Need help defending my shores

[ApolloAndy]

I've beaten emperor with 7 civs using just chariots and triremes enough times that I decided to try to go democracy and spaceship instead.

I keep getting to a point about 1AD when I have a pretty well developed home continent - 12 size 10 or so cities with temple, cathedral, bach, railroads, and maybe a library and/or marketplace - and one or two smaller continents and suddenly everyone else decides it's time to declare war on me. All of a sudden transports are dropping off 3 or 4 riflemen, knights, and cannons every turn and even if I put all my cities on full military production (with Women's Suffrage) and I have a network of railroads to shuttle units around, I end up spending every coin and shield to defend and pretty have to completely stop science and city improvement or wonder construction. I think should get some ironclads to go try to sink transports, but I always feel like my shields could be better spent on wonders and city improvements, especially since Ironclads don't have a great win rate against transports or frigates. It also probably doesn't help that I completely ignore military technologies in favor of wonders (cure, suffrage), so I'm still defending with Phalanxes and Catapults. Maybe I should throw a research of two into getting cannons and riflemen?

I suppose the other possibility is to just pay their tribute demands, but then they have a huge pile of units sitting outside my city, which makes me really nervous.

I'm also not using any cheats.

Any tips?

 

[Valen]

It sounds like you are behind in science. At least they don't have automobile yet.
To get ahead in science at emperor, I think you need to use caravans. Find your most profitable trade route then use caravan home to send every caravan you can build along that route.
Cash from caravans not only adds to your treasury but also adds the same number of bulbs to your research. You should be able to get automobile (and therfore also steel) by 1 AD.

Do you consider ship sentry cheating? Since the AIs get their caravans transported for free, it seems equitable that you should be able to get your caravans across the ocean in a single turn.

 

[Whelkman]

You've identified the phenomenon otherwise known as "Waiting for Jesus". Basically, you need to be prepared prior to 1 AD. Until you have the opposition pacified, I'd say dump non-wonder city improvements, especially in Emperor. They generally offer little beyond maxing out your score. Improvements consume far too many resources when you need to wage war. You're better off with a larger collection of smaller cities that need less infrastructure to manage unhappiness and (unwanted) growth; plus with each new city you get a "bonus" resource tile that doesn't count against your population count, which would otherwise lead to more unhappiness. If you do this you won't need to consider the religion Cul-de-Sac--at least early on since you will need Bach's Cathedral eventually.

In terms of a "pacifist" Emperor strategy, which you seem to be attempting, I dunno. Civilization is massively unbalanced in favor of attack compared to defense, so warmongering is a big part of the game.

EDIT: use Valen's strategy if you're going to stick with big cities. Smaller cities will eliminate much of the Caravan's benefit.

 

[ApolloAndy]

I don't use the ship sentry (partly because I don't know how to and partly because I want to see if I can win without doing it).

Is there a way to tell if I'm behind in science? I keep my science at 90-100% most of the game unless I'm doing a burst of president's day.

I feel like I really lack shields, though. I'm always caught between building caravans (for wonders and trade routes), building military sea units to defend my shores, and building city improvements to improve my trade returns.

Whelkman: which city improvements are you suggesting to ditch there? Temples? Cathedrals? Marketplaces and libraries? I feel like I want to have all four of those (and if I had spare shields which I never do, a bank and university) in every city because they effectively pay for themselves. Most of the time I settle for just temple and cathedral because I need my shields for other things (Caravans, units, wonders). I aim for a target city size of about 10 (2 born-contents, 2 temple, 2 bach, 4 cathedral).

I have noticed that Civ is massively unbalanced for attack, but conquering the world with chariots and triremes is only interesting so many times. I feel no need to do it again. I basically suffer from optimization brain. If I let myself warmonger a little bit, I immediately say "Well, the optimal move here is to ditch all city improvement, only build <best military unit> and take over the world" which is not really any more interesting than just using chariots and triremes.

 

[Whelkman]

Whelkman: which city improvements are you suggesting to ditch there? Temples? Cathedrals? Marketplaces and libraries?

All of them, pretty much. Caravans are better for science and gold, and more cities are a better solution for happiness management, especially under Emperor.

I basically suffer from optimization brain. If I let myself warmonger a little bit, I immediately say "Well, the optimal move here is to ditch all city improvement, only build <best military unit> and take over the world" which is not really any more interesting than just using chariots and triremes.

You've pretty much identified a strategic shortcoming of Civilization. I think playing just as you are is viable, but maybe not under Emperor. Have you tried scaling back to King or Prince? It might seem a cop-out but the "easier" you set the level, the more it lets you "build". As you've noticed, Emperor can get a little boring due to it essentially pigeonholing you into a single, monotonous strategy. Once you refine your strategy a bit you can try it under Emperor again.

 

[ApolloAndy]

How do you get lightbulbs from caravans?

 

[Whelkman]

The game doesn't advertise it, but you get as many bulbs as coins when landing a Caravan.

 

[ApolloAndy]

All of them, pretty much. Caravans are better for science and gold.

Does this assume ship sentry cheat? I can't imagine shuttling caravans all over the place with normal movement, especially under democracy where the ships will cause unhappiness.

 

[Whelkman]

Does this assume ship sentry cheat?

Doesn't have to. You could either stay on the continent (for lesser bonuses) or ferry Caravans between two coasts that are close. For example, on Earth, there are three tiles separating South America and Africa at their closest points.

I can't imagine shuttling caravans all over the place with normal movement, especially under democracy where the ships will cause unhappiness.

Well, getting to Transport is pretty important for this strategy to work. Either that, or have some Sails or whatever meet in the middle and return them before they run out of moves.

 

[Valen]

I emphasize the caravan approach because I have observed the AIs using it to their advantage when I play at Emperor. If you do not follow their example, you are doomed to fall behind in a straight science race (seems that way to me at least).

I have already explained how I rationalized using ship sentry to speed delivery of caravans before the discovery of railroad and industrialization. As far as I know, you are breaking new ground here proceeding without it. I am dying to see how this plays out. Please keep us updated.

 

[ApolloAndy]

I guess I'm really interested to see if it's possible. That is, whether Sid Meier thought you could beat Emperor w/ 7 civs by spaceship.

 

[Whelkman]

I think you can, but you haven't found the right balance of warfare yet. You know you can do it with initial Chariot rushing then building for the rest of the game, but it sounds like you will find that boring. You just need to find something in the middle.

As Valen said, you're pretty much outlining a custom strategy here. If I were you, I'd do it in a way I knew I could get it to work then scale back just a bit the next revision. By version five or so you'll be flirting with the minimum of warfare needed to stay afloat (and getting off the planet before they completely overrun you). Setting the goal to find the exact equilibrium point should jive with your optimization instincts. Along the way you'll come up with strategies you won't think of now that will enable you to get the job done with even fewer skirmishes.

Also, besides the movement cheats, remember that the AI has a profound science multiplier advantage over you, to the extent that robbing technologies from competition is an obvious intended game mechanic. If you refuse to rob them outright, by either conquest or diplomacy, then shunning University and maxing out the Great Library is probably the only option left.

Another way the game cheats is that the other civilizations tend to fight each other only in B.C. When A.D. comes around, they all simultaneously come after you. 7 v 1 are pretty miserable odds. Better hope a few civilizations are knocked out just before A.D. so that their replacements are in the stone age when Armageddon happens.

 

[Urtica dioica]

As it's been pointed out already, Civ 1 is unbalanced (too easy) even on Emperor. Even if you want a spaceship win, it's easy to wipe out all opposing cities but one with Chariots, then build in peace. Like me, you tried to rebalance the game by restricting yourself. I don't know how strict you are about it, but for me it's important to know exactly what the rules are, so I don't get tempted to "cheat".

I've tried to play pacifist before. Depending on the starting position, it can be hard to almost impossible. In my opinion, this kind of ruleset rebalances the game too far.

What we need is a better ruleset. Ideally, it should balance military and development at all stages of the game. Here's a start: ban chariots. It doesn't quite balance the early game, since Catapults and Knights are still good, but it may at least give the AIs a chance to build Walls before getting crushed. And it would be interesting to see whether you'd prioritize Chivalry, or if someone actually built Cavalry and Legions.

 

[C1v1l1z@t10n]

As it's been pointed out already, Civ 1 is unbalanced (too easy) even on Emperor. Even if you want a spaceship win, it's easy to wipe out all opposing cities but one with Chariots, then build in peace. Like me, you tried to rebalance the game by restricting yourself. I don't know how strict you are about it, but for me it's important to know exactly what the rules are, so I don't get tempted to "cheat".

I've tried to play pacifist before. Depending on the starting position, it can be hard to almost impossible. In my opinion, this kind of ruleset rebalances the game too far.

What we need is a better ruleset. Ideally, it should balance military and development at all stages of the game. Here's a start: ban chariots. It doesn't quite balance the early game, since Catapults and Knights are still good, but it may at least give the AIs a chance to build Walls before getting crushed. And it would be interesting to see whether you'd prioritize Chivalry, or if someone actually built Cavalry and Legions.

Agree 100% about what rules to setup before to play, often in your mind you got a plan but it change due to certain events... no chariots would be a hard one I manage to win on Emporer with ONLY Legions as attack forces (maybe some hut cavalry also).. I did play earth and chose Romans so I know the map, I believe it was the first version of CIV DOS which does it a lot easier also.

To my point in this post, you also need to specify which version of Civ I you play, the first edition is sooooo easy... but the latest .05(?) makes it harder... civil disorder and you cannot just build as many cities as you want and know you will win like that.
For those who play the eariest version it is few arguments to go Democarcy since you easily just build milion of Settlers and Chariots and win easy... but as mentioned the later patched version it is hard to stay Anarchy whole game (even stupid)

 

[ApolloAndy]

Well, my thought was the not to attack enemy cities on other continents until I got a spaceship win and also not to use the fast settler or ship sentry (or reload, etc.) cheats.

I'm playing 474.04.

I guess what I'm hearing is this is incredibly difficult. What is a good middle level rule set that doesn't lead to "abandon all city improvement and science, build <best military unit>, steamroll"?

Maybe allowing ship sentry? Maybe change the "time to kickass and chew gum" from spaceship to 1AD?

 

[Whelkman]

What is a good middle level rule set that doesn't lead to "abandon all city improvement and science, build <best military unit>, steamroll"

This is what we're waiting on from you. We're anxious to hear what you come up with. You might want to start with Chariots but limit the quantity to see how far you can get. Or, to give the other civilizations a little time, you might want to hold off until you launch a "crusade" with Knights, though researching this would put you in a technological hole for which you would need to compensate. I guess you could also substitute Chariots with Calvary.

I don't think you'll be able to come up with a workable ruleset in advance. Like I said, you might want to try gradually scaling back to see what you can get away with. Maybe leave two civilizations alive after an initial Chariot rush. Then three. When they start overrunning you then you've found an equilibrium point. Develop some new strategies until it gets easy again then re-introduce another civilization on the next play.

 

[ApolloAndy]

Oddly enough (but for some reason still not at all satisfying), I find emperor with 5 civs or so, to be an okay balance with the caveat that I can't attack enemy cities on other continents and I play pacifist.

I'm pretty sure that limiting specific military units won't work (unless you limit every offensive unit below armor) because steamrolling with sails and catapults or sails and cannons or knights is just as brain dead as chariots and triremes, but just takes a little longer. In fact, most of my chariot/trireme campaigns do eventually become catapult/sail campaigns because of stolen tech. The delay to get cannons is quickly overcome by the fact that with twenty size 2 cities, it's trivial to have 30 cannons running around. I don't care how many fortified veteran musketeers behind city walls the AI's will have (and they usually don't have many), you can bottle them up, prevent expansion, and eventually wear them down.

How plausible is it to warmonger with size 2 or 4 (bach) cities with women's suffrage under republic or democracy? Seems like under republic it would be just as degenerate as chariot/trireme, except a little bit slower out of the gate. Under democracy, with size 3 cities, again seems pretty simple.

Maybe a time limit on warmongering? i.e. Kill as much as you can in the first X years and then no more landing military on enemy occupied continents until spaceship win? That actually seems to have the most potential to me.

 

[ApolloAndy]

I never use diplomats for some reason. How feasible is it to concentrate on building up a big treasury and sending diplomats to steal tech with my caravan runs?

 

[Valen]

I never use diplomats for some reason. How feasible is it to concentrate on building up a big treasury and sending diplomats to steal tech with my caravan runs?

For the first few advances, it does make sense to steal tech.
Once you find a caravan route that is both profitable and manageable (tricky), you will have a healthy treasury and a lead in science.
Another use of diplomats (may be outside your rules): you can establish an embassy and manipulate every discovery they make. This means saving the game before every city check.

 

[Urtica dioica]

I got another idea for a house rule you can try: staggered city limits. At the start of the game, you limit yourself to a certain number of cities, and as certain events come up, you increase the limit. When you reach the limit, you can't build or conquer cities until the limit goes up. (I wouldn't be so strict about accidentally popping the wrong hut though.) For instance, you could start with a limit of four cities, then increase it by another four every 50 turns (1000 years at the start of the game). Or whatever numbers you come up with.

This rule stops infinite city sprawl, and provides some balance between improving existing cities and getting new ones. You can still go on conquering campaigns, but they'll be smaller, more focused, and spread throughout the game. You can also go on (much more expensive) ravaging campaigns, where you don't take cities. (To make this easier, you could add a rule where you can get extra cities, but they can't work squares.) When the limit goes up, there will be a conflict between taking/building tactical frontier cities, or more economically viable cities in the homeland.

A variation I'd like would be to tie the limit boosts to techs, rather than years. Imagine a Civpedia entry like "Feudalism: helps keep distant cities loyal to the Kingdom [+3 Cities]". Then you'd have these boosts scattered throughout the tech tree, making many currently useless techs highly sought-after. This would take some time to set up, and would be hard to keep track of manually, but would be a fun element.