows you to utilize the terrain better. On Prince, I think building mostly Phalanxes early is safe and worth it, as the AIs can't even hook up copper as fast they can on Emperor. And the most wonderful thing about the Phalanx is their long shelf life. They do not fear elephants and can defend a city against knights when fortified (especially a hill city or cultured city or both).

After Aggressive has allowed you to take control of the early game, Philosophical will help you zip along the research path, allowing you to dominate later on too. With the Great Library built, my favourite strategy is to get CS asap, then Paper and then burn a GS (should be your second, the first and third can help research by building academies) on Education. I always get to Liberalism first on Emperor that way, grabbing Nationalism as the free tech. Gunpowder and MT follow, after which I will start building cavalry to attack the longbows defending AI cities. Flanking cavalry are cost-effective enough to take over those cities without siege weapons. Watch your enemies lose their empires faster than ever in mid-game.

If the Phalanx's +50% was subtracted from the axeman's strength, then it wouldn't also be added to the phalanx's strength and vice versa.... So a Phalanx with shock would be equal to an axeman with nothing.... either 5 vs. 5 or 5.5 vs. 5.5. This is not taking into consideration the +10% bonus for aggresive leaders. So a phalanx would be slightly better than a non-aggresive axeman. Of course, as Alexander, using axemen would still be superior than using Phalanxes since you don't need that promotion to compete with other axemen. In other words.... if there are no horses around, don't use Phalanxes. I'm afraid you guys are mistaken and Nares and IPEX-731BA5DD06 are right. The Phalanx doesn't get +50% in this situation; it gets +10% from Combat I and +25% from Shock, for a total of +35%, compared to the Axeman's +50%.

Axe men get automatic 50% v's melee and the 25% for the phalanx cancels out the axemans full 50 %

Ah, right. I don't know why I was thinking Shock gave +50%.

It's not that big a deal. All it means is that instead of adding a spear to axestack to protect from cavalry you add a shock axe to phalanxes to protect from melee.

Why not? I mean, obviously I'm ignoring enemy promotions -- a Shock promoted axeman would still crush a phalanx -- but shouldn't a Shock phalanx vs. a plain, unpromoted axeman (ex. a barbarian) be 5.5 vs. 5? As I understand the combat calculations an attacking phalanx's +50% would be subtracted from the axeman's, so the axeman's multiplier would be 1 + .5 - .5 = 1.

Shock is only +25%

The problem is that an Axeman can do everything a Phalanx can do Better Except defend against a mount/defend a hill from an Archer

A CR Axe is better to have than a CR Phalanx in case they have a melee on defense ...it is worse than a Phalanx if they have a Mounted on Defense...but a Mounted defense is almost Never a Problem.

They cost the same, so Alex's unit strategy is the same as anyone else's... CR Axes with a Phalanx defense (probably Medic)

What he Might do differently is defend some spots with a Phalanx.. a Shock Phalanx Is better than an Axe for defending a Hill. (it has a +25% hill advantage and add in the +25% shock, and it can hold off an Axe...once fortified it can hold off a Shock Axe)

Sisuitil,

games I play with philo leaders I tend to go for a hybrid econ, run as many cottages as you can, and in cities where you have food overflow (and you're not using the extra citizens for production) you should assign scienctists to start GS generation.

also leads you to just making 1 GP farm w/ the great library.
2 assigned plus 2 free and you're at 24GPP/turn that'll stack up quickly.

unlike a specialist econ where you'll want to assign them as super specialists, I usually drop academies in 2-3 cottaged up cities (I figure might as well since you have to build universities everywhere to unlock oxeford)

pop the rest for techs which tends to be more beakers than they will give you over time.

NaZ

Well to beat a Settled Scientist (in the GL City... with Only a Library and an Academy=10.5 flasks), a City needs to have ~21 base Flasks... which means if you are at ~70% science, it needs ~30 Commerce... Pretty high for most of the game

Of course once you start Getting High Commerce Cities, you also start getting Oxford which means that Settled Scientist is now 18 Flasks
the City now needs to have 36 Base Flasks... again meaning about 40-50 Commerce

[and both of those are Without Representation OR any monasteries, and not counting that hammer... which is useful in a Science City]

As for popping them for Techs...well after ~100 Turns they've given you more settled than as a pop (assuming you get the full pop amount) Plus its what you chose... there it depends, if its something really useful (say Education, or Philosophy for a Religion when you are on a heathen continent) yes, otherwise Settle in that Super City.

Based on the usual conflicting advice :crazyeye: , I'm thinking of going one of two routes.

The first route is pretty much what Notoptimal described in his post; he put very effectively into words an overall game strategy I was thinking of pursuing. After my first attempt at a specialist economy in the previous ALC, refining it in the next one with another Philosophical leader had a lot of appeal. So Alexander isn't ideal for the SE, mainly because of his starting techs? Therein, as Notoptimal pointed out, lies the challenge. If I go this route, I would definitely remain on Prince level.

However, Aelf's points are very well-taken. Leaving aside the idea of pursuing different strategies in the ALCs for educational purposes, if I was just sitting down to play a non-posted game with Alex, I would play it very much as Aelf recommended. In many ways, that's a tried-and-true strategy I've employed several times before. If I go this route, to keep it challenging, I would finally make the jump to Monarch (gasp! :eek: ) with the ALCs.

The thing is, I can't leave aside the educational element of the ALCs. That is their whole raison d'etre, so that I and others can learn.

So here is what I propose:

Let's try the SE with Alex on Prince. If it fails, as Notoptimal said, we get to learn how to "punt" an SE and go to a CE. If it works, well, maybe it's not the optimal use of Alex, as Aelf points out, but it will certainly help further illustrate the proper use of the SE, and again, it adds a little more challenge to the game. Either way, I would also like to try for my first Conquest victory, so let's throw that in as an additional challenge for this game.

But this will be the last ALC on Prince. (Gasp! :eek: again.) As several people have pointed out, I'm winning handily on Prince. I've hung on this long to the level mainly for educational reasons, again, for myself, but as time has gone on and I've become more adept at the game, mostly for others. Once we exhaust the alternative strategies with this particular ALC game, I think it's time to move on.

(Full disclosure: I have to admit that on my own, I'm starting to play on Monarch level now. I've had one win so far as Catherine and it looks like I'm on my way to another one with Elizabeth. I've made some slight adjustments to the ol' tried-and-true strategies, but so far I'm not finding Monarch to be such a night-and-day contrast with Prince. This is my way of reassuring everyone playing on Prince, Noble, and lower levels that the ALCs will still be relevant to you.)

The other factor in my thinking here, you see, is that the next ALC will be with Huayna. I know he's kind of popular, but I've never played a game as him before. He's often touted as an ideal leader for beginners, or for making a first attempt at a new level (ah-ha!), because his characteristics lend themselves to several different approaches (Financial for building, Aggressive with a good ultra-early UU for warmongering, starts with Mysticism if you want to go the religious route). So he strikes me as the perfect leader to use for my first (public) attempt at a Monarch game.

Sound like a plan?

Proof by contradiction.
:rolleyes:
That proof can probably prove black is white as well since it must have some false assumptions somewhere.

A SE with Representation (from the Pyramids) will not be in the same state as an alternative SE that did not build the Pyramids and it will not be run in the same manner. So your simplistic comparison assuming the only difference was the 3 extra beakers/ specialist from Representation is manifestly false.

Building the Pyramids is a major early game gambit that distorts the economy for many turns. When the Pyramids are completed in about 1000 BC the player has stunted economy with 2 cities. He then spends many turns trying to expand and actually run some specialists to make use of Representation. An alternative SE based around a Super Science city could have it's academy by 1000 BC and 4 cities all growing and ready for an axe rush or whatever makes sense in that game... It will be well ahead of the Pyramid economy at that stage.

Running Representation is not entirely benificial even in a SE, especially in the early game. Hereditary Rule is a very good civic for a SE allowing bigger cities where plenty of food is available. HR is suited to using slavery and raising and running a big army that goes hand in hand with early conquests... but be careful to not overexpand and be sure that Markets and Courthouses are available soon to cut costs. Then at say 500 AD I'd expect the SE without the Pyramids to have a bigger empire and have better buildings than either a CE or SE with Pyramids.

One great weakness I have observed is the tendency to use specialists plus Representation as the only source of beakers, and that restricts the use of Slavery to whip enough buildings. I think Sisiutil demonstrated this behaviour in ALC #7. He would have done much better in the longer term if he had taken action early to build key infrastructure such as markets, grocers and banks in certain well chosen cities. That would allow the Science slider to be run at 100% for more turns than at 0%. Instead, acting on advice, he ran scientists with Representation for too long thereby stunting growth of the economy. A large part of the growth in output of gold and research in a SE comes from the multipliers buildings give and so the sooner they're build the quicker they provide the benefits to the economy.

Finally a major part of the research done by a SE is by considerate use of GP and a Philosophical leader can make them just as fast with or without Represenatation. It is totally false to make the trivial assumption that difference in tech rates between a SE with Represenatation and one without is a factor of 2. It is nowhere near as much once you take into account the real differences in how those economies are run.

Congratulations Sisiutil on Moving up to Monarch soon! I'm not skilled enough to offer suggestions but your first route (Notoptimal's) sounds good. I really enjoy reading your ALC AAR's, I've learned a lot from them. Thanks and keep up the good work!

To add a soupcon of piquancy and get ready for (public) monarch why not have raging barbarians?

To add a soupcon of piquancy and get ready for (public) monarch why not have raging barbarians?
Interesting idea! What does everyone think? Or is trying to do a Metal Casting/Pyramids gambit with Alex's non-ideal starting techs challenge enough?

EDIT: Regarding UncleJJ's points: what about trying do as he suggests and attempting a SE without the Pyramids for early Representation, since Alexander doesn't lend himself to that? That could amount to an additional challenge and certainly require fine-tuning of the specialist economy.

I'd be interested to see what a non-Representation SE would look like.

I also think you should try my variant rule of after declaring war the first time, always ending a turn at war with at least one nation.

Regarding UncleJJ's points: what about trying do as he suggests and attempting a SE without the Pyramids for early Representation, since Alexander doesn't lend himself to that? That could amount to an additional challenge and certainly require fine-tuning of the specialist economy.

I'm on-board for this. It sounds interesting! I've been holding back on trying an SE because I've only seen one in action. This would be the opportunity to test a different version of the SE strategy.

I also think you should try my variant rule of after declaring war the first time, always ending a turn at war with at least one nation.

I don't like this idea so much. To me, the ALCs tend to be about trying different strategies going for a win (sometimes, a specific type of win, even). This variant on "Always War" doesn't tell you about how to play a better game of Civ generally, but how to play a better game of Civ with a specific set of self-imposed limitations.

I don't like this idea so much. To me, the ALCs tend to be about trying different strategies going for a win (sometimes, a specific type of win, even). This variant on "Always War" doesn't tell you about how to play a better game of Civ generally, but how to play a better game of Civ with a specific set of self-imposed limitations.
I have to agree. I don't want to load up the game with too many requirements. Civ has a tendency to throw a curve ball at you when you do that (even when you don't).

However, if I (a) build a specialist economy with (b) an Aggressive leader and (c) aim for a conquest victory, then you're gonna see a LOT of warring, have no fear. Don't be surprised, Phrederick, if I live up to your variant rule without consciously intending to. ;)

Whoa, non-representation SE? That will require some fine tweaking to get it to work well I think. Oh well, maybe you get lucky and land near a wonder-happy Gandhi. :D Anyway, given the aggressive trait I'd be more inclined to go for an early war then for early wonders. Not sure how to mix Phalanx in, I've never played Alexander yet. This should be fun! :)

Why not? I mean, obviously I'm ignoring enemy promotions -- a Shock promoted axeman would still crush a phalanx -- but shouldn't a Shock phalanx vs. a plain, unpromoted axeman (ex. a barbarian) be 5.5 vs. 5? As I understand the combat calculations an attacking phalanx's +50% would be subtracted from the axeman's, so the axeman's multiplier would be 1 + .5 - .5 = 1.

EDIT: It's been covered already.

...attempting a SE without the Pyramids for early Representation, since Alexander doesn't lend himself to that?

Sounds like you're trying to maximize GP production. That would still be better done with a CE, I think.

I'd like to vote for trying for the Pyramids. The SE is more efficient for warmongering, and it lets you kick people's teeth in (which you want to do as an aggressive leader) without your science going in the tank. Also Phil gives cheaper Libraries and Universities IIRC, so You'll keep pace with less warlike neighbours.

My guess would be Mining->Masonry->Bronze Working->The Wheel...

A SE with Representation (from the Pyramids) will not be in the same state as an alternative SE that did not build the Pyramids and it will not be run in the same manner. So your simplistic comparison assuming the only difference was the 3 extra beakers/ specialist from Representation is manifestly false.

Building the Pyramids is a major early game gambit that distorts the economy for many turns. When the Pyramids are completed in about 1000 BC the player has stunted economy with 2 cities. He then spends many turns trying to expand and actually run some specialists to make use of Representation. An alternative SE based around a Super Science city could have it's academy by 1000 BC and 4 cities all growing and ready for an axe rush or whatever makes sense in that game... It will be well ahead of the Pyramid economy at that stage.

Running Representation is not entirely benificial even in a SE, especially in the early game. Hereditary Rule is a very good civic for a SE allowing bigger cities where plenty of food is available. HR is suited to using slavery and raising and running a big army that goes hand in hand with early conquests... but be careful to not overexpand and be sure that Markets and Courthouses are available soon to cut costs. Then at say 500 AD I'd expect the SE without the Pyramids to have a bigger empire and have better buildings than either a CE or SE with Pyramids.

One great weakness I have observed is the tendency to use specialists plus Representation as the only source of beakers, and that restricts the use of Slavery to whip enough buildings. I think Sisiutil demonstrated this behaviour in ALC #7. He would have done much better in the longer term if he had taken action early to build key infrastructure such as markets, grocers and banks in certain well chosen cities. That would allow the Science slider to be run at 100% for more turns than at 0%. Instead, acting on advice, he ran scientists with Representation for too long thereby stunting growth of the economy. A large part of the growth in output of gold and research in a SE comes from the multipliers buildings give and so the sooner they're build the quicker they provide the benefits to the economy.

Finally a major part of the research done by a SE is by considerate use of GP and a Philosophical leader can make them just as fast with or without Represenatation. It is totally false to make the trivial assumption that difference in tech rates between a SE with Represenatation and one without is a factor of 2. It is nowhere near as much once you take into account the real differences in how those economies are run.

UncleJJ makes a very good point here. Concentrating on the pyramids and nothing else for the first part of the game definitely cripples your economy, military production, and expansion for the first part of the game. Every time I've tried to set up a SE via the pyramids, I've found myself struggling afterwards to get my economy up and running. It would be an interesting experiment to see how well it runs without Representation. Of course if you have Stone nearby(in your capital's fat +), then you would be stupid not to go for the pyramids. And if your neighbor happens to build them, then by all means take them from your neighbor(This would actually be ideal and probably far superior).

Long story short, this could be just the challenge that you are looking for and I would like to see it in action.

well gotta weigh in again. if you aren't going for the pyramids then by definition you're going to be running a hybrid econ. yeah you could switch entirely over to specialist if a nearby neighbor happens to have the pyramids but it would be a wise move to cottage up regardless and work some of them.

its very quick to lay down a few farms, and just as easy to replace them with more cottages if you need. since most cities stay below 8 pop until midgame you have plenty of flexability and can lay down both types of improvements in each fat cross.
(yeah thats a lot of micro, but you have enough skill sisuitil to manage that)

without representation you're going to NEED a library, go ahead and run the scientists instead of working production tiles if you feel like your military and infrastructure are building up at an acceptable pace. but the sooner you get those cottages running the sooner they'll outpace the 3 beakers from each specialist..

even still you'll want 1 gp farm to maximize the philo trait. theres another thread on here about gp generation from single or multiple cities, proving that running a single gp farm is more efficient in the long run and still makes good use of the philo trait. definately try to get the great library up and running in that location so you can run 4 scientists then more when you get the university then oxeford etc.

yeah its probably all been said, but I dont mind saying it again :P

good luck w/ the game.. definately looking forward to seing how it turns out

NaZ

even still you'll want 1 gp farm to maximize the philo trait. theres another thread on here about gp generation from single or multiple cities, proving that running a single gp farm is more efficient in the long run and still makes good use of the philo trait. definately try to get the great library up and running in that location so you can run 4 scientists then more when you get the university then oxeford etc.


I remember reading that thread and I should probably give it another check over. But it's flat-out impossible for a single city to be the best idea in every case. If you can run equal numbers of specialists in two cities then it's not hard to easily surpass what you can do with one. Things start to become less efficient only in the really long-term or if you try to to have several cities making GPP. You can throw things off a little if you get National Epic in your best city. Or you could use it to supplement your second best city which would mean that two cities is doing better than one great one with National Epic.

you might be able to rob the pyramids from another civ

With continents there's an even chance that pyramids will not be easily accessible if built by another civ and even on the same continent they may not be easily to invade so in that sense the odds are not good for early pyramid steal as a strategy.

i don't like the "out of the box" strategy you build without a game at hand.

My feeling is you should try a last prince game in a way you never did.

A philosophical leader lends himself well to GP production.
GP have multiple use.
Why not try a warmonger's game where the GP help you out of the economic blackhole = pop some good trading techs?

My proposal is to ignore building wonders = capture them if the map tells you so (= not montezuma and kublai khan for neighbours). Capturing oracle is no use? well, you get those Great Prophets fast when you're philosophical.

I wanted to suggest the same as Cabert for a nice twist. Get two GP farms going and pop almost all GP for techs to see if you can get a huge tech lead. I tried this as Frederick and must say I didn't do that bad but I could have done a lot better.

Other twist is to merge every GP to 1 or 2 cities to see what that does to an economy/research rate.

Eggman,

if I find the thread I'll post a link. was mathmatical proof that another city will NEVER generate a GP if the city with national epic is producing more than a certain amount of GPP and the other city is producing within a certain percentage of that number. (never catches up to the target # as it keeps going up) best case scenario if you are running a GP farm you'll only ever see 1-3 great ppl from the other cities.

edit: found linky

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142704

its yucky beancounter math :P but does prove what I was suggesting. so again I'd go with a hybrid econ.. cottage up where you can but make 1 city a GP farm for this purpose.

Well the problem with popping is that it takes you on a particular research path, settling for super specialists gives you much more flexibility. However, the Early lead isn't a bad idea, but especially early on, they are suboptimal.

Another thought: this being your last ALC at Prince why not go for fastest win (?before 1800). No restrictions: play cottage or specialist; no wonders, every wonder etc. Just win.

Another thought: this being your last ALC at Prince why not go for fastest win (?before 1800). No restrictions: play cottage or specialist; no wonders, every wonder etc. Just win.

:goodjob:

This idea I like ('cause I know you're all on the edge of your seats, waiting to hear what I do or do not like :rolleyes: )! It's time for the Greeks to dethrone the Egyptians from the top of the Sisiutil Hall of Fame. Conquer the world by the 19th century!

Of course, in discussing this, we virtually guarantee a small island start with neither bronze nor iron...

Another thought: this being your last ALC at Prince why not go for fastest win (?before 1800). No restrictions: play cottage or specialist; no wonders, every wonder etc. Just win.
I rather like this idea too. If I've mastered Prince and I'm playing with the Aggressive advantage to supplement my warmongering, I should, theoretically, be able to achieve that which I never have achieved before. In addition, this is in keeping with Cabert's point about not marrying yourself to a strategy before you get into the game and see how the land lies (literally and figuratively).

Nevertheless, the pre-game thread is useful, as always, for suggesting a variety of strategies to optimize the leader's characteristics. And conversely, it's also helpful to hear about routes that would be counter-productive, or that the leader would make challenging.

Eggman,

if I find the thread I'll post a link. was mathmatical proof that another city will NEVER generate a GP if the city with national epic is producing more than a certain amount of GPP and the other city is producing within a certain percentage of that number. (never catches up to the target # as it keeps going up) best case scenario if you are running a GP farm you'll only ever see 1-3 great ppl from the other cities.

edit: found linky

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142704

its yucky beancounter math :P but does prove what I was suggesting. so again I'd go with a hybrid econ.. cottage up where you can but make 1 city a GP farm for this purpose.

[Emphasis added by me]

This is also what I was getting at- I don't refute anything written there, but it's doing people a disservice if they come away reading that thread thinking 'I should always have just one Great Person farm.' There are myraid scenarios you can concoct where two cities are better than one. Take for example two cities whose maximum possible GPP output from all sources is identical- running both in parallel is clearly giving you more and faster Great Persons than shutting down one of them. No math required to see that much. People often just make the National Epic + Globe Theater GPP megacity, so I think in this case, the author of that thread wanted to show there is no value in allowing other cities to make GPP if you can help it. But in any other situation where your best city isn't that 'mega' (54 GPP/turn or less, perhaps) there is plenty of advantage to be gained by spreading around your production. You just have to be aware of the factors that influence your throughput instead of just locking 'one big city' into your head.

Another thought: this being your last ALC at Prince why not go for fastest win (?before 1800). No restrictions: play cottage or specialist; no wonders, every wonder etc. Just win.

This gets my vote!

People often just make the National Epic + Globe Theater GPP megacity, so I think in this case, the author of that thread wanted to show there is no value in allowing other cities to make GPP if you can help it. But in any other situation where your best city isn't that 'mega' (54 GPP/turn or less, perhaps) there is plenty of advantage to be gained by spreading around your production. You just have to be aware of the factors that influence your throughput instead of just locking 'one big city' into your head.
To take this in another direction, this pairing of NE and GT is something I don't much understand and only do if I'm aiming for a cultural win. Obviously, that city is going to churn out Great Artists. In a non-cultural game, I want Great Scientists, so the wonder combination is Great Library + National Epic + Oxford University.

In fact, in a non-cultural game, I sometimes never build the Globe Theatre. I know it has benefits for whipping/drafting, but by the time I have it available, I'm usually productive enough to not have to rely on the whip anymore.

Now if there's something I'm missing about this wonder combination, I eagerly await enlightenment.

To take this in another direction, this pairing of NE and GT is something I don't much understand and only do if I'm aiming for a cultural win. Obviously, that city is going to churn out Great Artists.

The idea is you're trying to have every available tile working food to support specialists. With the amount of specialists you can run the chance of getting a GA goes down to 10% or less. Even though you can get the equivalent happiness late-game from other methods, Globe Theater is about the only way you can let this city have unlimited growth early on, and it's also permanent since you don't have to rely on civics or the culture slider to keep the happiness from crashing later. I think unit costs make GT less useful in a slavery heavy city but it certainly helps for drafting though since you can easy get a situation where you recover 1 pop every turn.

Also if you were running a GP Farm seperate from your science city you could combine GT+NE; GS you combine in superscience city which still runs Glib and oxford; though if cottaging superscience you don't really need Glib if you're running academy, bureaucracy and science buildings so you could put Glib in GP Farm.

Actually, the GLib is where you have your GP farm, those 2 Scientists are far more important for GPP than flasks.

The issue that if you are running scientists, that site will give both Flasks and GPP, so Oxford makes sense there.... and if you are Not running Caste, you will rarely need Globe for your GP farm... so NE/Oxford can be merged.

For the fastest win possible, I think you'd need to kick someone's teeth in fast. Going for the Pyramids only ties up one of your cities, the other two to four that you get from the initial land grab can fire out military units (1 Phalanx, Rest Axeman, Maybe Archers when needed to defend cities, maybe a chariot to throw into a pillage stack...)

Basically, Get Masonry to build the Pyramids (Specialist Economy will be better in the long run). Next, get Bronze working for Axes and Phalanxes, then get your worker techs for resources. Don't waste time with early religions, but beeline for CoL (Courthouses to reduce upkeep), then Construction (Cats will be needed soon enough). I vote balls to the wall agression, no quarter asked or given. Grind the enemies into the dust as fast as you can. Finish your time on Prince with an exclamation point!

Are you going to play with vanilla or with Warlords? If with Warlords, there is an interesting strategy (I haven't tested it yet, but it looks great on paper) of getting Pyramids, that imo is faster (and more beneficial for the general growth of your empire) than either of the Masonry/Pyramids or the Oracle/MC/Pyramids gambits. I will repost my post from another thread:

Instead of beelining for Oracle and MC, go the usual Pyramid-building route (i.e. get Bronze Working and Masonry), but instead of building Pyramids, build Great Wall in your capital. It is significiantly cheaper (I think 250 hammers vs. 450 of Pyramids - using Marathon speed here) and gives you 2 Engineer points (with Philosophical, this becomes 4). This means that in 25 turns after building the Great Wall, you will get a GE, with whom you then complete the Pyramids (which I believe is not slower, and can even be faster than you would build the Pyramids in the first place even if you chopped extensively), preferrably in the same city that built the Great Wall, so you have a guaranteed GE as your second, and possibly third Great Person - which you can use to build the Great Library and then Parthenon or Hanging Gardens (for even more GE goodness).

Not only is the Great Wall a rather useful wonder (especially on bigger maps or with Raging Barbs) but you free up 200 hammers, get essentially 2 wonders for a price of one, and have much more flexibility with starting techs (both Great Wall and Pyramids require only Masonry to build, so you don't need to dip into the Priesthood path early to secure the Oracle for the MC/P strategy).

In fact, in a non-cultural game, I sometimes never build the Globe Theatre. I know it has benefits for whipping/drafting, but by the time I have it available, I'm usually productive enough to not have to rely on the whip anymore.

That might be a symptom, rather than Great Truth[tm]. Which is to say, it may be an indication that you have been slowing your economic development by converting too many food into hammers. The Globe Theater, paired with surplus food, takes care of all of your transferable hammer needs (ie, military, workers, settlers, missionaries), so maybe you should be giving that tech a higher priority than you have been.

Rough game plan: research Monarchy and Drama, switch to Hereditary Rule, and whip military units every other turn, applying the overflow to first the theater, then the Globe Theater. now that that is finished, you can switch out of HR, and whip military every other turn, applying the overflow to the Heroic Epic. Then you just get silly, whipping out units every turn until you are bored with the whole thing.

You are going to be running high food low population most of the time, so you don't need particularly good terrain aside from the food tiles. Sneak this combo into a coastal location, and you don't need to worry about building a navy when the time comes to cross the seas. Once nationhood comes available you can start drafting instead (less flexibility, but cheaper).

@ Sisiutil,

I have finished my comparative game playing the period from 720 AD until 1530 AD in ALC #7 and have posted my analysis in that thread. You and anyone else interested in my version of the SE might like to study my savegame and analysis. It would be good to get several points established before you try another SE. Here we have a concrete demonstration rather than people arguing from theoretical positions :)

In summary my comparative game clearly demonstrates 2 things.

1) Slavery is superior to the the Caste System for a SE
2) It is better to run your research slider at 100% rather than 0% and a properly run SE needs to build up its gold generation as well as its beakers.

In the words of the 1992 Clinton campaign manager

"It's the Economy, Stupid" :hatsoff:

Wow, alot of people out there really underestimate the potency of the Phalanx. I'd say it's one of the strongest defensive units in it's era, and even though you won't want to do your city raiding with it, it's a perfect addition to your stack.

For starters, they are much more combat capable than standard spearman ( 5.5 Str -vs- 4 ). Aside from axemen, there isn't any early unit that poses a major threat to the Phalanx. They're only 0.5 Str below a Pikeman, but available in the ancient era. They eat Elephants for breakfast on attack or defense, compared to spearman which are only 50-50 when attacking an Elephant. They can even defend against Knights with relative success.

The +25% Hill defense is very useful, especially if you're like me and make ALL your frontline cities on hills. A Phalanx fortified in a hill city beats an axeman handily, where a spearman gets massacred:
===================================
Phalanx->(5.5 + 50% for hill, + 25% fortify, + city bonus )
= 9.6'ish + city bonus
===================================
Spearman->(4 + 25% for hill, + 25% fortify)
= 6 + city bonus
===================================
Attacking Axeman-> (5 + %50 shock )
= 7.5
===================================

They make a fantastic 'immovable object' to choke out an enemy as well. Find a forested hill in enemy territory, then have fun watching your enemy waste axeman trying to kill him. Forest hill + Phalanx = +100% defense. So that's 11 Strength WITHOUT the fortify bonus. It will take an enemy 2/3 axemen to remove 1 Phalanx from that wooded hill. Normal spearman again get eaten alive by axes even on a wooded hill, the spearman is lucky to kill one axeman.

Congrats on moving up to Monarch. I recently moved up to Prince myself(though I'm back to Noble for the moment to acquaint myself with Warlords). I think a Conquest victory would be a great way to go. Something difficult and new in your last Prince game, and true to Alexander himself! Conquer until there is nothing left to conquer!

Thanks for that comparison in the other thread, UncleJJ. The Monarch game I'm playing off-line now, which I'm likely to win, does not have a SE, but I did use the whip extensively. (I even played much of the early game with the help of a calculator! The horror!) After getting my butt handed to me on my first half-dozen Monarch games because I was lackadaisical with the whip, I have had my trust in it renewed. So look for it to be a feature in this upcoming game.

I may also try to go for Drama and the Globe Theater earlier to implement the suggested whipping strategy in a high-food, no-unhappiness city. Especially if I want a lot of units.

Gnarfflinger, your post seemed contradictory. In the first paragraph you seemed to warn me off the Pyramids; in the second you recommend it. Which is it? :crazyeye:

Gnarfflinger, your post seemed contradictory. In the first paragraph you seemed to warn me off the Pyramids; in the second you recommend it. Which is it? :crazyeye:

I also read it that way at first. "Pyramids only ties up one of your cities." It seems like he's saying all The Pyramids does is tie up one of your cities wasting hammers that could be used for something more useful, but he isn't. His point is that only one of your cities is tied up working on The Pyramids. The others are still free to work on other things like military units.

I'm not sure I really agree with that. At the point when you should be building The Pyramids, you only have one or two cities including your capital, so "only" tying up one of your cities is fairly significant. "The other two to four that you get from the initial land grab can fire out military units." I'm not sure how you're planning to beat the AI to The Pyramids after building two to four cities.

Well, in my most recent off-line game, the map lent itself to an approach that could work towards achieving both ends.

The capital was, as usual, a very good city site with a top-notch food resource (grassland wheat next to a river), and copper too. A little north was a good production site (a cow tile, rice, several hills, lots of forests, grassland and plains), where I put the 2nd city. I built Stonehenge and the Oracle in the 2nd city, relying heavily on chopping, while the more-developed capital used the wheat and copper to churn out units and settlers.

My point here is that I've usually used the capital to build early wonders, since it's the best-developed city. Yet the capital is also, usually, best equipped to churn out settlers. So if I'm lucky enough to get a map like the one I describe, I could devote the 2nd city to the Pyramids while the capital continues to fuel the expansion.

Ideally I'd want to have stone nearby as well. As I said before, you seem to have to rely on luck with Alex more so than with other leaders.

Dr EJ did have my point.

Basically when you do your initial land grab, have one city start right on the Pyramids. It only ties that one city up, and the other 2 or 3 that you get would be used to fire out military units.

It's a question of whether you want the SE (which I still stand behind...) to keep you in the tech race...

Well I personally think the better strategy is get CS through the slingshot and then run a hybrid SE. (unless you have stone) Those 450 hammers could easily be almost 13 axes/11 Swords, much better for Alex.

Well I personally think the better strategy is get CS through the slingshot and then run a hybrid SE. (unless you have stone) Those 450 hammers could easily be almost 13 axes/11 Swords, much better for Alex.

FWIW, my best Monarch level games have been not with the Pyramids, but with the CS slingshot in non-Warlords games. It's so much easier to conquer territory early and end up with mid-1700 to mid-1800 victories.

Warlords is too new for me to have a good feeling, but an early Great Wall can lead to Pyramids with a GE when playing a philosophical leader. The lack of barbarians in the cultural boundaries helps a great deal also with early expansion.

Off topic:

I started a thread in GD (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4424810) on what to do with all the old ALC saved game files. I'm edging towards my maximum, kiddies!

I think a Philosophical leader should normally be geared towards generating GS. If you plan well, you'll get either a lot of GSs or GPs. You'll get more GPs that you can think of what to do with while the GS will always be better at lightbulbing techs when building Academies is no longer worth it.

ALC Game #8 is now underway! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4426595) Go to it, gang!