So far we have been talking in the leaders thread a bit about what we want to do in this game. I thought we needed a thread to think on our long term goals. What do we want?

Specialists Vs. Cottages
Early\Mid\Late lead
Military or Culture Etc.

I think that we should aim to be the second strongest team in the medieval and pump religions for a culture win.

I think it is too early to focus on how we will win. A lot depends on our neighbors and diplomacy.
I think that we should aim to be the second strongest team in the medieval...
This is far better. It means we focus on growing our cities and improving our land. At that point we can focus on how we want to win. By then we'll have met everyone, made some trades and taken our measure of our foes.

Just for the record, what are the various victory conditions in Civ IV?

Does anyone have any intel on what the other teams are likely to do? The Old Timers and leading personalities on the other teams might have a particular play style or gambit that they are well known for. We won't know for sure what they are up to but we can speculate.

I'll use the Oracle as an example again- I love love love getting it but if we know that another team is going for it then it might be too risky. Sooooo... what do you guys think the other teams might be up to?

"If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril." -Sun Tzu

@CommandoBob- I hear what you are saying about it being too soon to map out a precise strategy with so many unknowns. 100% spot on. But I do think a rough idea of what direction we want to head in is critical to our leader choice. So its kind of a "which comes first, the chicken or egg" situation.

Rough direction is fine, but I think that is more dependent on our Leader Traits than anything else. I don't know that, but I think that.

The difference is that this is a Multi-Team Game and that changes how we win. I mean, in a solo game or SG, we could decide before the game starts how we plan to win and be reasonably confident that we can win that way. We can beat the AI.

But people?

Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else.

what are the various victory conditions in CivIV?

Much the same as in Civ 3. You can win by domination, UN, Culture, Space Race, Conquest. For Culture you need to have three cities with 50,000 culture.

Does culture vary by map size?

In C3C, 100K culture points gave you a cultural victory on a standard sized map. On a huge map it went up to 160K.

I think it stays the same, but I am not too sure, but it is different from Civ3 since you need 3 cities of legendary culture

Doesn't BtS have other victory conditions? I see space colony and religious victories in the HoF. There's also the time victory.

I've not played [civ4] against people. Civ III against people is different than against the AI. It seems these games come down to domination since human players can see other victory conditions coming and act to stop them via military attacks. It is probably the same in [civ4] so we'd better count on having a very strong military if we want to win.

I think military win will be the way forward as if we try for any other route we will be the ones getting attacked. Attack is the best form of defence...

We cannot tell from now how will win, it will depend on map, tech progress wonders etc..

What we can tell is that we definattely need to expand fast and focus on at least 8 cities before 0ad

All MP games end up being military.

We won't win a UN vote. Culture would leave us far behind in tech and easy to wipe out at the end. Space Race could be possible - but surviving to that point means we could win by war anyway. Also I suspect a MP game that got into a space race would just result in a nuclear war. Without every AI going crazy over nuclear war there is no reason not to.

I find most MP games have lots of built up tension - massive stack on each side neither one wanting to commit 1st. The best strategy seems to be keeping up in tech and doing pinprick attacks (razing a poorly defended city) and pillaging. Over the long run this gives a comparative economic advantage.

Now that we know we got Elizabeth of England, can our discussion of game plan proceed any further?

Now that we know we got Elizabeth of England, can our discussion of game plan proceed any further?

To begin may I suggest that everyone reads the first few pages of the article on leader traits that can be found here: http://www.civfanatics.com/files/Civilization%20IV%20Leader%20Traits%202.1.pdf

It will serve us well as a basis for discussion.

Below is a listing of the leader traits for the other teams' leaders, along with my analysis of their most likely courses of action. Any strategy we come up has to take our opponents into account.

Team Saturn- Darius of Persia
Starting Techs: Agriculture, Hunting
Financial: +1 :commerce: on plots with 2 :commerce:
Organized: Civic upkeep reduced 50%. Double production speed of lighthouse, courthouse, and factory
UU: Immortal (chariot) 4/2/25 10% withdrawal, 100% vs. axeman, 50% vs. archery units
UB: Apothecary (grocer) +25% :gold:, health bonuses, can turn 2 citizens into merchants

Analysis: This team has a very early UU. They will seriously consider a rush against the first neighbor they meet if they think they have an advantage. This team probably plans to make war early and then use the spoils of war to get ahead and stay ahead. Might go for early religion.


Team SANCTA- Willem of the Dutch
Starting Techs: Agriculture, Fishing
Financial: +1 :commerce: on plots with 2 :commerce:
Creative: +2 :culture: per city. Double production speed of Library, Theatre, Colosseum
UU: East Indiaman (galleon) 6/4/40 cargo space 4, can enter rival territory
UB: Dike (levee) +1 production on river and water tiles.

Analysis: Creative trait gives this team cultural expansion without having to worry about monuments/Stonehenge or early religions. They will be looking to found coastal cities and go for coastal wonders like Great Lighthouse and Colossus. They will shoot for Confucianism or Christianity, with the later religions as back-ups. Expect them to go for the Oracle for a slingshot- code of laws or metal casting, possibly even to civil service if they think they can pull it off. The East Indiaman is an awesome unit for amphibious assaults. I think they plan to get way ahead in tech and then use their navy to launch lighting-fast invasions of anyone who threatens their lead.


Team 4- Joao of Portugul
Starting Techs: Fishing, Mining
Expansive: +2 :health: per city. Double production speed of worker, granary, and harbor
Imperialistic: +100% Great General emergence; 50% faster production of settlers
UU: Carrack (caravel) 3/3/60 cargo space 2 units, can enter rival territory
UB: Feitoria (customs house) +100% from trade routes, +1 commerce on water tiles

Analysis: This is the only team without the financial trait. They won’t be able to keep up on tech, so expect this team to wage war to make up for that. They will expand early and then pump out units to attack a weaker neighbor, using numbers to overwhelm a more advanced opponent. They have an early amphibious invasion option with carracks. This will probably be the most aggressive team in the game. Might go for early religion.


Team 5- Pacal of the Mayans
Starting Techs: Mysticism, Mining
Financial: +1 :commerce: on plots with 2 :commerce:.
Expansive: +2 health per city. Double production speed of worker, granary, and harbor.
UU: Holkan (spearman) 4/1/35 immune to 1st strike, 50 vs. mounted, doesn’t need copper or iron
UB: Ball Court (colloseum) +3 :) , +1 :) per 20% culture rate

Analysis: This is the only team starting with mysticism. They will try to dominate the early religions and beeline for Hinduism and Judaism. They might even try for all 3 by getting Buddhism first and then beating the other teams to poly and monotheism. Expect them to expand early to stake their claim on territory/resources and then catch up on research in the mid game. The Holkan gives them a good counter against Team 2’s Immortals, so Darius will probably try to pick on someone else.

If anyone has any more insight into what our opponents are likely to do please post. Especially if you have knowledge of the other teams' members and their playing styles!

Thanks for the link to the article. I haven't read it all but did read the first part and see that we have both of the strong traits. It seems we'll want to run a hybrid economy and build some wonders. Sounds like fun.

Our game plan should also take into account the traits (and potential strategies) of our opponents. We are up against:

Darius - financial and organized
Willem - financial and creative
Jaoa - expansive and imperialistic
Pacal - financial and expansive

Three others with financial traits! This means our financial trait will just allow us to keep up with the Joneses. :lol: That might even be difficult since Darius will also benefit from lower maintenance costs. Willem will have fast border expansion while Jaoa and Pacal get cheap settlers. This may mean we'll have to struggle for our share of the land.

Ah looks like we were thinking along the same lines when we posted simultaneously Donsig!

I would be really worried about the others civ's creative and expansive traits if we were on a crowded map. But I think we will have some breathing space initially, based on the last MTDG and what Sulla said about his forthcoming mystery map. He alluded to a little bit of water. In fact, considering the choices of several naval UUs I think the other teams might have picked up on this as well.

Well the only surprise is Jaoa....despite being my favorite non financial leader, I cannot see how they picked a non financial, especially with the mention of a bit of water.

The other 3 leaders along with ours (elizabeth) are the best in the game for setups with room to expand...I don't think UU's played much role in the pick...they picked the best traits..

The team I would worry about if they were close would be team 4...with their traits they could have 4 cities up and running when we will have 2...

Team Saturn has a dangerous early UU, but they have to have horse and we have to have no metal, for it to be dangerous..


Generraly, unless we start really close with someone, I don't think there will be any early wars...infact I don't think there will be any wars at all until medieval era..

This is tech trading on.....so establishing good tech trade partnerships is what counts most...

I cannot wait to see the map....we need lots of food to make use of philosophical...fingers crossed :)

Interesting that Team 4 had Victoria and then Pacal as their first two choices. Not surprised at all that everyone wanted financial leaders.

I'm also quite surprised they've gone for Joao with the UU and UB so water dependent. Obviously they are after the cheap settlers and workers.

I cannot wait to see the map....we need lots of food to make use of philosophical...fingers crossed

Exactly! If we get few nice food resources we can start pumping out great people nice and early. The cheaper universities will also be nice.

Pacal is the only leader with Mysticism, so they'll probably nab an easy Buddhism before going for other developmental traits. They will want pottery early so they can start getting the cheap granaries into play.

We are going to want writing quick to get Libraries. Any early wonders will also be particularly useful for us as that can also help pop a GP. If we manage to found an early religion then we should try and get a GW that provides points for a Great Prophet.

We would really, really benefit from the Pyramids and I'm sure other teams will expect us to go for this. Thankfully none are Industrious, we'll need to see if we are lucky and get some stone.

I think it's also worth noting how closely Indiansmoke's leader choices match the choices of the other teams:

Hi all, I am the new addition to the team :)

Regarding leader I firmly belive we must go for srong economic and developing traits.

This will be standard size with 5 civs so early warfare seems impropable.

Financial is a must IMO...so my choice in preference order would be

Pascal
V D Orange
Darius
Elizabeth
Victoria
Mansa
HC

Some thoughts:

Early exploration? Was it determined if there would be goodie huts? If so building one or two early scouts could reap some very large benefits, especially considering the relatively large map size.

Inland cities - we have two opponents that have powerful naval UUs. This puts any coastal cities in danger and I recommend that we build most of our major cities inland. One naval strategy I have found useful is to build up large number of galleys throughout the game and upgrade them to frigates when available. This is a very long term goal of course but is something to think about.

Open borders - who do we want to trade with. Portugal's UB gives them a comparative advantage in trade. So opening borders with them would be unwise. The other main though with Open borders is the chance to spread, or be infected by, state religions.

Wonders - obviously the pyramids would be great to get. In fact I think we should base our opening start on trying to get them. The Great Library is another one with obvious advantages. Stonehenge is generally not that great but if we hook up stone early for the pyramids it might be worthwhile, particularly if we find that we are near the cultural Dutch. The oracle is also useful but I don't think it should be a priority for us. Its main use would be to deny someone else the potential of doing a CS slingshot. Hopefully other teams will be competing for it.

While it is fine to regard everyone as a rival (and they are) for a while we will need friends, too. With 5 teams we are looking at either 3 vs. 2 or 2 vs. 2 vs. 1.

Of these teams, which one can help us the most? Tech and resource trading come to mind, as well as war-buddies.

Don't forget that the human equation is just as important as the game equation. We may have the best all around leader, but that is worthless if we make our neighbors angry with us.

Early exploration? Was it determined if there would be goodie huts? If so building one or two early scouts could reap some very large benefits, especially considering the relatively large map size.
Yeah, it will be good to race for the goodies

Inland cities - we have two opponents that have powerful naval UUs. This puts any coastal cities in danger and I recommend that we build most of our major cities inland.

I don't think we should let that deter us from having coastal cities, especially early as we start with fishing and we are financial. Coastal cities with fish/clam can be really good for producing GPPs.

The UUs of Portugal and Netherlands are good but I don't think we should let that deter us from having coastal cities. Especially as those units will come to the fore around the time that we also get our own UU.

Open borders - who do we want to trade with. Portugal's UB gives them a comparative advantage in trade. So opening borders with them would be unwise. The other main though with Open borders is the chance to spread, or be infected by, state religions.

Portugal's UB isn't going to be enough cause to close a border with them, although if they don't have any overseas trade partners there is a big disincentive to building it in the first place. We may all be connected via land so they may not get much benefit from their UB at all.

Wonders - obviously the pyramids would be great to get. In fact I think we should base our opening start on trying to get them. The Great Library is another one with obvious advantages. Stonehenge is generally not that great but if we hook up stone early for the pyramids it might be worthwhile, particularly if we find that we are near the cultural Dutch. The oracle is also useful but I don't think it should be a priority for us. Its main use would be to deny someone else the potential of doing a CS slingshot. Hopefully other teams will be competing for it.

We start with Mining so we can get Masonry easily enough. I would try and establish a wonder-build city early to let that produce Pyramids while we develop our capital. If we don't go for Stonehenge then we should get a religion to help us with popping cultural boundaries.

Great Wall could also be handy as barbs could be a pain, given that there will likely be a fair bit of space between us and the next civ.

I think our advantage is in the fact that we are philosophical. We are the only team with that trait. We need to make it count. Our economy should be up a bit faster from the extra GP. I think a hybrid economy should work best for us.

I agree with almost all points made Kaleb...we should play the map and not let UU, UB of other teams influence what we do...

I am not so sure about the wonder building however...unless we have stone close, pyramids is not a good idea...too many hammers will set us back...

Infact I would not build any wonders without the discount resource, before we have at least 4-5 cities up and running...

Barbs are no problem...all we need is senties for fog busting...and making citie sis the best way to fog bust...

As Jimmy said we will need to take advantage of our philosophical trait...so we will need a bit of planning on where the great people will come from...but that can be done after exploring the map..

As Commandobob said...we will need to establish friends..and plan tech trades....this is VERY important, tech trading will win this game...if we are left out of trade deals we will have no chance.....after we meet our neighbours we will have to establish early tech trade deals so we take different paths and exchange techs...this has to be done early as it is 5 teams in game an if tech trades go in couples...someone will be left out!!

I am not so sure about the wonder building however...unless we have stone close, pyramids is not a good idea...too many hammers will set us back...

Infact I would not build any wonders without the discount resource, before we have at least 4-5 cities up and running...

If we do get stone, then pyramids should be our priority wonder, looking at our start collossus could also be handy (if we get copper).

Yes, we should focus on expansion first, wonders (if at all) later.

Barbs are no problem...all we need is senties for fog busting...and making citie sis the best way to fog bust...

Yup, must remember we're on noble/monarch not immortal which I'm playing now :rolleyes:

As Jimmy said we will need to take advantage of our philosophical trait...so we will need a bit of planning on where the great people will come from...but that can be done after exploring the map..

early religion with a great prophet will be sweet, nice way to keep your tech rate higher than it would be otherwise.

As Commandobob said...we will need to establish friends..and plan tech trades....this is VERY important, tech trading will win this game...if we are left out of trade deals we will have no chance.....after we meet our neighbours we will have to establish early tech trade deals so we take different paths and exchange techs...this has to be done early as it is 5 teams in game an if tech trades go in couples...someone will be left out!!

yeah, and we can only start talking with them once we have contacted them in-game, right? those are the rules I believe...

We need to explore first, but if it is possible, I think we should get the Pyramids relatively quickly. Representation or Universal Suffrage will give us an advantage depending on which way we are going.

Diplomacy is going to be huge in this game. I've played enough different games to know that if you are left out in an odd number of people, you don't have a chance unless you have amazing luck. Try to ally with one of our nearest neighbours. Leave the other one as an attack route for later on.

I just read more of the article about traits. (The one Bolkonski linked to on the first page of this thread.) The best use of the imperialistic trait is to wage war. So, as cav scout pointed out, we can expect Portugal to be a warmonger once there is no more room to settler (or even before that). Since Portugal is the only natural warmonger perhaps the rest of us will try to make them the odd team out in a 2-2-1 alliance structure.

Any thoughts on who would be our best tech trading partner?

I just read more of the article about traits. (The one Bolkonski linked to on the first page of this thread.) The best use of the imperialistic trait is to wage war. So, as cav scout pointed out, we can expect Portugal to be a warmonger once there is no more room to settler (or even before that). Since Portugal is the only natural warmonger perhaps the rest of us will try to make them the odd team out in a 2-2-1 alliance structure.

Any thoughts on who would be our best tech trading partner?

The major advantage of imperialistic is fast settlers. Faster generetion of GG is nice but a secondary benefit. The team who chose Jaoa, did not chose him to wage war....they chose him because he is the faster expander in the game....fast workers, super fast settlers and fast granaries....he is an early expansion manster.....they will have no need to go to war early, because they will be spamming out cities at twice the rate of anyone else..

I just read more of the article about traits. (The one Bolkonski linked to on the first page of this thread.) The best use of the imperialistic trait is to wage war. So, as cav scout pointed out, we can expect Portugal to be a warmonger once there is no more room to settler (or even before that). Since Portugal is the only natural warmonger perhaps the rest of us will try to make them the odd team out in a 2-2-1 alliance structure

I'm not sure we can infer that at this stage. If you look at their first and second choice leaders (Joao was their 3rd choice) you can see that they are keen on getting cheaper workers and settlers. Victoria was 1st choice (Fin, Imp) and Pacal 2nd (Fin, Exp). They could have picked another financial leader for their 3rd choice but have gone for Exp/Imp which to me indicates their main purpose for this is strong REXing.

Ok, but if Portugal is founding cities twice as fast as everyone else doesn't it follow that they will be stronger and more advanced than the rest? This is also an argument for isolating them. Even if it is not true we might be able to convince the others that Portugal will be a warmonger. :mischief: No matter how you dice it, it seems to be in our best interest to try to isolate Portugal - unless someone has reasons to make them our prime trading ally.

Ok, but if Portugal is founding cities twice as fast as everyone else doesn't it follow that they will be stronger and more advanced than the rest? This is also an argument for isolating them. Even if it is not true we might be able to convince the others that Portugal will be a warmonger. :mischief: No matter how you dice it, it seems to be in our best interest to try to isolate Portugal - unless someone has reasons to make them our prime trading ally.

I think who we trade with will be determined mainly by:
1) who we meet first
2) who has resources we don't have
3) who doesn't have resources we do have
4) who wants to research a different tech path to us

I'm not sure we can decifer much about who will or won't be a natural trade partner just on the basis of the leader traits and UUs/UBs

Having said that, Portugal may be a good partner because they have no traits in common with us. This may mean they have different priorities to us. Different priorities may mean a more asynchronous empire and therefore more opportunities for trade.

We aren't going to tech trade much with someone if we are both racing to get to liberalism first for example, or desperately trying to get the same wonders built. If a civ expands bigger they are likely to have: a) a wider variety of resources, b) higher costs/lower tech rate. If another civ doesn't expand as much they are likely to have a) less variety of resources, b) lower costs/higher tech rate. these can make good trade partners as one civ sells their resources to the other.

To summarise, we should look for long term trade partners that are going for different objectives to us rather than ones that are looking to play a very similar game.

Good points Kaleb. I'm not so sure though that we should let who we meet first be a major factor in determining our major trade partner. We can always make a few trades with those we meet first and still make our major deals with someone else down the road. Your other three points are excellent, especially the last. I'd add the personal factor - we need to be comfortable and able to get along easily with the team members of our major ally.

While it is fine to regard everyone as a rival (and they are) for a while we will need friends, too. With 5 teams we are looking at either 3 vs. 2 or 2 vs. 2 vs. 1.

Of these teams, which one can help us the most? Tech and resource trading come to mind, as well as war-buddies.

Don't forget that the human equation is just as important as the game equation. We may have the best all around leader, but that is worthless if we make our neighbors angry with us.

Word.

There is a group there I will warn against. They are playing diplomacy to provoke, and to irritate. I think this was group Sancta. As long as we do not fall to their trolls and gamey trickery with rules debates, we will be safe. As long as we stick to the rules, keep discreet, honor most of our obligations and immediately react to trespasses of obligations, we should be safe.

Every single conceivable action done by teams like Sancta needs to be forecasted or antipated, as they are a trickier lot than Al Quaida. So, as long as we keep this professional with them externally, and handle diplomacy well with more reliable and likable folks, we will be safe.

There is a group there I will warn against. They are playing diplomacy to provoke, and to irritate. I think this was group Sancta..

Isn't that what diplomacy is for? :lol: I imagine General W will be one of the primary diplomats for that team. I am on the same team with him in the current [c3c] MTDG (which is has been going on for almost two years now) and he has handled almost all of our diplomacy. He is quite good at it.

General W is good, but there is a couple of loose cannons on deck there. :)

Just an FYI, I started this thread, Turns 0 to 10 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=300738), as a place to record/log/post/discuss what we do on these turns.

Isn't that what diplomacy is for? :lol: I imagine General W will be one of the primary diplomats for that team. I am on the same team with him in the current [c3c] MTDG (which is has been going on for almost two years now) and he has handled almost all of our diplomacy. He is quite good at it.
Being on another team in that MTDG, I will also applaud General_W's diplomatic skills.

:salute:

He does have a gift for gab.

Sounds like you two(CommandoBob and Provolution) would be the best for dealing with a stream of nice sounding words appearing on the screen from his computer.

Me and Commandobob could handle two embassies each, and match personalities with it.

Commandobob could cover communications with Saturn and Sancta, and I with Cavaleiros and Mad Scientists.

Looks like the team has two volunteer diplomats! I used your names for my post in the team structure thread. If you don't actually want the job, just pipe up.
:thanx: