Virusmonster's optimal strategy at Deity difficulty for a huge map

[bertram]

With 6 close-placed cities you should be able to run at %40-50 research. Consider working on cottages?! I play huge maps only so maintanence could not get worse than a huge map.

After I capture 6 cities, I usually capture only 2 more, and at 8, I stop the rapid expansion phase

Is the number of cities different on small maps in terms of paying "number of cities"- and/or "distance from capital"-maintenance?

I play on a small map and have 6 cities and after capturing two more, my city-maintenance budget goes crazy. I've just started the war and in one turn captured both cities - so now my economy is in ruins - and I was already only capable of runing 10-20% science.

Guess I should have sacked the cities?!?!
(a pitty because one of them was actually placed well, but do you think I should sack this city also and then later when my economy is better found another city at that spot my self?)

Another question: what's with unhappiness at Immortal-level?
Are there some kind of "rules" when declaring war - I have destroyed three other civs, and when I declared war on this one, my people got totally war-weary...

 

[VirusMonster]

Hello again I thought you gave up Here is what I think about your questions:

Is the number of cities different on small maps in terms of paying "number of cities"- and/or "distance from capital"-maintenance?

I would say map size does not affect maintenance costs, but again to be sure, you would have search the forums for the exact formula on city maintanence. My experience with an quick 8 city empire is that I am usually at %10-20 research right after capture, but my commerce rate improves once I work on cottages.

But playing larger maps, you need to expand more, i.e. you need more cities, thus the overall maintanence you pay is higher.

I play on a small map and have 6 cities and after capturing two more, my city-maintenance budget goes crazy. I've just started the war and in one turn captured both cities - so now my economy is in ruins - and I was already only capable of runing 10-20% science.

Refer to the saves I posted up. In them, I can manage %40 science rate with 7 cities, but I possess some fantastic luxury resources that help me.
If you don't have any high commerce luxury resources, then consider working the cottages near rivers for +3/+4 commerce.

%10-20 science rate is normal after conquering cities, but you should be getting back to %30-40 once those cities have 3-4 population working on cottages and are out of anarchy.

Guess I should have sacked the cities?!?!
(a pitty because one of them was actually placed well, but do you think I should sack this city also and then later when my economy is better found another city at that spot my self?)

If a city can support 3 population right after capture, I never sack it. The cost of producing 1 settler and letting the city grow size 3 again is pretty large in my opinion. I rather pay some extra maintanence until that city is selfsufficient through cottages. Having 3-4 citizens work on +3/+4commerce tiles usually pays off the maintanence, i.e. you get city commerce surplus.

Another question: what's with unhappiness at Immortal-level?
Are there some kind of "rules" when declaring war - I have destroyed three other civs, and when I declared war on this one, my people got totally war-weary...

Hmm, in my experince war weariness totally disappers when you wipe out a Civ, wars against new civilizations have no effect on previous war weariness state. But, again to be sure, prolly you should check a detailed article that explains war weariness.

You got msn? PM me yours, I would like to add you perhaps we can play multiplayer.

 

[bertram]

Thanks for your thorough reply!
hehe, no I did'nt give up - I just started another game. And besides, I havent got so much time to play regularly, so sometimes there passes some time between my turns...

What I meant with number of cities vs. map-size (I think, anyways) is this:

If you have 8 cities on a huge map that can "support" for instance 12 cities before reaching some limit, you would pay a lower than normal amount of maintenance.
But if you then have 8 cities on a small map that's designed to support 6 cities, you would pay a higher than normal amount of maintenance.

hmm, isnt there a thread on city maintenance explained ? I think I'll have to look in to it again. because I have seen some statistics/graphs showing the relation between cities/maintenance from 1-20 cities.

My reasoning is also due to the fact that in CIV there's been put more emphasis on using fewer but more qualified cities pr. map...

War-weariness
the problem here is also that I dont have that many luxuries to keep people happy.. I'll have to find out something..


(side note: how do I PM??)

 

[bertram]

Aha! I found it... Curious Cat's detailed explanation on city upkeep:

"the cost in gpt of a new city increases as you add more cities. There is a discontinuity around ten cities after which the cost rises sharply, making 9-10 the optimal number on a standard map before massive city upkeep starts to kick in. "

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=138473&highlight=city+upkeep+explained

 

[VirusMonster]

I think I understand what you mean my city maintanence. You are asking whether an 8 city - 30 population empire has the same maintanence costs in different map sizes or not. I think it is the same for all map sizes, but on larger maps, you usually need more cities to beat your rivals, thus you need to expand more, thus you will pay more distance upkeep and number of cities upkeep.

The way the cost of adding a new city to your empire grows has been discussed in Curious Cat's article, but I still like to expand whenever I can without thinking about maintanence costs. The problem with expanding on Immortal/deity is gathering a strong enough army to crush the AI; it is seldom the city maintanence cost.

War-weariness
the problem here is also that I dont have that many luxuries to keep people happy.. I'll have to find out something..

Hmm, you need at least 2 ancient era (pre-calendar) luxury resources. Gold and ivory are my favorites. I usually start with one luxury resource around my capital and capture another one through my conquest. Rest of luxury resources should be coming through trades. You don't have to research Calendar, but eventually switch to Monarchy. Monarchy is good for creating +1,+2 or even +3 happiness in highly populated cities With some calendar resource trading, you can afford a happy empire.


You can send me a private message by clicking on my name above my quechua icon. You should then get a list of possible options you can do with my account. One of them should be about sending a private message.

 

[bertram]

The way the cost of adding a new city to your empire grows has been discussed in Curious Cat's article, but I still like to expand whenever I can without thinking about maintanence costs. The problem with expanding on Immortal/deity is gathering a strong enough army to crush the AI; it is seldom the city maintanence cost.

You're right, but I also think its about how you view it - about which comes first. You need to have cities to establish a strong economy to rise an army. But the cities are so expensive in themselves that you need a strong economy to be able to support more cities that makes you support a bigger army.

In the game Im playing I think the number of cities is not so important as maintenance costs. With the amount of gold I had to pay for the two new cities my economy was ruined - I can just barely manage to go by with 0-30% science.

Since last time; I was a chicken and loaded the game a few turns backwards and razed the cities instead... I have Alexander totally under control now. I have ca 1000 point and the rest has 200-500...!

I'll see if I can upload a save-game, then you can have a look at how I'm doing...

 

[alatari]

It is admirable that you have been persistant in your strategy and generally polite to your detractors. Your honesty even about your views on what many consider cheating is also refreshing. Being an old guy I have seen that cheating, rule bending and dishonesty are the norm for humans and that's one reason why religion was invented. Generally people in the strategy gaming arena are more honest and what we call rule tyrants though the Real Time gamers seem to want the cheat codes.

I tend to play on huge Earth maps (240x100 or bigger) with civs placed where they historically should be. I even prefer that their cities be built where they were through history. That way I learn some history as I play. Since I don't regenerate maps or use random maps and have the same civs in each game it seems rather stupid to go all the way back to 4000 bc every time I screw up and Cuzco gets captured or I take a wrong turn in the tech tree. Life is too damn short and it is nice to get laid every so often or spend time with the famliy or friends so I reload. When I feel that I know Civ4 well enough at diety level to play a HOF challenge though I will abide by those rules.

 

[alatari]

My thoughts on the Quechua rush are to:
1) stop at 6 cities. Godonut wins cultural victories with 6 cities at diety level.
2) include barbarians because they are an excellent source of training for the quechua's
3) since you will stop at 6 cities then use some of those extra Quechuas for woodsman II defenders to guard the supply lines that the captured workers take home.
Always guard your supply lines and keep the fog of war back so that new barbarians can't emerge and you have intel on other civs movements.

4) found a religion if possible

 

[JoeM]

How does this strategy apply on Standard maps? Normal speed?

(I want fairly quick games)

 

[VirusMonster]

My thoughts on the Quechua rush are to:
1) stop at 6 cities. Godonut wins cultural victories with 6 cities at diety level.
2) include barbarians because they are an excellent source of training for the quechua's
3) since you will stop at 6 cities then use some of those extra Quechuas for woodsman II defenders to guard the supply lines that the captured workers take home.
Always guard your supply lines and keep the fog of war back so that new barbarians can't emerge and you have intel on other civs movements.

4) found a religion if possible

Moonsinger has Conquest win on deity large map with only 5-6 cities. He razes the rest and stops teching after he discovers Ironworking. He builds nonstop quechua, axeman and swordsman for a quick conquest win. I suggest you download his saves from the HOF page.

Practically, all HOF deity entries are with Incas.

Thanks for comments

 

[VirusMonster]

How does this strategy apply on Standard maps? Normal speed?

(I want fairly quick games)

On standard it is even easier, because you don't need to worry about maintanence as much and you have less cities to wipe out.

Normal speed is still ok, but make sure your quechuas don't waste too many turns on the way. They might become obsolote too fast.

Download saves from the HOF deity wins to get an idea on how to play.

 

[ainwood]

Moonsinger has Conquest win on deity large map with only 5-6 cities. He razes the rest and stops teching after he discovers Ironworking. He builds nonstop quechua, axeman and swordsman for a quick conquest win. I suggest you download his saves from the HOF page.

Practically, all HOF deity entries are with Incas.

Thanks for comments

'He' is a 'she'

 

[VirusMonster]

'He' is a 'she'

Whoa, great to see a strong female civ4 player then Is she cute as well?

 

[bertram]

How does this strategy apply on Standard maps? Normal speed?

(I want fairly quick games)

in my current game I'm playing a small map, marathon speed. And Virusmonster is right - you have fewer cities to conquer. Almost all of the civs only have (and have had untill i destroyed them) 3-5 cities, so its not that many (meanwhile I had 9-12). And they dont have that big an army either. they will outtech you thoug...

Also (as Virusmonster says) take care not to spend to much time walking around the map - you would want to get those quechuas to enemy cities asap.

one point though: take care of when you capture cities. because the maintenance can ruin/delay your plans for world victory.. (but it seems this is more of a concern on small maps with marathon/epic speed, due the fact that your quechuas run relatively faster compared to game speed).

 

[bertram]

What's your thought on razing cities on the way to your conquest, and then building your own?

When looking back on my current game, I'm wondering if I should have razed some more cities to get some free space to be able to get a better spot for my own settler.

Here's my problem: A rather big part of my cities (cities I've taken from the enemy) are not placed optimally. The enemy obviously places cities where he thinks it's a good spot. But that can sometimes be a bad place for me in relation to my capital and for instance distance maintenance.

So, my idea would be to raze more enemy cities to get some more free space and then with the free space I'm able to find better spots for my cities. I figure you could even come up with some kind of RCP-strategy to take maximum benefit from the land compared to maintenance.

Do you guys raze or keep the cities you captured?

 

[bertram]

Just wanted to tell you that last night I managed to win a Domination Victory after using your Quechua-rush-strategy at beginning of the game.

Year was mid-1600, the highscore was 42434...

 

[Alraun]

I don't agree with the idea of wiping out a civ early or razing crappy cities in jungle. Just take a civ's good cities early game and then make peace with them. They won't be able to recover and that land will be sitting there protected by them, free for you to expand onto whenever you feel like later. If you raze a jungle city and eliminate the civ, some other civ will take your land!

 

[VirusMonster]

I don't agree with the idea of wiping out a civ early or razing crappy cities in jungle. Just take a civ's good cities early game and then make peace with them. They won't be able to recover and that land will be sitting there protected by them, free for you to expand onto whenever you feel like later. If you raze a jungle city and eliminate the civ, some other civ will take your land!

Well, if you don't wipe out the civ, then you get extra unhappiness and trust me you need each single happiness resource when you play at Emperor and above! So wiping out is a good thing.

Gj bertram, Incas are no longer aggressive in the expansion so this strategy will be harder to pull off.

 

[Bre]

What about warlords expansion? Is this working?

 

[VirusMonster]

What about warlords expansion? Is this working?

Yea, it should still be working, because altough Incas are no longer are aggressive, Quechuas still have combat I bonus. It will be harder to organise the defense after the initial quechua rush though. Aggressive was a better trait than Industrious, but do try to build the Pyramids and switch to Godotnut's cultural victory plan after the quechua rush. You should be fine.