1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

A 1-Turn Win

Discussion in 'Civ1 - General Discussions' started by Posidonius, Aug 15, 2017.

  1. Posidonius

    Posidonius Civherder

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    US of gawldarn A
    Ohhhhhh, so that's why the wishlists of various players include being able to save the game in 4000 BC. You can do this with Civ1-Win, i just never bothered to see what the fuss was about. Now i finally understand.

    If you start on a large-enough landmass, you can always win, even on Emperor level. I'm betting that most people who play Emperor games avail themselves of the "fast Settler" cheat as the only way to survive on a natural un-modded 7-civ map, and it takes dozens of turns anyway. But there's a much quicker way to win, using only the save-restart cheat and a large-land scenario, and if you can save the game in 4000 BC.

    The difference between 4000 BC and 3980 BC is enormous, because in 4000 your rivals are just larval Settler units, meek little bunnies, but by 3980 they've all morphed into little cities. And at Emperor level, they start roaring like a lion right away.

    It's like the old joke about the lightbulb and the pregnant woman, you can unscrew the lightbulb, but you can't force a rival civilization's city to disband back into a Settler unit. But you can get free Cavalry and Legion units from huts, and with units, you can prevent your rivals from ever founding cities in the first place. You can force them to stay in the bunny state forever, while you suddenly appear in 3980 BC with a 10-city empire all completely connected and irrigated.

    I tried this, with a start-square on a crappy NW corner of a pretty large continent. Estimate it's about 450 squares of land, so it's fairly big. I saved in 4000 BC, moved the original Settler around to a hut, and hit that shack with 2 save-restarts until it turned into a free Cavalry.

    There were 21 huts on this landmass. Getting them all to turn into free Cavalries took about 200 cycles, but by that time the original Settler had prepped and connected 7 vacant citysites, all without using the "fast-Settler" cheat. Using the fast-Settler cheat, or with a double-Settler start, the results could have been dramatic.

    Along the way, found four rivals had spawned on this same landmass: Mongols, Germans, Egypt and England. But they were all caught frozen in time at 4000 BC as helpless Settlers, and with 21 Cavs i can ensnare them so they will never build capitals. Once the clock starts rolling into 3980 BC, i can herd all the bunnies up into harmless squares on mountaintops, and will have only two offshore rivals to contend with. Even on Emperor level, that's an automatic win.

    But here's the deeper opportunity: with enough restart cycles in 4000 BC, and at least one free military unit, you can choose which eligible huts turn into free cities. By exploring before choosing, you can locate your capital centrally, minimizing corruption early on. In my trial run, 1/3 of the huts were on viable citysites, meaning Plains or Shieldgrass squares. Another 4 huts were on squares which could give a free city but not a shield resource.

    Instead of 21 Cavalries, i could have started 4000 BC with 10 cities, 10 Cavs and a Leg. Or 7 hot cities, 4 Cavalries and 500 gp in the bank, which means Pyramids and declaring myself a democracy in 3820 BC. The point is, when you can save and move before the rival bunnies graduate into rival cities, you get all the huts, so you can have whatever kind of empire you want, all prepared and ready to spring into action in 4000 BC.

    One more facet to it: in 4000 BC a hut will never turn into a free tech. But after that, you can get free techs even before you have a city. With strategic restarts and reserving certain huts for later, i could have started 4000 BC with 6 cities each with a fully developed fat-cross area, 4 Cavs to neutralize the 4 rival Settler-civs, and 1 Cav to hit the other 10 huts in 3980 BC.

    With patience and restarts, 10 huts in 3980 BC means going from Mysticism to Magnetism when your empire is 20 years old. Six Frigates + five freelance Cavalries in 3800 BC, now tell me that's not a guaranteed win on Emperor? If you're going for a full conquest win, you need 12 kills. In 4000 BC, in this scenario, i can put 4 down right out of the gate, actually while still in the gate, then with the Cavs spread out to cover likely respawn spots, could get 7-8 kills by 3960.

    Now one more experiment, this one for full glory.... i have save-games where the AI spawned all 7 civs on the same landmass. Do the math here. If that landmass has got 20 huts and you can patiently milk those huts for whatever you want, then you can get 6 Legions and 14 Cavalry units, all into position before the game even starts. Put the Leg's next to 6 rival bunnies, and spread the Cavs out to likely-looking respawn spots.

    Ta daaaa, with an army like that you can kill 6 rival Settlers while it's still 4000 BC, and have a sporting chance of catching the 6 helpless respawns in 3980 BC. With respawn luck (or a few more save-restarts), you can even end the game in 3980 BC. Yes, 3980 BC.

    It's a One Turn Win only using 1 cheat, but heavy reliance on that save-restart cheat. You need a world with a big continent, and, it only works when you can save the game in 4000 BC. Pity it can't be the Zero Turn Win, but if you kill a rival civ in its bunny Setty incarnation in 4000 BC, you still need an end-turn routine for the respawn to happen; a save-restart is not enough to wipe the dead civ off the books.

    What i have not tried yet, is getting 12 kills before i have founded a city. Not sure if it's possible to win the game with zero population, but you can bet i'm gonna try.
     
  2. SWY

    SWY Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Messages:
    329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Very interesting read, thank you. I'm going to try this some time.

    I wonder if it would be possible to hack CivDOS to enable saving/loading in 4000BC. Currently, if you hack a savegame year to 4000BC and try to load it, it will start a new game.
     
  3. Tristan_C

    Tristan_C Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,079
    Not so... if you wanted to try your hand at any ongoing legit challenges, see if you can get a 1-AD launch on emperor or (per more recent threads) play an OCC and post the map/history. The OCC guys even had a rule not to build the colossus. The absolute madmen! It happens that the metagame has advanced in the decades since this game came out, and people better than I have cooked up some prevailing techniques useful under any conditions / landmass configurations / starts the RNG normally throws at you...

    I agree OP is a very interesting read. Personally I would mod the save to turn the difficulty up to emperor+66 or whatever just so you can say you faced the IMBA AI and overcame. For extra fun you can let turns pass and see how quickly the +66 ai grows and spams units and is awarded wonders. Darkpanda's random seed charts could be utilized to smack their mech infs with your hut cav.
     
  4. Posidonius

    Posidonius Civherder

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    US of gawldarn A
    Heehee, i prefer trying to break games in more bizarre ways. The theory in the OP above might be called the "ZCC", the Zero City Challenge. Twist of fate: you can only catch the rival civs as docile bunny Settys in 4000 BC, so it's only possible in CivWin, but there are no mods for CivWin. In a cruel and hateful twist of fate, the "god mode" cheat which allows you to see the entire map in 4000 BC is not available in CivWin; or at least i have not been able to figger out how to use it. So i have to actually run units over the lands and seas to tell what kind of map i've got .

    On the other hand, as i think more about the idea, if your save-restart patience is effectively infinite, this should be possible in CivDOS. Just not as a 1-Turn Win. If there is only one huge continent on your random map, and if you turn at least one hut into a Legion which attacks better than a Cav, this should be possible as a 3-Turn Win on Emperor in CivDOS. Just doesn't sound as cool as "1-Turn Win".

    Once i finish the current project, will look through my library of past games to find a suitable map, and see if the game will even let you complete a 1-turn conquest win without having to found a city of your own. If the answer is "yes" then that's a suitably bizarre achievement.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017
  5. Quintillus

    Quintillus Archiving Civ3 Content Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,148
    Location:
    Columbus
    Interesting thoughts, even if it does require a ton of reloading. And your thought, "Not sure if it's possible to win the game with zero population, but you can bet i'm gonna try" reminded me of a classic Civ3 game, this one (which you can download here) from LulThyme. Although not a 1-turn win, it was a win with a score of 0 points - and proves the theory that in Civ3, at least, by popping Warriors from huts, you could win without a city. He eliminated 2/3 of this opponents without a city and bottled up the last one, not building a city until 2038 AD. And although he upgraded to Swordsmen to finish them off at the end, there would have been at least a chance, however small, of finishing off the last civ with the popped Warriors as well. At any rate on a Tiny map with only 2 opponents, the task would have been accomplished.

    So I would encourage you to try the equivalent in Civ1! Civ-respawns may make it more difficult - that option can be disabled in Civ3, as LulThyme did - but in theory and with sufficient luck it likely is doable.
     
  6. Posidonius

    Posidonius Civherder

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    US of gawldarn A
    Yes, a "ton of reloading". To put it mildly. Last month did a run with 307 restarts within 4000 BC to make an "instant empire" with 10 connected and fully landscaped cities, and 4 of 7 rivals forever trapped as meek bunny Settlers. The turns-per-tech rate got to 3 and it never rose above 5 all the way from Pottery to Magnetism. That was something i had not anticipated, roaring through the tech tree at such a pace.

    Other things not foreseen:
    * Population management becomes more important. 100,000 people pops to 300,000 in 3780 BC, and you never need to build Settlers anymore, so was unprepared for how fast the population would grow.
    * Don't need gold anymore. Tax rate stays at 0% the entire game. Once the clock ticks past 4000BC, the 50gp from the remaining huts is far more money than needed, because...
    * Don't need any buildings. Turning 20 huts into free Legion and Cavalry units means you don't need Temples. No population drag from Settlers means a Granary would actually be a bad thing. You hit everyone else so early, that your units don't need to be Veterans, so no Barracks needed. Why would you want to pay for a Marketplace, if you don't need money and already learn a new tech every 4 turns?
    * With Trade, it rains Wonders. Only takes 3 Caravans to make a Lighthouse, 5 for Magellan's Expedition. You eventually have to slow down city growth, and more trade-arrows are superfluous, so adjusting worked squares to favor shields just churns out Caravans at an alarming rate. You have nobody to trade with, so all Carrys can plow into Wonder-making.
    * 8 boats is enough. More than that are just wasted shields and make your turns take longer. The world is only 80 squares wide, so no unit will ever need to travel more than 40 squares in one turn, and by the turn this even remotely happens, much of the distance can go by RailRoad for free. Don't waste braincycles on boats.
    * The Diplomat is the most powerful piece on the board.

    Now more doable than before. Send you profuse thanks, for solving a problem which had vexed me for a month now. In true forest-for-trees fashion, i didn't see the obvious solution. Always play with 7 civs in the game, just out of habit by now. But to test for the possibility of a 0-City Win, i only need one rival civ and a large continent for him or her to respawn onto, and a number of hut-born Cav's to hunt down the respawn in 3980 BC. Will still take 1-4 hours per test run, because the Shift-56 way to see the whole map in 4000 BC doesn't work for me. If it did, this would only take a few minutes per test run. But if i were to try this with 7 civs, me + 6 rivals, then the chances of success would be crazy small.

    You need all 6 respawns to happen on your home landmass, and with 6 rivals i know that this is not an impossible scenario, seen it before. But the odds are tiny, and that's what kept me back from trying it. But if i only have one rival, and customize the world for Large land mass, then i can predict completing some test runs in only an hour. Much more doable.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017
  7. Quintillus

    Quintillus Archiving Civ3 Content Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,148
    Location:
    Columbus
    Blimely, that's a lot of reloads! My patience is not long enough for that many! I can see why it changes the dynamics as much as you describe, though.

    Best of luck with the zero-pop game! It sounds simultaneously more difficult (the respawns) and easier (cavalry and legions being poppable, which are likely faster/stronger respectively than Civ3 warriors) than it would have been for LulThyme. I have no idea how many restarts that required, although by HOF rules, it wouldn't have had any reloads once the game was started, only total restarts. Definitely something requiring a good amount of luck in both Civ versions!
     
  8. Valen

    Valen TWAYF Builder

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Left Coast
    In 3980, rival civs have all founded their capitals, but they have not had time to produce defenders. Your settlers simply stumble into town and destroy the capitals, possibly stealing technology in the process. Find out what you can learn from captured (destroyed) cities before you start mining huts for technology.
     
  9. Posidonius

    Posidonius Civherder

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    US of gawldarn A
    In 4000 BC, huts will not give tech. This is a good thing, as it cuts down on restarts if a hut only has 3 outcomes: 50gp, a city, or a unit. And yes, rival cities in 3980 are sitting ducks, but if you wait for them to be built, it's harder. The idea is to kill off rivals as helpless bunny Settlers in 4000 BC, and then they will respawn as the 2nd generation of rivals in 3980, again as helpless bunnies. If you wait for cities in 3980, it is easier to ensure their demise and they will respawn immediately, but then you have the task of double-duty in 3980 BC: you have to kill 6 cities AND also hunt down and kill 6 new bunnies. So you need 2x as many units, which you can get from huts, but since it's now 3980 and a hut has 4 possible outcomes, you now need more restart cycles to get what you want out of a hut. It's a catch-22, thus makes the 1-Turn Win much easier when you can wipe out the 1st generation of rivals before they found cities.

    Only possible to win in 3980 if you and all your rivals (and their respawns) are on the same landmass, so that implies a very large landmass, and thus more area to cover, which means a hut giving you an 11th unit is not just a 10% reduction in the land-to-unit coverage ratio. In terms of the 3980 seek/destroy operation, 10% more units is more like a 30% increase in coverage, and thus a 30% decrease in save-restart cycles.

    Yes, i think it would be possible for a single hut-born Legion to win the game in 3980 BC, but ohmy god, that would take 900 save-restart cycles in every trial where you fail, and two thousand restarts in the one scenario where you can win. A nice cap-feather should someone pull it off, but even i don't have that kind of time to spend civving. :xmascheers:
     
  10. SWY

    SWY Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Messages:
    329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    New civs spawn in the same turn that the old one was destroyed, so if you could hop a legion unit to the new civ settlers unit you could destroy the new civ in the same turn. Only problem (if I recall correctly, maybe only in the DOS version) is that if you destroy a new civ in the same turn the old one was destroyed, the game refuses to register the civ death so the game will not end.
     
  11. BasilBerylium

    BasilBerylium Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Argentina
    But can you still get a scientific victory?
     
  12. Tristan_C

    Tristan_C Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,079
    Certainly, though losing conquest puts a dent in the score.
     
  13. Posidonius

    Posidonius Civherder

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    US of gawldarn A
    Unfortunately, not in 4000 BC. Otherwise, the possibility would exist for a 0-Turn Win. But the date must be turned over to 3980 BC for dead civs to respawn, and the 2nd-gen civs are now eligible for death.

    This is true. If you kill a rival civ in the naked Settler bunny form, you do not get that leader's head on your wall of trophies in a conquest win, it doesn't matter if it's the same turn the 1st-gen civ died or not. Yes, the game will not end, as long as another color remains on the Intel Advisor's list. But you can destroy a rival civ in bunny form by bribing the unit to join your side, using a handy Diplomat. In this case, the game recognizes the death, but announces that the victim has been "destroyed by Barbarians" and you still do not get that head on your wall in a conquest win. I don't care about the trophy, just take exception to the game calling me a Barbarian. Bribing a Settler to your side is the absolute least barbaric way of eliminating a rival, certainly.
     
  14. Posidonius

    Posidonius Civherder

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    US of gawldarn A
    Conquest or SpaceShip is an either/or, who knows which can yield more score?
     
  15. Posidonius

    Posidonius Civherder

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Location:
    US of gawldarn A
    I did both, a 1-Turn Win and the Zero City Challenge. Along the way, saw some spooky things about Civ1. There's a quirk in the level of randomness for where different civs respawn, and it seems to correlate with the active player's position in the turn order. The pattern is different with each starting color, but there seems to be a pattern, ummm, in the patterns. If that makes any sense. Have discovered quirks in the game which don't really matter, but this one seems like it could be exploitable.
     

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop