Transition Economy Space Race (TESR) Planning Thread

I would like to start a succession game where we try and maximize a transition economy. What I mean by that is that we play the 1st half of the game (roughly) using a FE/SE (farm/specialist economy) and the 2nd half using a CE (cottage economy) while going for a space race victory.

I would like to play on emperor level so would like to recruit monarch-emperor-immortal level players. I can win emperor level space race single player games.

Here is how I would like to approach it:

-In the first few eras, I would like to try and maximize the specialist economy. This means running all of the SE civics as early and as efficiently as possible. There is a bit of a conflict we would have to address, however, since there is no industrial-philosophical leader. Do we go industrial to get the pyramids thus opening the very powerful SE civic representation (we can also get the parthenon in a production city to help increase GS generation)? Or do we go philosophical for more and earlier GSs with the possibility of not getting the pyramids? I don't think this is an easy question to answer. I would also like to see us lightbulbing philosophy early and not delaying getting access to mercantilism. Essentially, I'd like to see us running a lot of scientists under representation-caste system-mercantilism-pacificism.

-Once we secure a sufficient # of GSs (to be decided), I'd like to see us use the rarely-used civic serfdom to transition our land to a CE. Then use emancipation to grow our cottages (we will have the capital cottaged for bureaucracy) to the point where free speech and universal sufferage are beneficial. Essentially, I'd like to see us working a lot of towns under universal sufferage-bureaucracy-free speech-free market-free religion. I'd like us to trigger a number of golden ages during the latter eras, so we still want to be generating gp and will want to target the taj mahal.

-Clearly, I am talking about a lot of civic switching here, so one excellent candidate trait is Spiritual. However, philosophical and financial also have to be candidate traits, along with industrious. As I see it, potential leaders are: Rameses (Spi/Ind), Gandhi (Spi/Phi), Mansa (Spi/Fin), Liz (Phi/Fin), and Huayna (Fin/Ind). Of course these are all great leaders! The question is, which one will allow us to maximize a transition economy space race (TESR) victory? I think we want to try and shoot for a sub-1800 finish.

My interest in this game is my belief that a transition economy is the "best" way to play the game, with the SE shining in the earlier eras and the CE shining in the latter eras. The difficulty with it, however, is pulling off the transition and trying to maximize the efficiency of each during their respective eras. I think we will need to go into this with a lot of planning and commitment. And I would like us to use a number of screenshots and encourage a lot of discussion so that it can serve as a valuable resource to the civ community (there is always a lot of interest in running SE vs. CE on these forums and I expect a TE will also generate interest).

Let me know if you're interested in coming on board

I forgot to add that during the transition, it would be a good idea to use all of our workers to change one city at a time rather than all of our cities slowly. That would mean that we can still have some cities running specialists (no caste system, but can run a mix of merchants, scientists, and engineers, which are all good) while the others start to become commerce cities. This is a good tip I picked up on these boards. It also would mean that representation would still be useful throughout the transition period and then would eventually give way to universal sufferage. Ideally we would finish cottaging up by the time democracy comes on board so we can switch out to emancipation and have our entire empire ready for it.

That's what I think is so challenging about the TE: the timing of everything.

I'll give it a try. I need some shakeup in my old habits and I'm trying to break the CE habit.

I'm signing myself up to lurk this thread: I don't have any serious SE experience, and would like to follow your approach of using it when it seems most powerful. That said, if you don't get a lot of interest (though I don't forsee that problem), I could sign-up to play.

Cool, nice to have you guys on board this discussion. So, let's discuss. There are a lot of different elements to look at, but maybe we should discuss the traits since that seems like an easy enough starting place?

futurehermit said:

As I see it, potential leaders are: Rameses (Spi/Ind), Gandhi (Spi/Phi), Mansa (Spi/Fin), Liz (Phi/Fin), and Huayna (Fin/Ind).

Click to expand...

This looks like a very interesting game. I would be interested in playing if a slot is still available.

Re traits, I would downplay industrial as the only critical wonder is pyramids and that can be secured via stone. It seems a waste to use up one of our traits just to help get that wonder. I think that Phi/Fin goes really well with what you are trying. Phi for the early SE and Fin for the later CE.

I'd like to come aboard for this game as well. Perhaps it is taboo for two people to be simulatenously participating in two different succession games at once, I'm not certain. If it isn't, let me preface by saying this is exactly how I prefer to play my games and I do believe it is the 'best' way to play (aside from all out warfare with shaka from start to finish - I love impi spam).

I'm going to address you OP in reverse order.

If a good TE hasn't been documented here at the site, then I think this is an excellent idea. To be done properly though, everybody (or at least a majority rule) needs to be on the same page. Rogue turnsets will slow it down, and it's all about speed and precision.

I'd have to disagree that the financial trait should be used in picking a leader though. If a leader is financial, you should be cottaging from start to finish, otherwise the trait is a waste. Gandhi is probably the best leader for the TE. Louis is a close second. I also like Ramses, Mehmed, Augustus, Freddy, and Roosevelt. The approach you want to take factors into which leader is best. Louis with stone = pyramids + cheap libraries + the ability to lock down some land culturally. We could argue back and forth on leaders but don't have to. I believe the best traits for this strategy are (in no particular order): philosophical, industrious, creative, and organzied. They all have heavy strengths. True, with financial, every cottage would be an extra coin late game, but this game is really won in the middle era and a strong beginning serves as the mid game fuel. Of course, I'm speaking from a monarch perspective and the game defnitely changes from level to level.

The spiritual trait, to me, is a take it or leave it thing. Some of the leaders I named have it, and it does prove useful, but with proper planning and good diplomacy, you can always get the techs requiring civic changes in bunches. Personally, I think the spiritual trait makes me careless. Gandhi is the exception here, coupled with philo

Serfdom is definitely a must in this strategy and I agree it is best to pave over cities as one instead of piece by piece spread out. The key is finiding the right time to make the switch to emancipation, and then free speech (hopefully right about the time state property becomes available). Another caveat here with emperor is I usually pacifism for almost the whole game. My only other emperor experience is another current succession game and what it has taught me is that if your most widespread religion isn't popular with others, don't run it. That certainly presents a rut with running pacifism for eons.

Once there is a list of players, we can talk about what is best for a start, or what people would like to do, then decide on a leader.

Anyway, apologies for the long diatribe, I'd like to be 'in'.

If you got space (and patience) I'll give this one a go. Getting fairly comfortable on monarch but not moved up to emperor. I understand the theory of SE but its not something I've tried consciously or consistently. I suspect that many people play some version of a transition economy without realising it or trying to optimise it.

I'm up for this too, as it seems rather interesting, and is more or less what I like to do.

Hey guys, it seems like there are a lot of monarch players so far? If everyone could post their usual skill level, that would help a lot. If we have a range of monarch, emperor, and immortal players then we can go emperor. If, however, we have mostly monarch players then it would probably be better to play monarch.

I'd really rather have a very solid monarch game won in the 1700s than a subpar emperor game won in the 1900s. Make sense?

I totally agree with Johnny Rico that *rogue turnsets will be severely frowned upon in this game* since precise timing will be important at times. So, if you are going to play, please please please read and contribute to the discussion and let's come to some consensus before playing on. I have no problem, for example, with giving someone more time to play their turn if something happens mid-turn that is unexpected.

Ok, let's keep discussing traits, I like what I've seen so far.

Industrious: I'm leaning toward this one, primarily for pyramids (stone is a rarity), but it also has a use for other wonders (e.g., GL, Parthenon, Taj Mahal, Statue of Liberty, etc. etc.). It applies to national wonders too, doesn't it? NE, Oxford, Wall Street, etc. I think pyramids is really huge for the SE in the earlier ages, so that is something to really consider.

Financial: Does a financial leader need to lay down cottages from the very beginning? I would argue no, but I can see the point. This is something we could discuss further.

Spiritual: If we land pyramids, I don't see us transfering a lot between rep and the mil civic (forget its name atm), so no problem there. I also see us staying in pacificism and mercantilism and bureaucracy for a long time. So, things are pretty stable there. However, the other category is more difficult. We will probably want to switch out between caste system and slavery a bit (maybe more than a bit) and then we have serfdom and emancipation to consider as well. Is it the best trait? I'm not sure...

Philosophical: I agree it is good

Organized: I'm not sold on this one. I agree it gives a great start, but I consider it moreso for a warmongerer than a space race. It just loses too much steam mid-to-late game to be a real contender for me as a space race trait. I know that traits are less of an issue as the game goes on, but remember we are trying to *maximize* things here. What that means is of course debatable.

Creative: I feel much the same way about creative as I do about organized: it is great early, but loses steam. As such, I like it a lot more as a warmongering trait than a space race trait.

However, I love the discussion and don't want my opinion to hold sway. I'd like things to proceed as democratically as possible

Anyways, once we get a difficulty level and leader sorted out, I'll roll a start and start a game thread.

How do people feel about these settings: Warlords, Monarch/Emperor, Fractal (or Continents, not Pangaea), Standard, Normal, Default?

• Game Level: Very comfortable on Monarch but looking for reasons to move up. Would like it to be at Emperor.
• Civ Version: Vanilla or Warlords - don't care
• Speed: Epic with 15 turn sets instead of 10? Happy with anything except Quick.
• Map: Balanced? I am liking this map more and more.
• Barbs: Yes.
• Traits: Ideal is Phi/Ind but that is not in the game ... so, Phi/Spi

Edit: Wait - isn't Phi/Ind Gandhi in Warlords? That means his UU is available all game long and will speed up the transition process! Image quick workers, under serfdom with the +50% The Hagia Sophia (or Steam Power) converting farms to cottages!

If the goal is to devise and demonstrate a rock solid template utilizing the TE that will benefit others here, monarch is probably the way to go. I'd like to give this a shot at emperor, but I think you're right for a few reasons.

1. More people here probably play monarch than emperor.

2. monarch difficulty will allow us to better reach our goals and make them more easily attained. I've found at times that when you're set on playing one game a particular way, the AI seems to throw a lot wrenches at you inhibiting what you're trying to do and forcing a different direction. If we try to force a strategy on emperor, given the average level of experience, it might be a template on what not to do.

3. I agree with your statement on a launch on monarch in the 1700's vs. an emperor launch in the 1900's.

Traits:

Industrious: I agree with you and think wonders should be a focus of our efforts. For the TE game, I suppose they aren't a requirement, but I like building wonders anyway. All of the wonders you mention should be in our sights. Not to mention the ironworks, space elevator, and possibly the hagia sophia (if we don't use a spiritual leader, the hagia can often substitute for serfdom allowing for an easier transition from the SE to the CE by allowing for max specialists under caste system and reducing civics changes - however, we'd really need to be rolling to divert to engineering, as it is a tech off the main path). Also, it should be mentioned that forges and factories are half price.

financial: If only it had more benefits than the +1 on tiles with two commerce. It just seems the usefulness of this trait comes too late in a game. I'm open and will roll with the masses of course.

Spiritual: Police State, with the 'mids, it's very useful early before representation can be fully used. The bonus production goes a long way. And you're right, swapping between slavery and caste system works great here, but that will require some serious coordination in a succession game. If we go this route and use it extensively (whipping hard, starving cities to use more scientists, etc), it might be worth passing turns based on switching these civics; just an idea.

Philosophical:

Organized: My only argument here is that bureaucracy is good to run for a long time, and it is expensive. This trait helps there. Cheap courthouses are obvious. It does fizzle late game, but is useful for most of it.

Creative: Cheap libraries. Man, vanilla freddy rocked.

Maps:

Fractal: Too unpredictable, if we're looking to make a template, this map might not suffice

Pangaea: War, anyone?

Continents: Nice and neutral, easiest on us.

Tough decision on a leader.

Couple of thoughts:

1) Gandhi would be a great choice. However...

2) I was thinking maybe it would be best if we did a leader that was NEITHER phil or fin since either of those traits really do suggest one economy or the other. However...

3) Alternatively, we could use Liz who is BOTH phil and fin.

4) I would really prefer normal speed since we won't be warring extensively and I would prefer it didn't drag out forever, if that is ok

5) I can be convinced on the map, although I have the most experience with continents and fractal. What is the balanced map, I don't think I've ever played it?

EDIT: How about we go continents then? Monarch also sounds good. We want this to be a resounding success and most people on the boards play monarch or lower.

Potential leaders: Gandhi? Rameses? Liz? I think Rameses would be my choice for a leader that has neither phil nor fin and liz obviously has both. Gandhi's UU is indeed solid for what we are planning...

Good call on the Hagia Sophia. If we are industrious and go for the Hagia Sophia, maybe we can bypass the need for serfdom making spiritual less of a priority? Let's see...If we are industrious and build the parthenon we get 1/2 the advantage of the philosophical trait during the critical time of the SE. If we build the hagia sophia we get a similar benefit as running serfdom during the critical time of transition (we would have to time getting the hagia sophia though...). It will also let us build the pyramids. Overall, it looks like a good trait. Protective is kinda lame, but Qin's starting techs are the best in the game imho (can start ah-bw). I'm not suggesting Qin, just making a note here as I look over the industrial leaders.

Ruff,

I think Gandhi was Ind/Spi in vanilla, he's definitely Phi/Spi in warlords.

futurehermit said:

Couple of thoughts:

1) Gandhi would be a great choice. However...

2) I was thinking maybe it would be best if we did a leader that was NEITHER phil or fin since either of those traits really do suggest one economy or the other. However...

3) Alternatively, we could use Liz who is BOTH phil and fin.

4) I would really prefer normal speed since we won't be warring extensively and I would prefer it didn't drag out forever, if that is ok

5) I can be convinced on the map, although I have the most experience with continents and fractal. What is the balanced map, I don't think I've ever played it?

Click to expand...

I like the idea of choosing traits that do not support either economy. Perhaps Ramses then. I also would prefer normal speed but don't know what a balanced map is.

Level: With a preponderance of monarch level players its probably better to go monarch as this is going to be a demo/experimental type game rather than a scrape-a-win-anyway-we-can type game.

Speed: Epic or normal, I prefer epic but its not a big deal.

Map: I like continents as naval stuff gets brought into the equation but there's enough land stuff to balance it out. Don't know balanced: is that the one where all civs get all major resources within ten tiles of start?

Traits/Leader: either traits than favour both SE and CE ( Liz) or traits that favour neither (so no industrious, philosophical or financial) which gives a lot more choice. What about Asoka (spiritual and organised, both good traits but not overtly powerful)? Ramses would be ok too (even if he is industrious).

If you are looking for a strong overall leader (FE or CE), I would pick Nappy... ...charism & org are strong in early game, no matter what sort of eco. you try

Btw. great idea future, I´m going to follow this

A balanced map is a single continent style map that results in the resources being very, well, balanced (see guide here). It doesn't actually say very much ...

map guide said:

Balanced

Global Map: World Wrap left to right
Oceanic Map: 84 plots wide, 52 plots tall, at "Standard" map size
Balanced Strategics: This map script will ensure that all players have the key strategic resources within four plots of their starting location.

Click to expand...

There is no opportunity to war on someone because they don't have a critical resource. You also see some very strange clumping of resources that you would swear are WB'ed in.

Epic speed is well scaled between tech rate and unit / building build (v normal) so i don't think there is a difference between Epic and Normal (just 15 rounds instead of 10). Marathon is not balanced (tech is slower, unit is faster) and ideal for war-ing. Don't really care either way. JUST NOT QUICK!

Yeah...I don't like the sounds of the balanced map

Can we agree on: Warlords, Monarch, Continents, Normal, Standard, Default?

I think that Rameses II is a killer choice for a leader. I'd really like to nab the pyramids early on to really showcase the power of the SE. Of course, no philosophical, but the parthenon can help with that. The AI NEVER targets it and it is regularly still available well into the ADs in my games (where I don't nab it early).

BTW, Here are some notes from a trial game I ran through quickly today with Rameses (settings same as above). I only played to around 800AD.

1) Pyramids rox, just plain rox. They are so great. Having representation early is just a huge bonus, both the happiness and the extra beakers on scientists. 9 beakers/scientist + gpp is just awesome that early in the game.

2) GSs come noticeably slower without philosophical. I had a brain-lapse and forgot to build the parthenon. I think if we go with Rameses that we need to target the Parthenon as well! In the games where I've done this it makes a noticeable difference.

3) I think we need to consider beelining banking after COL. I'd really like to see us get mercantilism online early and the AI on monarch especially just take way to long to research it on their own. We would have to discuss how to go about this, but I really think that mercantilism is part of maximizing the SE early on. With the boost it gives to our economy we can then turn around and blast through liberalism in plenty of time (we can be stockpiling GSs in the meantime as well).

4) I didn't have copper or horses so I wasn't able to attack early. Probably wouldn'tve mattered because my only close opponent was Mansa (Brennus and Wang also on my continent) and he's hard to attack early with his skirmishers. I was able to whip out settlers/workers to the point where I had 6 total cities, which was quite nice actually. I was down to 0% science for a short time, but got it back to 70% later. I was preparing to hit Mansa around 700-800 AD with Maces and Catas. Later than I wanted to, but I wasn't maximizing my play, just testing some stuff, mostly the economy.

5) Overall, I really love how the SE plays out early w/pyramids. Your base tech pace is superb and you get GSs to boot, which you put toward lightbulbing key techs. We have to be careful to avoid teching to machinery though if we want to lightbulb liberalism (this is debatable). I think Rameses is a great choice being neither financial nor philosophical. Liz would also be a great choice, being both, but she is less representative I would say so Rameses would probably be better.

Can we agree on Rameses and then I will roll a start?

I quickly ran through 2 more test games tonight with Rameses. Played up to around 400AD or so. There is some real power to be leveraged here folks. Real power. I was churning out some serious beakers. In my last game I was able to build pyramids, great wall, parthenon (in a different city), NE, GL (rushed with 1st GE), and Colossus (lots of coast, was first to MC and had copper) while going to war with HC and ended up in 1st place by 400AD. I used pacificism to pump out great people (1 was a GA, but I was first to bulb music, so that was ok). Unfortunately, I delayed CoL because I thought I could first trade it from HC and then sue for it, but both didn't work So, note to the group: don't delay CoL.

Re: Beelining Banking. It probably won't be easy, but I think it would be beneficial. Machinery can be lightbulbed (which unfortunately will negate our ability to lightbulb liberalism), but feudalism, guilds, and banking are not (with GSs). We might consider trying for GMs, although I'm not sure how that would work exactly.

I think we should make a list of the SE-related things (wonders, civics, etc.) for the first 3 eras and discuss how we should go about pursuing them. We can then do a similar one for transitioning and CE-related things for the late game.

What do you think?