Dingding’s Deity Challenge – Gandhi: India’s Conquest

It seems even at deity there are still player strengths/weaknesses. Dingding seems very mindful of AI manipulation and combined with some decent diplo and opportunism that should cross the finish line @ deity.

I still can't put up 8 cities + 200 BPT on deity myself. Well, that's not true, 200 BPT is pretty reasonable at 100% science, losing a lot of money/turn, but the AI never seems to have enough available to sustain that, and I don't time wonder failure well enough.

My past few games I've realized I was still overbuilding infra and adjusting allowed me to better decide when to use caste. Immortal's getting a little easy now (in MS prime sully I settled 17 cities peacefully @ IMM and still won lib) but I still like it .

I wouldn't say this map is hard compared to some deity games that have spanked me, but it's a lot easier than if we'd started alongside shaka, gilgamesh, tokugawa or sitting bull.

An excellent play, Duckweed! Thank you for setting an example of an ordinary playstyle in this game! Your skills are really impressive and you show some new dimensions for me.

You also make me realize that what is interesting to me in this thread is not the discussion about the best strategy. The very precious thing I enjoy is the different ways of thinking. Like:

Duckweed said:

There're many advantages that REXing with a reasonable tech position over significant smaller empire with a little more advanced tech position.

Click to expand...

I mean if we focus on a Renaissance Expansion (turn 170+), your point is true.

To my mind, there are 3 stages of a game:
1) Opening (turn 0-100)
2) Control (turn 100-200)
3) Garbage Time (turn 200-300)

The second one is the most important one of the game. If the game is well controlled at this stage, you can finish it with your eyes closed. And techs are important ways of controlling AIs atm: enable the bribery; stop an unexpected war; improve the diplomatic relations, etc. Game controlled = Incertitude reduced = better chance to win. This kind of value is usually immaterial and unable to be measured by figures.

Duckweed said:

I rarely build any cannons and artillery since I think they are awkward to use.

Click to expand...

To chase an early conquest, Cuirassier is a very good choice, while usually I prefer Cannons to Cuirassiers: they are slow but more reliable in a difficult battle. And they seem to be a better way to beat a 10+ cities giant who has already got Rifle even AL, when we are behind. They are so reliable that I usually count on them when aiming for an NO/SL play, it's not the case this time though.


I really want to say it’s a pleasure to share my game and my thinking with you all. CFC never lacks of good players or good thinking, while it strikes to me that some particular ways on Deity are still expected here. In the future, I’ll try to share more of my games, even some of them seem crazy and ridiculous.

Thank you for your opinion!

Dirk1302 said:

Actually i think it would have gone better since you would have build settlers/workers instead of assigning scientists.

Click to expand...

Dirk1302 said:

I looked at your 1 ad screenshot you have 75 bpt, that's quite low and you don't even have 10 cities to show for it.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'm able to convince everyone to accept this playstyle, or to treat it as an ordinary way. I just want to mention things can be totally different if you think in another way:

You can see my bpt is actually 94 in 1AD (instead of 75). But I have one oracle and 2 scientists working in the capital under Pacifism. Oracle gives 6 GPP and one spe offers 9GPP per turn. I've already got 4 GP so the next one needs 500GP. He worths 1200-1600 beakers so an oracle and two spe in the capital offer 1400/500 x (9 x 2 + 6) = 67.2 bpt.

If we are used to playing in one way rather than in another, things which are crucial in the other way can be easily ignored in our own way of thinking. It may be more important for me to explain how and why this way works than to convince you to accept it.

To pku_dwest:

To TheMeInTeam:

Sorry I don't have much time to update this week. Maybe I'll release updates this WK but not sure

Any chance somebody could clue me in on what NO/SL stands for?

Awesome thread by the way. I haven't been so drawn into beaker-per-turn comparisons and so on since Obsolete started posting his unconventional wonderspam games, and that improved my game immensely. Dingding is quite right that thinking about things from a different angle to your habit is a great way to get into a learning frame of mind, even if the new angle itself seems absurd. Even if the new angle is, in fact, absurd, although I'm not suggesting at all that is the case here.

dingding said:

You can see my bpt is actually 94 in 1AD (instead of 75). But I have one oracle and 2 scientists working in the capital under Pacifism. Oracle gives 6 GPP and one spe offers 9GPP per turn. I've already got 4 GP so the next one needs 500GP. He worths 1200-1600 beakers so an oracle and two spe in the capital offer 1400/500 x (9 x 2 + 6) = 67.2 bpt.

Click to expand...

When doing this kind of calculation, you will also have to account for certain bonuses when doing normal research. These include:

1) Bonuses for having prerequisites, at +20% per prerequisite

2) Bonuses for knowing AIs that know the tech, at +10%? (not sure about the exact number) per AI

Another thing to account for is the increased cost of Great People every time you get a new one. So for example, by spending 100 GPP on the 1st one you can use it to bulb Philosophy for 1400 beakers, for example. But immediately upon gaining the 1st one, your cost of a Great Person increases from 100 to 200 GPP.

It's only fair, when counting these costs and gains, to distribute the additional cost of the next GP between the current one and the next one. This is because not investing in a GP in the first place would not result in an increase in GPP cost. In the above example, this would mean that to estimate the cost more accurately we should split the 100 GPP increase in cost between the 1st and 2nd GPs.

So, when the increased GP cost is taken into consideration, the adjusted cost of the 1st one would be 150 GPP, the 2nd one 250 GPP, the 3rd one 350 GPP, and so forth.

Going back to your example, assuming the GS is used on Education (with 1 prerequisite, and no AIs know it), a 20% bonus is gained with normal research, with about 1600 beakers for the bulb. This makes the equivalent beaker amount of the bulb 1600/1.20.

The 500 GPP cost of the GS should be adjusted to 550 GPP to account for the increase in cost (it is divided evenly between the current one and the next one).

And further adjustments need to be made for the fact that other players have ~2-3 gp (i often win the music race around 300 bc) on top of the 200 bpt as well around 1 ad. It's often possible to have more gp but a choice is made to keep working cottages. With some patience it's often possible to get philo from ais. I sometimes wait for that as one gs is spared this way, then switch to paci and gpp production getting 3 gp's out in ~12 turns if necessary. Oracle means you might get a great prophet, now that's really helpful.

Well see how your game continues.

Kid R, No/SL mean no save and reload to replay a turn, excluding the normal load when you restart your playing sessions.

dingding said:

To my mind, there are 3 stages of a game:
1) Opening (turn 0-100)
2) Control (turn 100-200)
3) Garbage Time (turn 200-300)

The second one is the most important one of the game. If the game is well controlled at this stage, you can finish it with your eyes closed. And techs are important ways of controlling AIs atm: enable the bribery; stop an unexpected war; improve the diplomatic relations, etc. Game controlled = Incertitude reduced = better chance to win. This kind of value is usually immaterial and unable to be measured by figures.

Click to expand...

On Deity, I believe the opening is the most important and REX is the safest approach. Without a solid opening, the later phases will be steep uphill battle. More land = higher self-research capability and much higher hammers for wars. Higher self-research capability is more flexible than relying on bulbing (too many restrictions and too complicated), and when AIs take on unexpected tech path it can screw up our bulbing plans too (as in this game, WvO got Philo at 400BC).

There are not much diff among our games so far besides your sacrificing early expansion for a super early Oracle and putting higher emphasis on earlier GPersons.

No/SL - Thanks for the answers. No S/L would be clearer

@Kid R
it's no save/load, i.e. to complete the game in one session.

I agree with ABCF, i think bulbing can be very strong especially if we don't have too much land and we really need to have more soon. As in the victoria doctorate game that obs posted. If you have 10 good cities you can wait with the push for a while and bulbing/winning lib becomes less important. One of the toughest deity maps i played was ABCF's ww2 map. Had good expansion there but a renaissance war was not on. I found out for the first time then that you can win such games by just building. But you can't do that with 6 cities. In hindsight i could have played that map better, lots of things i didn't know yet then. But as it went it made for a huge civ4 experience.

Its been two weeks! Don't tell me the thread died.... I am a sad immortal player hoping to win a deity game one day and liked this thread a lot. To make matters worse my own computer has died and while waiting for a replacement this forum is all I got!!!

Save me please...

OK, seems that I should continue the tread before I forget it I’ve never left a thread unfinished so I promise to finish it before CIV 5. And maybe I’ll have time to post a Toku one before it’s too late.

Very sorry for the delay but you know real life is as easy as a game in Civ, but after having read some battle reports which had lasted for over a year, I admit I felt much better. But still sorry for Lynxx

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So let’s back to the game with some reminders of our philosophy about a normal rhythm I call Renaissance Expansion. (I thought this terms was only used by Asian players but I don't think people in CFC will have difficulty to understand it.)

We have stepped into 1AD (turn 115) and the most fortunate thing is I’m still alive. I seem 1AD, if not several turns earlier, as a beginning of a new era, both to human player and to AI.

For the human player, at the beginning of this new phase of the game, we have normally completed the upper Classic tech tree (Monarchy, CoL, Maths, Currency, etc.) and obtained at least one of the Middle-Ages techs (CS, Feudalism, Philo). That means after a long and usually painful opening (t0-t100), we have finally settled down, grown some crucial cottages, started to gain money from our precious foreign trade roads and resource trades, getting ready to lightbulb the road to Liberalism.

The lightbulbing is worth a special mention. Firstly, it seems to be the most lucrative beakers in whole game, allowing with a 100-300GP-cost GS to bulb a 1000-1600 beakers’ tech (Philo, Paper, Education, Printing or Astronomy). Moreover, the beakers are cheap and FAST. A GM may make the same amount of beakers with 900-1300 gold but it can’t be converted in one turn. Time should be considered as a COST: yes, we’re not only talking about obtaining the techs but obtaining them BEFORE the others.

Techs are important in this particular era (turn 100-200) I called Control period. Let me explain in detail.

As for AI, situation is quite different in this period. Wars before turn 100 are seldom considered decisive – let’s see what they can obtain: good land (but cottages can’t be decently developed), some early wonders (the GLH is good, the Pyramid is not bad as well and the Oracle or GW seem out) or an early Shrine at the very best. After Feudalism which shall appear at exactly around t100 in Deity however, AI gains new power from vassaling, voluntary or not, the others. Needless to say, vassal state(s) and their land strengthen their economic and military power. That’s usually how most of the undefeatable monsters are created.

Good news is AI prioritizes Feudalism and Engineering very very much - Longbows and Castles hinder a great deal the early Vassaling of another. Bad news is it’s not always working. Human player is supposed to balance the game before it's out of CONTROL, but in a particular playstyle of Cuirassier/Cannon/Rifle expansion, he doesn't keep a powerful military force to get involved in the war. Therefore, techs become the most powerful weapon we have: to bribe the other AIs to hinder the best one, or to bribe the best rival to slow down his vassaling, or to provide the weak AI with powerful techs. This is what I call Control: player should be the essential factor to balance the different powers and ensure all of them are in your control.

Civ 4 is 50% about self development and 50% about diplomacy. In the first 100 turns we’ll mostly handle the first subject, and in the following 100 turns it’s about how to get the game in control. When we realize it, we’ll find a surprising coincidence here: the first techs valuable enough alone for bribery of DoW are exactly Philosophy /CS /Feudalism. That is the mechanism of the game.

I don’t mean if you don’t have any tech advantage at the middle of the game, we’ll certainly lose it. Techs advantages are the best way, at least in this playstyle, to reduce the uncertainty of the game by limiting your rivals. Less risk = more chance to win, we’ll return to this function.Some may argue that the early stage of expansion and development (at the starting 100 turns) is much more important than this so-call Control period (t100-200). It’s reasonable to some extent. Deity beginners would probably face the main problem with their peacemonger skills (expansion and development in the early 100 turns) even with a fantastic land, but advanced Deity players, as those who have participated in this discussion above, are unlikely to have serious expansion difficulties. Given a good land (or a very bad one), they may have different early strategies that lead to the same result sooner or later, but in a general situation, I reckon, that’s the latter game that makes the real difference.

It seems too long. Anyone tell me if it's too boring to read this?

I am following. I don't mind the length.

Hell no. Keep going...

Don't worry about length, or of your initial feelings of inadequacy for the English language. None of that matters when your thought process is transparent and coherently written. Trust me, you're way ahead of my high school students in both departments.

dingding said:

Civ 4 is 50% about self development and 50% about diplomacy. In the first 100 turns we’ll mostly handle the first subject, and in the following 100 turns it’s about how to get the game in control. When we realize it, we’ll find a surprising coincidence here: the first techs valuable enough alone for bribery of DoW are exactly Philosophy /CS /Feudalism. That is the mechanism of the game.

Click to expand...

I like this summary...this summarizes the game in a nutshell.

I would like to add, though, that Music also belongs in that list of important techs, with the possible inclusion of Theology as well.

If we say Civ 4 is 50% about development and 50% about diplomacy, we’ll find I haven’t done anything for the other 50% part yet. I don’t know exactly what are my other five rivals are doing, that's bad: incertitude creates risk.

There are, however, some important things we can know about them.
1. Two religions are founded there (Buddhism and Christianity) and Buddhi is likely to be dominating. (Mostly bad: techs would be faster among them)
2. GGs were born. Warmonger(s) is set to appear. (Mostly good: they are easy to bribe.)
3. They’ve got all the wonders (till Pantheon and MoM, but the GL and Colossus are not yet built) except the Oracle, and 3 capitals share most of these wonders. (Bad: wonders help their economy; Good: Cultural victory is impossible to achieve very early, like before turn 270).
4. Their techs can’t be better than me according to my experience. (Good)

From this analysis, my situation seems more good than bad, but that won’t change my mind: Optics is needed to discover the other continent. Early contact = early control. So:

Turn 123: Machinery is completed.
Turn 127: Compass is completed. A GS lightbulbs Optics.
Turn 128: Two triremes are upgraded to Caravels, heading separately for the east and the west.

We are Sailing~~

Wow. This thread and discussion is most interesting.

And as for your language skills, well, you're writing the best English of all Frenchmen I've ever seen excusing themselves for their bad English.

Delhi is struggling against an undead bar

Click to expand...

Quotes like this are wonderful. They convince me you are indeed French.

(Absolutely no mockery intended, I just am impressed by your language skills. Had your English been textbook perfect, I would not have been nearly so impressed)

And by the way, that's just the language part. Your confidence and detailed discussion show a deep level of mastery of the game too.

Threads like these remind me why I love this game. Wonder which other game that can generate such new thought so many years after release... I can just hope we'll be having the same level of discourse about Civ 5 in 2014...!

Keep up the incredible work!

Regards,
Zapp