Tilting at the Deity windmill

Well, I tried it and it works! Tiny continental, selecting opponents without seafaring or alphabet (in this case US, Inca and Arabia). The slingshot seems practically guaranteed (no one even attempted researching alphabet which meant I could sell it at a good price once I was sure of completing CoL and Philosophy first) and so does first contact with the two Civs on the other continent. Now the problem is the Rex phase. I don't think building the core first is necessarily best because the AI expands so fast that it's on your toes by the time you've completed it. So I will try a game with the idea of splurging the first couple of town out a bit. I chucked this one, despite forming a Republic in 1125 BC, because I had no horses and too little space. I was likely going to be able to build the Colossus in the capital though, which would have made it a commercial super giant in due time.

walletta said:

Well, I tried it and it works! Tiny continental, selecting opponents without seafaring or alphabet (in this case US, Inca and Arabia). The slingshot seems practically guaranteed (no one even attempted researching alphabet which meant I could sell it at a good price once I was sure of completing CoL and Philosophy first) and so does first contact with the two Civs on the other continent. Now the problem is the Rex phase. I don't think building the core first is necessarily best because the AI expands so fast that it's on your toes by the time you've completed it. So I will try a game with the idea of splurging the first couple of town out a bit. I chucked this one, despite forming a Republic in 1125 BC, because I had no horses and too little space. I was likely going to be able to build the Colossus in the capital though, which would have made it a commercial super giant in due time.

Click to expand...

Awesome! I didn't know that about the SGL, but it makes sense. Get a start like that with some horses and you'll be of the world.

Lord Plebian said:

Awesome! I didn't know that about the SGL, but it makes sense. Get a start like that with some horses and you'll be of the world.

Click to expand...

Thank you LP. I'm hoping this is my first original idea at Civ III although someone will happen along to wreck my dreams soon enough. My next start was also poor - way too much marsh and jungle and no lux either.

The best start possible is river + lux + cow/wheat/game with a vista of grassland round about. Like you said, find horses and it should be a dream. If I had to drop one of the three it would be the lux.

This is turning out to be tougher than I thought! Whatever. Question: if you are on a continent with just one civ and no one has yet discovered another continent (and thus only the civ on your continent knows you exist) and you raze one of its cities, does this affect your rep with the undiscovered Civs?

It doesn't. Although razing only affects attitude. You can do reputation-busting activities too, though.

walletta said:

This is turning out to be tougher than I thought! Whatever. Question: if you are on a continent with just one civ and no one has yet discovered another continent (and thus only the civ on your continent knows you exist) and you raze one of its cities, does this affect your rep with the undiscovered Civs?

Click to expand...

No.

Remember, the AI-routines run on a turn-by-turn basis -- just as the AICivs don't plan ahead, they also do not 'remember' what happened last turn, unless something has been permanently flagged (e.g. a trade-rep hit from a broken deal, or an attitude-hit from ruthless city-razing) -- and they can't 'learn' about such flags from other AICivs post facto. Basically, as far as the AI is concerned, 'out of sight, out of mind'.

So only the AICivs which already have contact with your victim at that point in game-time will hear of your ruthlessness and flag you for it. And if the AI-Civs get in contact with each other afterwards, although your victim will 'remember' your treachery for themselves, they can't inform on you to the others.

(And now here comes Justanick to tell me I've got something wrong again... )

EDIT: Or not -- X-post with Bartleby...

I bet over on the AI forum they are saying: 'what the f***! We need to address this issue RIGHT NOW! He's planning to raze one of our brothers without anybody knowing! Dang!! Better call a meeting!'

tjs282 said:

So only the AICivs which already have contact with your victim at that point in game-time will hear of your ruthlessness and flag you for it. And if the AI-Civs get in contact with each other afterwards, although your victim will 'remember' your treachery for themselves, they can't inform on you to the others.

(And now here comes Justanick to tell me I've got something wrong again... )

Click to expand...

No, here comes Lanzelot...

Anyway, I'm not completely sure about your last point. My experience rather indicates that if another AI gets contact with the one you have treated badly in the past (made a RoP rape, razed a city, broke a deal), then the other AI will also learn about your bad deeds. (And perhaps even "tell" other AIs to which it has contact?! Not sure about that point, but I would expect it.) For that reason, when I'm playing bad boy, I try to make sure to exterminate an AI that I have betrayed, before it is able to get into contact with the AIs on other continents. (And from what I remember from GOTM discussions many years ago, this has been common practise among GOTM veterans for a long time. At least when they play ultra-sharp Dom/Con games with RoP-Rapes and broken peace deals.)

Ha ha, so the little rascals talk to each other! I knew it!

I have taken two cities so far. The Americans appear to have nothing more than longbows and spears. I have the highest GNP in the game, second highest pop. Funny thing is, I have no rivers at all in a territory now comprising 16 or 17 cities and the good thing about that is rapidity of movement (before engineering). The English and Ottomans seem about equal on the other continent, which is how I want them to stay while I pick America clean and scoop up its attractive collection of GWs clean. Well, that's the plan.

It's not my style TBH. I read elsewhere that dromons are considered an excellent UU. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Because they have early bang-bang. Smaller the land masses, the more OP the dromons become. I believe their bombardment is actually lethal too, but can't promise that. Well, sec, I'll check in the editor quick.

No, no lethal (land) bombardment. But they have a 2-1-2 bombardment. Catapult is only 4-1-1. The x2 rate of fire is nice.

Personally, I try to grab an industrial civ for deity games. Faster workers are better than any UU imo. Edit: Egypt is a personal favorite.

Bowmen and Hoplites are also nice UUs, again imo. Bowmen are dual purpose units, so you don't have to build both defenders and attackers for a bit, and Hoplites can just absolutely destroy stupid AI armies if you fortify them where you should. Early Pikemen? Yum yum. Numidian Mercs are okay, but a little expensive. And the Ansar Warrior can be OP with its +1 movement, particularly if you run a guerilla-style (military) campaign.

Little aside (and edit): I've had campaigns where I would run a ton of workers and Ansar into enemy terrain. Build roads and forts as you go, and the Ansar can run out and hit enemy stragglers, then retreat back into the fort where you have a a few defenders to protect them. Just be sure to have enough workers to build a fort and road in one turn on any terrain.

As for government, personally I don't care what difficulty I'm playing, unless I'm playing as the USSR or Germany, make mine Monarchy, 'cause I don't like the thought of not being in absolute power. To hell with the right to vote.

agonistes said:

Because they have early bang-bang. Smaller the land masses, the more OP the dromons become. I believe their bombardment is actually lethal too, but can't promise that. Well, sec, I'll check in the editor quick.

No, no lethal (land) bombardment. But they have a 2-1-2 bombardment. Catapult is only 4-1-1. The x2 rate of fire is nice.

Personally, I try to grab an industrial civ for deity games. Faster workers are better than any UU imo. Edit: Egypt is a personal favorite.

Bowmen and Hoplites are also nice UUs, again imo. Bowmen are dual purpose units, so you don't have to build both defenders and attackers for a bit, and Hoplites can just absolutely destroy stupid AI armies if you fortify them where you should. Early Pikemen? Yum yum. Numidian Mercs are okay, but a little expensive. And the Ansar Warrior can be OP with its +1 movement, particularly if you run a guerilla-style (military) campaign.

Little aside (and edit): I've had campaigns where I would run a ton of workers and Ansar into enemy terrain. Build roads and forts as you go, and the Ansar can run out and hit enemy stragglers, then retreat back into the fort where you have a a few defenders to protect them. Just be sure to have enough workers to build a fort and road in one turn on any terrain.

As for government, personally I don't care what difficulty I'm playing, unless I'm playing as the USSR or Germany, make mine Monarchy, 'cause I don't like the thought of not being in absolute power. To hell with the right to vote.

Click to expand...

like it, especially the road + fortress team. I must try that.

I think the only thing that will stop me winning the current game is my generally appalling generalship. I am truly crap at war, which is a bit of a disadvantage.

like it, especially the road + fortress team. I must try that

Click to expand...

I think I shared this somewhere else, but I will again... ha ha!

Frequently I play with 31 civs with no victory conditions, and just tend to be a global peacekeeper trying to keep all the civs alive. So in 1 epic game I was playing I discovered that the Russians (I think, was a long time ago) were about to be wiped out. They were across the ocean from me, and I had no cities or troops over there to help them.

I ended up sending over Riflemen and workers, and had to fight through several other civilizations to get to the Russians. I used the road/fort technique and just stayed defensive. At one point my stack was completely surrounded by enemy troops, every square, large stacks, and held out. Eventually, using a chain of forts, I was able to get to and save the Russians. It remains one of my favorite campaigns. Fighting defensively is always more efficient, because 1 unit can take out many.

Currently my Roman army is fighting off the Greeks in northern Italy. They have 2/3 Hoplites against my 1/2 Spear and 2/1 Archers. I'm just fortifying cities and letting them wreak havoc around my two border cities until they attempt to cross a river or move over a hill, and then I race some troops out (provided there are roads so I can move and fortify in the same turn) and defend. In the meantime, I'm increasing the tech gap by building lorehouses (+ tubes) and harbors (+gold) and laughing at stupid Alexander. Soon I will pay the Scythians to declare on him, and watch his ambition and greed lead to his ruin.

In another favorite campaign, in a story I had started, it was the Russians, conversely, who were my enemy. They started with something like 30 cities (on a map with zero corruption), and I had 1. During a critical expansion stage, when the Russians were far ahead in techs, I kept building border cities between the Russians and myself, defending them as long as I could, and then I would raze them before the Russians would take them, and retreat to save my troops. During peace, I would rebuild the cities I had razed, thus preserving the heart of my little kingdom from Russian incursion while I conquered lesser enemies and colonized coastal/island cities (key to winning on that map).

Crusaders are another great unit for defensive campaigns - 5/3 and can build forts.

Curses! That went south fast First, I should have gone for monarchy since I had to declare and the war weariness racked up pretty quick, but then I lost a bunch of MWs to a flip having just failed to take Wahington by one frikkin' defender's hit point. By then it was MWs versus muskets in a size 12 city. I have to prepare better next time. No reloads allowed, although that one was a pretty cool start.

Lessons - cow plus fresh water is a good start. Don't need rivers. Monarchy, not Rep (once war is going to be the best winning method). It's better to start off researching wheel (to find the gee gees) as there is ample time to aim for Philo afterwards. Hey! When do I get a GSL? I could use a free wonder. Hanging Gardens would be useful.

Agonistes, I think I understood about a quarter of your post. Are we playing the same game?

walletta said:

Don't need rivers.

Click to expand...

Well, rivers are very useful, especially early on. A good stretch of river may mean almost 100% more commerce in the beginning (every tile you work provides 2 gold instead of 1!), and therefore allows double the research speed.

walletta said:

Monarchy, not Rep (once war is going to be the best winning method).

Click to expand...

You must have come to that conclusion because of your bad luck in warfare? In my experience, Republic is vastly superior to Monarchy, even when conducting wars here and there. Just prepare well for your wars and make them short and crisp. (Remember Norman Schwarzkopf? "Get in, kick ass, get out again"... )

Lanzelot said:

You must have come to that conclusion because of your bad luck in warfare? In my experience, Republic is vastly superior to Monarchy, even when conducting wars here and there. Just prepare well for your wars and make them short and crisp. (Remember Norman Schwarzkopf? "Get in, kick ass, get out again"... )

Click to expand...

I think he is talking about the long world wars that usually happen near end game. In that condition, Monarchy will be better but the fact that switching to Monarchy will probably take 9 turns is simply enough to stay in Republic.

Republic is superior in the long run, in the short run monarchy is slightly preferable. I agree with Lanzelot that Republic is the better choice. But i wonder whether that is true. Or does it just mean that the difficulty setting is too low? If AI forces one to have a great military early and and forces one to use it in a way that would induce war weariness, than monarchy will the better choice. Being less vulnerable to unit support and war weariness is quite an advantage.

Also Monarchy is the better choice for the Iroquois due to their absurdly strong UU.

justanick said:

Republic is superior in the long run, in the short run monarchy is slightly preferable. I agree with Lanzelot that Republic is the better choice. But i wonder whether that is true. Or does it just mean that the difficulty setting is too low? If AI forces one to have a great military early and and forces one to use it in a way that would induce war weariness, than monarchy will the better choice. Being less vulnerable to unit support and war weariness is quite an advantage.

Also Monarchy is the better choice for the Iroquois due to their absurdly strong UU.

Click to expand...

Well, the game I just screwed up was definitely winnable with a decent military commander. I was taking cities from the yanks at will, with just their core probably needing me to build some Trebs, and powering up to be no. 1 nation. I must have fallen a fair bit behind in techs, though, as I had only just got feudalism while the Americans had gunpowder. I am gutted that I did not win that one!

I am, however, pretty sure I can win one day at this level and become a Deity, which will be totally awesome!

Lord Pleb

The 'better chance of a GSL' in a tiny game does not come from different odds or anything but just from the fact you are much more likely to be the first to research a tech. For some reason, philosophy seems to be a good trigger for this although I have probably just been luckier with that one than others. But if you get to Philo first and get a GSL at the same time … what a tremendous boost!

I suspect I will need both.

walletta said:

I must have fallen a fair bit behind in techs, though, as I had only just got feudalism while the Americans had gunpowder.

Click to expand...

This is semi-irrelevant when playing the Iroquois. You can catch up in tech once your empire is big enough to create a great net output of gold or beakers. Before your empire is strong enough for this you need to spam out MW.

walletta said:

Well, the game I just screwed up was definitely winnable with a decent military commander. I was taking cities from the yanks at will, with just their core probably needing me to build some Trebs, and powering up to be no. 1 nation.

Click to expand...

No, you will not need trebs. They slow you down, so why bother to build them unless you are not playing the Iroquois? Spam out MW. If you have 150 MW, than taking out 20 Muskets will not pose a problem. The great thing about MW is that you can use them till the enemy has infantry and possibly even beyond. You will lose some MW and this will cause war waeriness while using the wrong government. But you can rebuild the MW at very high rates.