Conquests: Advice on New Game

I dunno, I used to do Republic a lot when I payed on Regent and below, now I commonly play on Monarch/Emperor, and my army is just too large to be supported by a Republic. I am a die-hard warmonger so that might have something to do with it.

War weariness is another reason I prefer Monarchy. I will generally go Monarchy ASAP and stay there until I can go into Communism (as I play exclusively on Large or Huge maps my empire is generally very big by the industrial age). It's great fun to whip newly-captured cities down to about size 5 or so

I have never played with feudalism because it struck me as a compromise between Monarchy and Republic and it seems generally better to go with one or the other.

justanick said:

Avoiding the bigger mistakes is required to improve the gameplay, isn't it? I name what i consider a mistake and explain why it has such serios downsides. Also i gave advise how to do things better.



But that is exactly what i did, didn't i?



I understand that my style to critique things can be harsh, but (usually) it is justified. Here it may also appear so harsh, because there is reason for it. DamImLookinGood asked for my opinion on the savegame and on the usefullness of feudalism. In both cases i gave him an honest opinion.

Click to expand...

It's cool.

I think Theov has a point that, while we can talk about generally the differences between feudalism and republic/monarchy, I am most interested in your advice on my game. justanick, regarding diplomacy and things like that, I have already established that my plan, unless you take a look at the mapfile and think different, is to make peace, extract technologies in exchange for 200 coins and peace, and then declare war right away. So I am not too concerned with the diplomatic effects of pop-rushing.

As you can see at the file I uploaded at this link, I am in a position to completing the researching of metallurgy and obtaining the technology for cavalry, and obtaining horses from Japan, in only a few turns. So that's why pop rushing to create cavalry, musketmen or barracks is appealing to me right now. My latest thought has been to take my 24 or so northern placed workers and put them in the five cities near the northern borders with the Russians, and add them to the cities and pop rush 1 cavalry from each city (it takes 4 workers to create one cavalry). Then I could pop rush cavalry from my central cities (while retaining the workers placed near my central cities for further development and to be available when railroads are obtained) leaving all of my core cities with 2 population or so.

The only problem is that to obtain horses, I would need to pay 500 coin, and thus wouldn't have enough coins to update my pikemen around the western border with Russia (to defend against the expect land attack once I attack the weaker northern cities of Russia on my island). What do you suggest regarding the invasion, or should I go about invading another way, or invading another civilization entirely?

See the latest mapfile file here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=542492

The way i see it winning this game may be not entirely impossible, but it would be very tough at least. You have no cavalry, but spain already has infantry. Your production is 88 shields, you GNP is 160. Spain may have 5 to 10 times those figures. So forgive me if i completely disgree on your ambition to continue this game. It is no fun for me and it is probably of little educational value for you.

Civving is a bit like building a house. You need a strong fundament first. Having a strong economy with many huge cities is the first goal. Achieving anything else comes at much greater ease once this is achieved. Therefore i advise you to abort this game and start a new on a much smaller map. Then you can concentrate on the economic build up that is the fundament of any empire. Concentrating on economic build up and proper micromanagement takes time. Using similar amounts of real time per city on bigger makes consumes huge amounts of time which explains some reluctance to play bigger maps. If you really are determined to play big maps with (very) early wars, little diplomacy and near no focus on the economic build i am probably indeed the opposite of helpful to you. My gameplay is about building up a superior economic and diplomatic frame which then allows me to shape the map to my liking.

My gameplay is for conquest, to run over the enemy. Regarding cavalry, it is achievable in about 4 turns if you follow my prescription: research or buy metallurgy in 4 moves or less, make peace with the portuguese in exchange for Military Tradition. Trade horses with either Japan or Russia. I already have saltpeter. And there you go.

My current line of thinking is to go to war with Carthage, to capture their nearby two cities, and to continue war and negotiating peace and declaring war with them until I steal railroads and/or communism. I know you are being very stubborn, but I appeal to you and anybody and ask, what course of action from here in terms of conquest, as revolution for Republic would waste too many turns and my opponents are already too far ahead. Should I indeed attack Carthage first with my cavalry, or the Russians first?

Well, it's just if you want to play warmonger... go that way from the start.
You can't worry about research at all... instead save the cash, and get techs from AI's you pummel.

I really think you would have more fun just starting over.

You can start a more conventional game, choosing to be a builder or a warmonger right from the start.

If you insist on playing this one... attack your nearest neighbor and hope for the best.

I am issuing a challenge to all players. Using the attached map, obtain the metallurgy and military tradition technology in as few moves as possible, as well as obtaining horses. It is not permitted to get rid of your saltpeter, or for the Portuguese to land on your landmass, or for any other civilization to be at war with you for any reason. All diplomatic tools are permitted to obtain technologies, without any regard for reputation.

OBJECTIVES (PAR: 5 Turns)
1. To obtain the technologies of Metallurgy and of Military Tradition
2. To obtain horses

RULES:
1. You are not permitted to be at war with any civilization other than the Portuguese
2. You are not permitted to let any Portuguese unit on your landmass (in your waters is OK)
3. You must continue to have saltpeter when you complete the objectives.

Who ever completes the objectives in the fewest amount of turns wins! I estimate this will take you 5 moves or less, half-an-hour to 45 minutes. I am also taking this challenge.

dgfred, I actually did start as a warmonger, and captured my neighbours capital city, Moscow, before having to give it up. I noticed that I did not get a new technology even though I took their main city, nor in my other scenarios, when I took their other cities, I also didn't receive a technology. Also, when I tried to raze a city, I got no slave workers out of it, which is different than the earlier version of Civilization 3, correct?

So as I had over-extended myself, my goal was to secure resources, then secure my borders by expanding culture. I now have space for 30 more cities if I build settlers.

Yes... the AI will give you techs for peace. You just need to smack them a little more.

Occaisionally they will give you a city or two... even tho they may be far off.

You will not get any slaves/workers unless they are hiding in that city.

Cities takes resourses to build... so I don't like to raze them unless it will be beneficial for another city or something. I like to convert them to my team. That way, the AI did the building... I did the taking.

Oh... I forgot to mention- All that open space is an INVITE for the all-seeing AIs to come over and settle themselves. Secure your borders and block them every chance you get.

DamImLookinGood said:

dgfred, I actually did start as a warmonger, and captured my neighbours capital city, Moscow, before having to give it up. I noticed that I did not get a new technology even though I took their main city,

Click to expand...

Extorting techs for peace can be possible, but the AI calculates in value of techs. The bigger the map and the higher the difficulty setting are higher is the value of techs. Also the value of techs increases with technological advancement. In early medieval age techs cost about 30 base points, in late medival age it is 60, in early industrial age it is about 120 and in early modern age it is 240. In the early industrial age tech costs explode and so does production due to railroads and factories and possible mobilization. Therefore buildering till early IA and then starting to do some serios conquests is convenient.

DamImLookinGood said:

Also, when I tried to raze a city, I got no slave workers out of it, which is different than the earlier version of Civilization 3, correct?

Click to expand...

I donnot think so. Razing cities still gives slaves. Abandoning does not, but it allows to sell buildings first. Also in very small towns you might not get lucky and get no single slave due to rounding.

I completed the challenge in 4 moves. I have been trailing the portuguese boat along my borders with my out of date units, preventing it from landing. See if you can beat my 4 moves or if you can make sure that the Portuguese don't land on your shores on the 5th and 6th move.

Justanick, I tried razing a city but it didn't give me any workers.

As i never raze cities i did a small test. Taken a size 5 city gave me a size 4 city when taken and 2 slaves when razed. Razing gives about 1 slave for any 2 citizens left after taking a city.

That doesn't work for me in C3C Diety... did you try on the map I attached (any version)?

No. I prefer playing with ten times the economic output per tile your empire has. That enables to use qualitative and quantitative superiority, which makes conquest much more convenient. It has one drawback, though: If you recruit 300 Cav instead of 30 commanding them one by one becomes quite time consuming. Smaller maps save some of that effort.

I would have to speculate on why it does not work for you. The difficulty setting should not matter by itself. Cultural or technological inferiority might matter, but that would be the first ime i heard of such behavoir. Just to be sure: Did you really raze the city? Abandoning does not give any slaves. Which size had the city? Maybe you just had bad luck.

I will try invading another city and razing it, and will remember how large it is. I know you like to have bigger cities as a means of utilizing every tile, however I had defensive reasons for building many cities on the fringe (on the periphery) of my civilizations. I wanted to control my borders from further incursion and I did. I want to have many units as I intend to carry a large army with me and subdue revolts that occur after I successfully invade cities. You were right though that I should trade for more luxuries, and as a result of doing so, I have freed my troops from my cities, and have placed them at the edge of my land mass to prevent another civilization from landing on my shores.

It's a game, and there is no wrong way to play it.

Constant warring can be done in Republic, but you have to rotate wars between enemies to control war weariness. But as mentioned in Republic you manage your military much differently than in other governments. Since there are no MP you can leave interior cities undefended, especially if you're constantly pushing your borders out. (Coastal cities need guarding, of course, especially if Vikings are in the game or marines are available, and beware the reach of cavalry and conquistadors if present.) You also manage population and economy differently, but if done right it's very powerful.

Monarchy is the usual choice for constant war.

Oh, I just looked up Feudalism and see that is has the same war weariness as Republic. I think you'll find that learning how to manage your empire differently in Republic can be far more powerful than Feudalism. The big key is to remember that MP units in cities and towns do not make your actual warring more effective. When you're attacking other civs they aren't going to wander into your capital and attack. All the real battles are at the front, and I've even seen that sustained offensive campaigns prevent the AI from dropping landing parties at your flanks.

To get slaves from enemy cities, when you conquer them you raze the city rather than keep it when it says how much gold you "liberated" and asks you what to do. Keep in mind it first reduces the population by one--after they have probably pop-rushed or drafted units in defense during the battle--and then you get 1 slave for 2 pop (rounded down). So often you may not get slaves because of all the pre-raze pop reduction.

Regarding War Weariness, if your population is war weary, and you make peace with your enemy, only to declare war on them right away in the same turn, have you restarted your war weariness to zero, or is it back to its original level?

Actually to answer my own question this is what these tips say on this website: www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/war_weariness.php

"Subtract 1/20 of current wwp each turn in peace (round up)"

Assume you sign peace when you just have gotten 100% ww in republic (121wwp) and keep out of his territory. Then you will lose 8 wwp the first turn, 7wwp the next. It will take 19 turns to get down to level 0, and 43 turn until the war is totally forgotten.

For each turn you stay in enemy territory, or he stays in yours, add one turn. Unless the wwp is reduced to 30, or you are lucky with roundings."