Challenge: Earliest UHVs with the Final patch

The challenge is to post your screenshots/save of your earliest UHVs for each of these civs and provide an overview of your main strategy. The challenge is specific to Monarch level, BTS v3.19 and RFC v1.187. 3000BC and 600AD starts will be listed separately. The records will be listed in this first post, which I will update when necessary.

New virtual UHVs wit the latest patch are underlined and the old ones aren't. A virtual UHV is when you have fulfilled all three of the UHV requirements prior to any deadlines which may be stated with certain UHV conditions. For example, controlling a certain area at a certain date can possibly be virtually achieved at an earlier date. Virtual UHVs should be confirmed with a screenshot/save from both the year that all of the UHV conditions were fulfilled and also the actual UHV year, when the game recognises your victory. This will prove that your empire is actually capable of achieving the UHV, without the random number generator destroying your empire or something else generally going wrong along the way.

Because this is the last patch and there have been some changes, some the old records are cleared. These civs are mostly listed in the 4th post. Meaning that you shouldn't care too much about those previous records achieved with earlier patches listed on the right. I haven't cleared the old records from this post, because they give us some nice comparison (don't worry if you far behind as some of those records might be impossible to achieve with the final patch). Currently at least those records on the left side are permanent. The new records will be listed and stay there until somebody beats them!

3000BC starts:

Egypt: 700BC (Jusos2108)

India: 760BC (Steb) 1.186

China: 365AD (usi) 1.186

Babylon: 1175BC (elnegro) 1.186

Greece: 220BC (blizzrd) 1.186

Persia: 190BC (Jusos2108)

Carthage: 305AD (Jusos2108)

Rome: 115BC (Jusos2108)

Japan: 1680AD (usi)

Ethiopia: 230AD (TDK) 1.186

Maya: 700AD (usi) 1.186

Vikings: 1210AD (usi)

Arabia: 1020AD (usi) 1.186

Khmer: 1150AD (Isahn) 1.186

Spain: 1200AD (Zagoroth) 1.186

France: 1485AD (Zagoroth)1.186

England: 1565AD (Steb) 1.186

Germany: no current record
Russia: 1685AD (blizzrd)

Dutch: no current record Mali: no current record Portugal: no current record Inca: no current record Mongolia: 1400AD (usi) 1.186

Aztecs: 1703AD (blizzrd) 1.186

Turkey: 1510AD (Steb) 1.186

America: no current record

600AD starts:

China: no current record

Japan: Vikings: no current record Arabia: no current record Khmer: no current record Spain: 1320AD (TDK) 1.186

France: no current record England: 1445AD (usi) 1.186

Germany: 1876 1870AD (krieger546) (pending)

Russia: 1650AD (blizzrd)

Dutch: no current record Mali: no current record Portugal: no current record Inca: 1415AD (TDK)

Mongolia: 1405AD (usi) 1.186

Aztecs: 1685AD (blizzrd) 1.186

Turkey: 1405AD TDK

America: 1922AD (blizzrd)


P.S. See previous threads of this challenge: patch 1.186 and patch 1.184 for tips!

P.P.S. Special thanks to blizzrd for keeping this up so far and providing the base for this!

I'd like to point out that in the last patch only Netherlands, Germany and Portugal are weaker. Therefore, only for those 3 civs makes sense to replace the current record. All the other civs weren't particularly affected (maybe Ethiopia inadvertently, judging for another thread around here), so the records could apply as well to the new patch I think.

So please, keep on this competition, but overwrite the record written in the wiki only if it's better than the old one, or if the civ is one of the above mentioned.

Pikemen in Pataliputra makes Khmer and Arabia much harder.

Those records in brackets are from patch 1.184. Since that there have been lot of changes, so we would have to decide a civ by civ, which records are kept. Although, that's fine for me, but I would appreciate some help listing them. So far we should erase at least these records:

600AD
-Khmer
-Germany
-Portugal
-Netherlands


3000BC
-Germany
-Portugal
-Netherlands

Maybe:
-Russia/Japan (tech rate in 600AD start slowed down)

I got Persia in 85BC, with a little luck those three turns can be shaved off. For example, the extra troops from Babylonian declaration and a pre-built great prophet generator in Dilli (Oracle/Stonehenge).

With some barbarian Triremes added, the Viking UHV has become a lot easier.
I just virtually won the UHV on 1210, and I believe it's still improvable.

GPs
I realied heavily on GPs. Compass, Optics, and (partially) Astronomy were bulbed by GSs.
The only tech I had to fully research by myself was Guilds.

Be very careful not to get Meditation and suchlikes, for they make your GS bulb something you don't need.
Only Calendar is what you need to get through tech trades.

I got 2 GSs from Kalmer and 1 GS from Nidros.
I also got a GM from Kalmer, but it didn't give me much money.

Cities
IMO, Kalmer is a must, since it is a great GP farm.
To virtually win early, there is no time to construct a lot of buildings, and I didn't even build a Library.
Only Markets and (in some cities) Harbors deserve to be built.

Pillaging
It is very important that you pillage. Pillaging a village usually gives you 100+ golds.
I even gifted Lulea once to portugal so that I can pillage.

Other things to note
People going for a quick Viking VV are strongly encouraged to read this post about gifting your ships.

EDIT:
Forgot to mention conquoring Britain.
I guess people already know about the AI's strange behavior of moving all the units away from the capital.
But let me just add that refusing to flip only means that for some turns your units near the opponent's spawn area will flip.
So, if you move (by Galleys) or delete your military units near there, you won't be in any trouble.
You might lose some of your Workers (who were English Settlers), but you can get them back after the flipping thing is over.

Very nice! Never tried the Viking UHV with those technigues, but maybe I'll give it a try.

Thanks!
The 600AD start for Vikings is probably not working right (no Worker), so if you try, be sure to choose 3000BC start.

Jusos2108 said:

Virtual UHVs are underlined. A virtual UHV is when you have fulfilled all three of the UHV requirements prior to any deadlines which may be stated with certain UHV conditions. For example, controlling a certain area at a certain date can possibly be virtually achieved at an earlier date. Virtual UHVs should be confirmed with a screenshot from both the year that all of the UHV conditions were fulfilled and also the actual UHV year, when the game recognises your victory. This will prove that your empire is actually capable of achieving the UHV, without the random number generator destroying your empire or something else generally going wrong along the way.

Click to expand...

I really don't understand this thing about virtual UHVs. IMHO there is no such thing, if the condition is at a certain date rather than "by" a certain date you must fulfill it at that exact date and not before or after, and there are valid reasons for this. You might collapse, a city might declare independence or you might lose a war, plague might screw your population condition one turn before the deadline (India anyone?). So, let's say... I can definitely win Egypt UHV anytime I play. Does this mean I win a virtual UHV at 3000BC ?
Another question how did anyone win the Roman UHV in 100BC? It isn't underline but even if it was virtual it would make even less sense than the examples I made before, since the barbarian invasions and european civs can seriously threaten your empire, so the earliest Roman UHV is always 1000AD in the last version, shouldn't even be listed just like other fixed deadline victories.

onedreamer said:

I really don't understand this thing about virtual UHVs. IMHO there is no such thing, if the condition is at a certain date rather than "by" a certain date you must fulfill it at that exact date and not before or after, and there are valid reasons for this. You might collapse, a city might declare independence or you might lose a war, plague might screw your population condition one turn before the deadline (India anyone?). So, let's say... I can definitely win Egypt UHV anytime I play. Does this mean I win a virtual UHV at 3000BC ?
Another question how did anyone win the Roman UHV in 100BC? It isn't underline but even if it was virtual it would make even less sense than the examples I made before, since the barbarian invasions and european civs can seriously threaten your empire, so the earliest Roman UHV is always 1000AD in the last version, shouldn't even be listed just like other fixed deadline victories.

Click to expand...

You should read what it says before making any conclusions. It says that in case of a virtual victory, you must provide proof of the victory at that date when it actually triggers.

Only new VVs are underlined. The old ones (right side) are listed in italic, but since you can't really say which ones are which, I decided to change it to be underlined. Sorry for the confusion.

Virtual UHVs are stated because there aren't so many UHVs that can be won without having to wait for some predetermined date. If they wouldn't be there, the list of possible civs would be quite small and so much less fun than it is now. I understand your critique, because when I "introduced" the virtual UHV thing, I thought that Russia for example should not be on the list because you can never say that you haven't lost a city before 1950AD, until it is 1950 AD. It's actually Karl Popper's falsifiability theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. On the other hand, you can say that you haven't lost a city, which is true in that case (because we are not talking about all cases, but just this one case). So, in that case you have virtually won. Also, for the sake of the challenge it is good that there are as many possible civs on the list. And a fun challenge is what we want, don't we?

Persia is one of my favourite civs, so I that's why I started with them.

Some strategy points:

-Found Sirajis as capital, not for the clam, rather because it's the best city to build shore-wonders like Moai and the Great Lighthouse
-Get Aesthetics ASAP, Parthenon is very important, you don't need mathematics or anything else for that matter
-You don't need the extra troops from Babylonian declaration, though it could've speeded things up a bit. I flipped two barb chariots in the beginning, which was a bonus, because Babylon had axemen running around.
-The initial troops should be splitted so that the chariots take India and Immortals Babylon and then Egypt, that's all the land you need
-Sirajis builds only great prophet wonders, if possible, and generates a GP, get a religion there
-Get Stonehenge for castes and hire Great Artists, but only after Dilli has spawned a GP (Dilli with 60% culture d-bonus takes more land that you can ever conquer from Greece)
-Oracle is not that important, in my game it pre-built in Dilli and gave valuable Great Prophet points
-Speeding the Great Prophet spawning is necessary, but should be done carefully, my GPs were born with 90% and 95% odds.


This can be beaten, because I got the 2nd GP in turn 125 and the land in turn 128, when Dilli's and Sirajis' borders expanded to 60% d-bonus. Wonders were finished in turn 125 as well.

BTW, well phrased Wessel.

As I said before, there are necessary (but not sufficient) conditions and sufficient conditions. E.g. For Rome to have not lost a city to barbs, it is sufficient to have the Great Wall. It's not necessary though.
For the 3rd condition of Russia a sufficient condition probably means that you've vassalized Germany, Vikings, Mongols, Turkey (i.e. all your neighbors), unless a better AI is implemented (where invasions can take place with paratroopers).

onedreamer said:

I really don't understand this thing about virtual UHVs. IMHO there is no such thing, if the condition is at a certain date rather than "by" a certain date you must fulfill it at that exact date and not before or after, and there are valid reasons for this. You might collapse, a city might declare independence or you might lose a war, plague might screw your population condition one turn before the deadline (India anyone?). So, let's say... I can definitely win Egypt UHV anytime I play. Does this mean I win a virtual UHV at 3000BC ?
Another question how did anyone win the Roman UHV in 100BC? It isn't underline but even if it was virtual it would make even less sense than the examples I made before, since the barbarian invasions and european civs can seriously threaten your empire, so the earliest Roman UHV is always 1000AD in the last version, shouldn't even be listed just like other fixed deadline victories.

Click to expand...

Surely it's not that hard of a concept onedreamer to get your head around. When VVs first were suggested, there were some spurious claims in the early posts. But everyone got the hang of it pretty quickly.

As others have posted, claiming a virtual victory is just that - a claim - unless you can also prove that your civilisation actually wins the UHV at the predetermined date. All the potential calamities that you mentioned are reasons why the proof is not just in the claim but also in the final screenshot/save of the actual UHV.

The concept of a VV definitely brings an extra dimension to the challenge and whilst there might be plenty of strategies that can be used to get each UHV, only the best strategy will win the VV challenge. Try it, if you are looking for a little something extra out of the mod. I believe you will like the challenge.

Carthage was my next choice and I managed to be beat the previous (Steb's) record by two turns, although I believe Carthage is currently a bit harder than it used to be, due to the annoying barb triremes surrounding India.

Some strategy points:

-Founded Qart Gadis as my 2nd city as it doesn't ever need any defending
-Built Oracle straight away and took Feudalism with it
-Numidian riders went on to take Athens (lost 2) and then Byzantion
-Left Greece empty and took Egypt next, some troops crossed Sahara from north to aid
-Byzantion was my Great Scientist spammer with Great Library, Temple of Artemis and Leaning Tower, I beleive it spawned 4 GSs and 1GP. All great persons bulbed techs.
-Built Parthenon in Egypt
-I was able to found Gebla on hill next to the dyes. It took the dyes from Persia with castes
-Speeded up the circumnavigation by founding a city in Southwest Africa and in the most southern tip of India.

There is room for improvement as the Indian settler would have gotten much further, but there were at least three barbarian triremes guarding the Indian coast. In the end that cost me 1-2 turns.

Why choose Monarch as the standard level?
I just played only one monarch game which is Babylon under 1183 because the Emporer level is impossible.

I prefer setting challenges with RAND, there is much more room there IMO, as the name itself suggests. Last RFC I have installed was 1.181.
The biggest weakness of this VUHV, Blizzrd, is IMO exactly what you consider its strength. It isn't exactly the best strategy that is going to win the list but the theoretical process to achieve the goal, which is a mind numbing sequence of mouse clicks. IMO the real strategic component is in reacting to randomic situations, and that's why RAND is the winner for me. With these goals that you guys are setting, the best sequence of mouse clicks combined with the best set of random events (or no random event at all, even) is going to win, without considering the set of random events that could happen thereafter. That's why I made the Egypt example. If I played Egypt for the UHV today, I would consider it virtually won at turn 1. There could be an unexpected event that destroys all my hope the turn before victory, but I will not know it if I don't play till the end, so claiming victory at turn 1 rather than 100 if the deadline is turn 130 isn't much different IMO (and yeah I am aware and did read the screenshot bit, I just think it's superfluous to comment it, please do not assume I didn't read and consider it). Now, of course you're entitled to set up any challenge you guys like most, just if I post my opinion, and I made sure it would stay my opinion, it would be nice if Jusos or anyone else for once didn't think that I can't read what they write. People have different tastes and opinions, I don't take offense by the fact many RFCers ditch RAND or do not agree with many of my thoughts. It seems that for someone, if you don't agree fully with what they write, it means you either didn't read what they wrote or you're too stupid to get it. I mean, we aren't discussing mathematics in this thread, so opinions may vary, or am I wrong?

onedreamer said:

I prefer setting challenges with RAND, there is much more room there IMO, as the name itself suggests. Last RFC I have installed was 1.181.
The biggest weakness of this VUHV, Blizzrd, is IMO exactly what you consider its strength. It isn't exactly the best strategy that is going to win the list but the theoretical process to achieve the goal, which is a mind numbing sequence of mouse clicks. IMO the real strategic component is in reacting to randomic situations, and that's why RAND is the winner for me. With these goals that you guys are setting, the best sequence of mouse clicks combined with the best set of random events (or no random event at all, even) is going to win, without considering the set of random events that could happen thereafter. That's why I made the Egypt example. If I played Egypt for the UHV today, I would consider it virtually won at turn 1. There could be an unexpected event that destroys all my hope the turn before victory, but I will not know it if I don't play till the end, so claiming victory at turn 1 rather than 100 if the deadline is turn 130 isn't much different IMO (and yeah I am aware and did read the screenshot bit, I just think it's superfluous to comment it, please do not assume I didn't read and consider it). Now, of course you're entitled to set up any challenge you guys like most, just if I post my opinion, and I made sure it would stay my opinion, it would be nice if Jusos or anyone else for once didn't think that I can't read what they write. People have different tastes and opinions, I don't take offense by the fact many RFCers ditch RAND or do not agree with many of my thoughts. It seems that for someone, if you don't agree fully with what they write, it means you either didn't read what they wrote or you're too stupid to get it. I mean, we aren't discussing mathematics in this thread, so opinions may vary, or am I wrong?

Click to expand...

I quite agree with you.
I can also understand the designer of the virtual UHVs. Sometimes you have already control the game and only pass turn with doing or not doing something.
What I can not understand is the word "Challenge".
In my opinion, something can be called challenge on Monarch unless the higher level is impossible or too hard.

@pku_dwest: Monarch level was chosen a long time ago, not by me, probably because of that very same reason that some civs are impossible with Emperor. Viceroy would be too easy. This is a very old challenge, see these treads: patch 1.186 and patch 1.184

It isn't exactly the best strategy that is going to win the list but the theoretical process to achieve the goal, which is a mind numbing sequence of mouse clicks.

Click to expand...

Actually it is the best possible strategy (=an elaborate and systematic plan of action) that is going win the earliest UHVs. Not random events like in RAND.

If I played Egypt for the UHV today, I would consider it virtually won at turn 1. There could be an unexpected event that destroys all my hope the turn before victory, but I will not know it if I don't play till the end, so claiming victory at turn 1 rather than 100 if the deadline is turn 130 isn't much different IMO

Click to expand...

You must accomplish the UHVs before you can claim victory. With civs like Russia this challenge is more about building the Apollo Program ASAP. Of course at the same time you can't lose cities before 1950. And IMO it is not superfluous to provide a save/screenshot from that year. It is mainly a matter of trust and I trust that nobody is deceitful about this.

Now, of course you're entitled to set up any challenge you guys like most, just if I post my opinion, and I made sure it would stay my opinion, it would be nice if Jusos or anyone else for once didn't think that I can't read what they write.

Click to expand...

Yes we know that we are. Sorry, didn't mean to be rude, but you began with: "I really don't understand..." And your opinion is now clear, thank you.

People have different tastes and opinions, I don't take offense by the fact many RFCers ditch RAND or do not agree with many of my thoughts. It seems that for someone, if you don't agree fully with what they write, it means you either didn't read what they wrote or you're too stupid to get it. I mean, we aren't discussing mathematics in this thread, so opinions may vary, or am I wrong?

Click to expand...

I like RAND too. And no, you are right.

pku_dwest said:

What I can not understand is the word "Challenge".
In my opinion, something can be called challenge on Monarch unless the higher level is impossible or too hard.

Click to expand...

The challenge is obviously not whether it can be done (the UHV or VV) but how fast it can be done.

Just because your strategy can achieve victory in a certain timeframe doens't mean that another's strategy couldn't do it faster. That is what makes it interesting, reading about how others have thought outside the square.

I immeasurably improved my play by reading and participating in these challenge threads. Certainly far more than I ever improved my own play within the victory challenges set in the game (including Emperor level).