Four basic starting strategies

[Ronald]

Archer gambit

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

[Grey Fox]

The best thing with archer gambit is that you can upgrade all those archers to Longbowmen later.

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

[MirandaCore]

Skip the knights and chivalry. It only takes 6-7 more advances to get calvary. And hordes of calvary are unstoppable if the other civs don't have rifleman.

[sysyphus]

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

[Siv]

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

[James I]

I'm considering playing as the Babylonians...... As such the Archer Gambit idea could be very useful (as it also allows some expansion so my GA doesn't completely go to waste)

[Blanchflower]

Originally Posted by Zouave

I agree. That is taking cheating to an unacceptable level, even considering AI cheating.

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

[micklaboom]

i love cows in the city's ohh yeah hail me a god

[RickFGS]

Warrior Gambit upgrade.

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

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

[spoiler2010]

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

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

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

RESOURCES --- OF COURSE!!!

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

BAIL OUT FROM AN AI BEATDOWN

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

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

[tR1cKy]

wow! another zombie thread

[spoiler2010]

Originally Posted by kittenOFchaos

Any player who reloads after a failed battle is of dubious worth.

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

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

[vmxa]

Wait why would it not be a cause for losing? You start a war and lost and now you reload to gain an advantage, because you can.

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

[MysteryX]

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

[spoiler2010]

Originally Posted by vmxa

Wait why would it not be a cause for losing? You start a war and lost and now you reload to gain an advantage, because you can.

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

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

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

[spoiler2010]

Originally Posted by MysteryX

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

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

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

[MysteryX]

Originally Posted by spoiler2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richie0]

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

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

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

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