A discusion on Immortal game

[podraza]

I'm talking more along the lines of farm-pillaging warrior barbs. Those seem to show up pretty early on the higher levels. And your own warriors just are a gamble as a defense. They might die, leaving your city defenseless.

 

[LosBlack]

would it set you back too far to build a barracks and a couple combat promoted warriors for the extra edge?

 

[Mutineer]

I tried to play an emperor game in celebration of the new patch last night, my first. I gave up after the barbarian hordes started decending on me and I had nothing stronger than warriors to use in my defense. I was in the process of hooking up copper in my second city.

This prompted me to go back and look at some of Acidsartyr's other games, as well as some of Mutineers and the other strong immortal players. What I noticed in that in each game either copper or horse appeared in the capital.

If copper or horse does not appear in the capital, then it is probably impossible/near impossible to hook it up in a second city before the barbarians appear. This doesn't necessarily mean disaster, but it does mean a HUGE difference (I would think) between the long standing prospects of a game where copper/horse appears in the capital and games where it doesn't.

Would you say then, oh wise one, that people like me, looking for my first win on emperor, should give it up immediately if I don't find copper/horse in the capital?

EDIT - or maybe somebody could offer up a strategy for dealing with this situation. Not only did I only have warriors, but I only had 1 per city. These barbarians were not particularly aggressive, but they were walking around there and making me feel uncomfortable. If they came for my farms, I could stop them only with a warrior and an unpromoted one at that.

My early research pattern generally mimicks the one in this game, I'll shoot for bronzeworking 1st or 2nd and then follow it up with AH. So after you've got both of those under your belt, and your capital has neither, what to do now?

Either you have to somehow make archers, but I'm not sure if you could research both techs required before the barbs come. Or you need to start churning out warriors. I am hesitant to build warriors only because I see them as something of a waste, but maybe that is a mistake.

Some one allready give correct answer. Fogbust, by you or by AI or go archery or in some case hourseback riding first, as it is often faster to research.

It is not a problem. An examples:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=178607
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=175281

 

[acidsatyr]

crap, halfway trough, my browser closed...

to sum it up,

archery is really last option
do some fog busting with warriors

those chariots were all promoted before i attacked incas, but the picture was taken just before i promoted them.

grabbing strategic resource with your second city is almost never a problem if you really focus your strategy around that (and do some fogbusting).

two combat 1 warriors can take out one barb archer most of the time.

also, look where you are geographically compared to other civs. I was really close to incas capital, which means much lower possibility of barbs jumping out of fog.

at any point in my (or any other game), if any of the circumstances were different, i would’ve played my position differently, and according to present situation. This game is just snapshot of one possible flow of action.

Almost always you will have some metal or horses near (inside) capital.
If not, you always have compensation in terms of happiness, commerce, gold hills etc. If you dont have any of that, thats just bad luck. But, in worst case you can always rush to catapults.

 

[cleverhandle]

If copper or horse does not appear in the capital, then it is probably impossible/near impossible to hook it up in a second city before the barbarians appear.

Certainly not. I have no problem waiting until my third city to hook up copper provided that I'm not worried about the AI grabbing it. You can handle barb archers with warriors if you use them correctly.

EDIT - or maybe somebody could offer up a strategy for dealing with this situation. Not only did I only have warriors, but I only had 1 per city. These barbarians were not particularly aggressive, but they were walking around there and making me feel uncomfortable. If they came for my farms, I could stop them only with a warrior and an unpromoted one at that.

Why do you only have one warrior per city? And why are they in your cities? The barbs aren't inside your cities, they're outside your borders. It depends on the geographic details, but it's quite common for me to not a garrison a city until the happiness becomes an issue.

I am hesitant to build warriors only because I see them as something of a waste, but maybe that is a mistake.

It is. You're not using your warriors efficiently and are going to burn too many resources on early military because of it. Follow, in excruciating detail, the early turns of some Emperor SG's to see how much can be done with a handful of warriors.

 

[podraza]

Interesting answers, I thank you all. I think my problem is that thus far (up to Monarch), I have always been able to not only contain the barbarian threat but to do so comfortably. Now I must learn to play outside of that comfort zone and be willing to take a risk or two.

 

[Illithid]

Big questions I would have for Acidsatyr after reading this thread and previously reading that these days you tend to favor a specialist economy: Do you tend to only use philosphical leaders? If you do not use philosphical leaders only, how effective is using a specialist economy with a non-philo, non-finacial leader? How would you play differently with a non-philo leader?

 

[aelf]

Actually, you can survive against barb archers with warriors for a long time on Emperor. Just try to make sure you're the one defending most of the time and defending on good terrain. Because of first strike, one archer without any defense bonus can eat up two or three warriors before dying if you attack. It's basically a cat and mouse game where you have to try intercepting the archers before they get to your improvements and, in doing so, making them attack your warriors while they are standing on good terrain. A few pillaged improvements may be inevitable, though. That's the price of not having copper or horses nearby.

 

[aelf]

Anyway, one question I have for Acid is what if you don't start so near to a neighbour in an Immortal game? In this game, Huayna was near enough for you to rush his capital with chariots. What if there had been a distance between you and your closest neighbour and your borders can't meet till almost the medieval era? What would you do? I've heard you mention that you don't settle more than 3 cities yourself (including the capital). Do you wait for him to expand towards you or rush him early when he's still far away?

 

[acidsatyr]

Big questions I would have for Acidsatyr after reading this thread and previously reading that these days you tend to favor a specialist economy: Do you tend to only use philosphical leaders? If you do not use philosphical leaders only, how effective is using a specialist economy with a non-philo, non-finacial leader? How would you play differently with a non-philo leader?

SE without philo. leader is obviously less effective, although i play it with or without that trait. The reason is that early in the game you rely on specialist to lightbulb techs for you. Less great people means slower progress. It is still good way to play only less effective.
No philo trait would mean more cottages ultimately, hybrid economy would probably be best in this case.
The way I see it, financial trait benefits from heavily cottage oriented game (but still having GP production somewhere ). Philo trait would benefit much more from SE, while anything else goes in between ie hybrid. Certainly one of the biggest drawback heavily cottage oriented game is cities with low food surplus.

 

[acidsatyr]

Anyway, one question I have for Acid is what if you don't start so near to a neighbour in an Immortal game? In this game, Huayna was near enough for you to rush his capital with chariots. What if there had been a distance between you and your closest neighbour and your borders can't meet till almost the medieval era? What would you do? I've heard you mention that you don't settle more than 3 cities yourself (including the capital). Do you wait for him to expand towards you or rush him early when he's still far away?

On immortal ai expands faster than that

 

[aelf]

On immortal ai expands faster than that

Much faster than on Emperor?

 

[acidsatyr]

id say thats correct,
faster anyway

 

[podraza]

id say thats correct,
faster anyway

Ok, but would you answer anyway? For us who are trying to use this thread as a backwards compatible guide to emperor wins?

Because I am having this very problem in a current game. I am India, basically trying to pull off the biggest Acidsatyr imitation I possibly can, and I find myself with 3 cities and an enemy who is at least 15-20 tiles away. It is about 750 BC and I've got my army of Axes ready and poised. Should I really trudge so far? Or build some more cities in the available space?

 

[uberfish]

Podraza - with lots of space available I'd have built settlers rather than axes, but since you already have the axes, you should do something constructive with them. Maybe there's a good barbarian city to take, or you could just grab the capital and raze other cities to avoid paying too much maintenance costs.

 

[podraza]

Podraza - with lots of space available I'd have built settlers rather than axes, but since you already have the axes, you should do something constructive with them. Maybe there's a good barbarian city to take, or you could just grab the capital and raze other cities to avoid paying too much maintenance costs.

I don't think I'll finish this game anyway, I've made too many mistakes.

But for the future, I was wondering about settling vs. taking. Resources can be devoted to either, but the beauty of taking is that it takes from him what it gives to you. If you settle, you gain something, but he loses nothing.

So facing a giant gap of open land between he and I, I can settle it myself, or trudge the gap and take distant cities from him, creating a far flung empire, and leaving a gap to be filled in later. (but crippling a potentially threatening enemy early and permanently)

These are the sorts of caculations that probably are made possible only by experience. And I'm one of those players who spends more time on this forum than actually playing. I am lacking in the hands on experience department. So uberfish says settle, I'll settle.

 

[cleverhandle]

But for the future, I was wondering about settling vs. taking. Resources can be devoted to either, but the beauty of taking is that it takes from him what it gives to you. If you settle, you gain something, but he loses nothing.

The costs of maintaining far-off cities are too large IMO. If you've got decent open space, shift your focus to techs and builds (CoL, Monarchy, Courts, Cottages/Specialists) that will allow you to build a strong enough economy to support 5+ cities. Then go on the offensive in the Middle Ages once you've got a strong foundation.

 

[acidsatyr]

Ok, but would you answer anyway? For us who are trying to use this thread as a backwards compatible guide to emperor wins?

Because I am having this very problem in a current game. I am India, basically trying to pull off the biggest Acidsatyr imitation I possibly can, and I find myself with 3 cities and an enemy who is at least 15-20 tiles away. It is about 750 BC and I've got my army of Axes ready and poised. Should I really trudge so far? Or build some more cities in the available space?

look, you cant imitate Immortal games,
it will never work, you can use principles however.

If your closest neighbor is so far away, than concentrate on research and settle extra city or two on reasonable position, rather than send axes on a 750 year old trip. It depends what speed you’re playing as well. Extra cities recquire faster corthouses etc etc

 

[podraza]

I'm searching for the polite and appreciative way to say....


NEXT TURNSET PLEASE!

 

[Meatbuster]

I was wondering about settling vs. taking. Resources can be devoted to either, but the beauty of taking is that it takes from him what it gives to you. If you settle, you gain something, but he loses nothing.

Not entirely true, the opponents still lose land they could possibly expand to when you take over a part of the map with a new city.

It is obviously less painful for the enemy to lose a bit of their dotmap than to lose a city, but settling is still an offensive move and it hurts them in some way.