A general strategy for Morocco

[kb27787]

That's my point exactly. Turns times are not an indicator of success rate. I'm not saying faster turn times guarantees losses if you fail. I'm not trying to prove a negative here.

The factor isn't turn time, it's turn time AND raw infrastructure. Those two are always opposed due to opportunity cost. So, to the degree that your pursuit of turn time has hurt your infrastructure, your victory is less secure. But, to the degree that you've shaved off target turn time, you have those extra turns to produce. Security is lost at the point where production x turns needed to win for the faster turn time strategy is lower than that of the slower turn strategy. This happens more often than you think, not just on the extremes. It's with every decision you make in the game. This consideration only disappears when you are at 0% or 100% victory, at which point like I said before, turn times, like anything else in this game, becomes just style points.

Agree. This is especially true for deity CV (when to build the music guild for example?); surety/certainty of victory depends on your maximum tourism once all modifiers are in place, as well as partially on speed, but that shouldn't be a factor unless your tech is exceptionally slow.
On the other hand turn time/speed depends on the rate of your tech/SP and random factors such as what AIs do to each other.

A rough example:
You can win pre t200 with 250-300 tpt with +10 faith output by GS rush and then GM rush; you went for a full-blown science game ignoring religion and most wonders (however, miss it by a hair, and your last civ enters a golden age where your influence is no longer rising... you are screwed)

Or you can win at t250 with 500 tpt and +40 fpt (your tech was delayed because you did not ignore religion/religious wonders for example) but even if something unimaginable happens (your last civ gets embargoed, they DoW you, etc.) you still could buy one more GM with faith just in time to win.

Or you can win at t280 with 700 tpt and +100 fpt (no matter what the other civ does, unless they wipe you out/launch their ship) victory is almost 100% certain. You were slower because you spent your energy and hammers wonderwhoring and delayed universities for workshops etc.

Of course you have to know when you've crossed the line; if it takes you 320 turns to get everything in order (internet NVC airports all SP) before you stream your GM, then victory is no longer certain. Speed is certainty to an extent.

 

[Cromagnus]

Other levels are different of course but winning at 270+ shouldn't be (and wasn't, pre-BNW) reliable on deity. The AI should be close to winning by then if you aren't. This whole "slow reliable victory" thing is only an option because the AI is broken right now. I don't buy into it. Slow reliable won't beat someone playing optimally. Yes there are some things you can't blow off like keeping a minimum military for defense but generally speaking, faster is better. Except for fun factor perhaps.

 

[budweiser]

Other levels are different of course but winning at 270+ shouldn't be (and wasn't, pre-BNW) reliable on deity. The AI should be close to winning by then if you aren't. This whole "slow reliable victory" thing is only an option because the AI is broken right now. I don't buy into it. Slow reliable won't beat someone playing optimally. Yes there are some things you can't blow off like keeping a minimum military for defense but generally speaking, faster is better. Except for fun factor perhaps.

The human sets the pace not the AI. Of course you can win slowly, reliably at high level. In the diety Zulu challenge, I won on t319. Germany was only a few turns away from victory but this is only because I did absolutely nothing all game to slow him down. If anything, I aided him.

 

[Cromagnus]

A high difficulty level should require more optimal play... which implies a faster finish turn time. Allowing a ton of wiggle room defeats the purpose. If playing sloppy and as a result having a size 30 capital on t300 is good enough when it can be achieved by t200 through optimal play, then there needs to be a higher difficulty level.... This seems obvious to me. Science victory is a race against the AI. If that race isn't challenging, Deity isn't Deity. Right now you can play extremely sloppy and still win a SV on Deity. It's broken. Speed needs to matter because efficient play needs to matter...

Don't forget deity is supposed to be so hard that "only the best in the world will beat it"...

 

[kb27787]

A high difficulty level should require more optimal play... which implies a faster finish turn time. Allowing a ton of wiggle room defeats the purpose. If playing sloppy and as a result having a size 30 capital on t300 is good enough when it can be achieved by t200 through optimal play, then there needs to be a higher difficulty level.... This seems obvious to me. Science victory is a race against the AI. If that race isn't challenging, Deity isn't Deity. Right now you can play extremely sloppy and still win a SV on Deity. It's broken. Speed needs to matter because efficient play needs to matter...

Don't forget deity is supposed to be so hard that "only the best in the world will beat it"...

Without wiggle-room, valid builds would be too cookie-cutter... everyone would have to play pretty much according to only a handful of possible ways.

And "optimal" play is subjective anyway. (clearest example would be do I war? Do I expand? Do I risk angering my neighbors... each decision has the potential to speed up your victory, but it can also backfire... so can you really say that taking the risk or not taking the risk is better? You can play exactly the same way twice and get drastically different results because of the random factor)

If SV is too broken for you then I suggest playing for other VC like culture? I find that SV is not so much a race against AI as it is against oneself (since you need very minimal diplomatic manipulation to do it, especially when compared to CV or DV so your tech path is going to be very straightforward and the number of factors you need to consider is much less, whereas CV is the VC where you consider everything: science, faith, diplomacy, wonders, CS influence, WC control etc.)

 

[Cromagnus]

SV used to be a race against the AI. Until they broke the AI in BNW. That's my whole point. I do agree that CV feels more like a race against the AI now than SV, but there's little risk they'll win... so it's not a race really. Anyway. I miss the challenge of Deity in G&K where the difference between 258 and 260 SV could be a loss. In fact I specifically remember being beaten to SV by one turn on 259. Sucked! But... Nowadays if you hit t310 it's almost without exception a win. They lowered the bar by like 60 turns!! That's just ridiculous.

 

[kb27787]

SV used to be a race against the AI. Until they broke the AI in BNW. That's my whole point. I do agree that CV feels more like a race against the AI now than SV, but there's little risk they'll win... so it's not a race really. Anyway. I miss the challenge of Deity in G&K where the difference between 258 and 260 SV could be a loss. In fact I specifically remember being beaten to SV by one turn on 259. Sucked! But... Nowadays if you hit t310 it's almost without exception a win. They lowered the bar by like 60 turns!! That's just ridiculous.

well in GnK happiness was not as much of an issue... (no ideological pressure) and gold scaled with number of cities linearly (as well as not having -5% science penalty and this warmonger penalty), so of course you could grow bigger empires back then (and you can buy GS with faith by just opening rat, and rat gave 2 free techs instead of one); makes sense your finish times in GnK would be faster...

(although I agree that overall BNW is much, much easier to win on deity than GnK because the increased number of features such as WC, internal routes, pressure, city flipping, etc. gives an advantage to human players who have discerning minds as opposed to hard-coded AIs)

 

[joncnunn]

I'm thinking more along the lines of: research agreements aren't a good idea below a certain level; AIs don't have enough money to trade for luxuries below a certain level, but they do for strategics; picking different religious beliefs because the AI won't be able to fight off your spread; the higher value of expansion with per-city unhappiness being lower, etc....things that change the strategy as you lower the difficulty level... things that someone inexperienced reading the guide might not realize and might follow blindly otherwise. Even tech priority changes when you can achieve the lead easier.

These can also be generalized if written correctly:
In case of RAs: Refer to 1) ensuring AI is in the same era and 2) That AI isn't so far behind he'd get 3+ beakers per trade route more than you would.

Luxuries: In BNW (no gold possible without DOF), I'd just write it as luxury for a luxury highly preferred in early game, but take 7 gpt for spare luxuries when another one is not available if you don't have a DOF to get 240 gold. (The difference in AI gold mattered a whole lot more in G&K)

Religious Follower beliefs: Should be written as a list of pros and cons anyway due to AI competition for several of them that varies in every game.

Unhappiness: It's a disservice to write a guide to Warlord level happiness; optimizing your play to it will make Prince very difficult; which many players strive to reach with it being listed as fair (game is lying; AI still gets major bonuses)

 

[joncnunn]

Scanning thread; yup optimizing for Tourism is indeed high risk / high return.

In addition to the risk mentioned to on Immortal / Diety on both that t200 & t250 victory would be that the AI beat you by one turn to the first world wonder (presumably one with theming bonuses as this is after a cultural victory) you were building / greatly slowing down your planned increase in tourism (and now being behind in basic buildings compared to if you hadn't of tried to build the world wonder)

 

[budweiser]

A high difficulty level should require more optimal play... which implies a faster finish turn time. Allowing a ton of wiggle room defeats the purpose. If playing sloppy and as a result having a size 30 capital on t300 is good enough when it can be achieved by t200 through optimal play, then there needs to be a higher difficulty level.... This seems obvious to me. Science victory is a race against the AI. If that race isn't challenging, Deity isn't Deity. Right now you can play extremely sloppy and still win a SV on Deity. It's broken. Speed needs to matter because efficient play needs to matter...

Don't forget deity is supposed to be so hard that "only the best in the world will beat it"...

I don't agree. The hardest level, should be hard. It should take time and effort. If it was properly balanced it would. I feel like I am getting ripped off if I have to finish a 500 turn game in 250 turns. That's poor game design not skillful play. In that sense it is broken.

 

[Carl5872]

Well Done!

You should seriously consider copying and pasting these to the War Academy. And please write more of these for all areas of the game! Love the deep relevant analysis, and both broad strategies, as well as detailed, specific implementations. The pictures make it so much better, as did the historical introduction.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Cromagnus]

I don't agree. The hardest level, should be hard. It should take time and effort. If it was properly balanced it would. I feel like I am getting ripped off if I have to finish a 500 turn game in 250 turns. That's poor game design not skillful play. In that sense it is broken.

"Only the best players in the world will beat it"- it's right there in the description. The challenge of beating the AI to a SV is *getting there first*, by definition. Therefore the AI needs to win fast on Deity. Fast enough that the player is hard-pressed to beat them. 260-270 isn't even *that fast* of an SV time. But 310-330? It trivializes deity. Ever since BNW everyone beats deity. I refer you to the definition. I think this is incredibly obvious and shouldn't require explanation but clearly it does: this makes no sense: "some people can win by t220, but I won on 320 due to inefficient play, so I must be one of the best in the world"

 

[klaskeren]

On King, I would argue that virtually any strategy would eventually result in a win, so turn times are the only indication of whether it's a *good* strategy.

On Immortal or above, faster turn times (usually) indicate a stronger strategy, so that if you screw up some aspect of it, you still win. On those difficulties an inferior strategy will often just result in a loss. So, I think it always matters to some extent. Strategies for getting Early Education and maximizing growth result in faster turn-of-victory, but they also result in better chance of victory. The exception are the high risk strategies. Sacred Sites on immortal+ is high-risk. If anything goes wrong you lose. The same can be said (IMHO) for early war relying on insta-heal. By using all your ranged promotions on heals, if you don't gain significant advantage early, you will have worthless units not capable of finishing the fight. Whereas, a slower CB rush relying on logistics and range leaves you in a good position even if you only take a few capitals, and those promotions make it more likely that you can continue taking capitals if something goes wrong. So, there are exceptions, but generally, earlier finish time = stronger strategy... because if anything goes wrong, you win on t240 instead of t220. Versus losing entirely. IMHO.

i really dont agree with you here cromagnus, instaheal = faster capture = enemy city lower combat strength when you take the next one, essentially the same as having stronger units, but with the added benefit of it being an earlier finish.

 

[Cromagnus]

i really dont agree with you here cromagnus, instaheal = faster capture = enemy city lower combat strength when you take the next one, essentially the same as having stronger units, but with the added benefit of it being an earlier finish.

I completely agree. It is faster. You take capitals before they become tough to take, which has a profound effect on finish time. But it *is* more high risk, because *if* you don't finish fast, for any reason, whether it be obstacles or non-ideal play, or whatever, you end up with no infrastructure (due to unit spam) and your units have no promotions. On an ideal map you can't beat insta-heal. But on a slow map, with a mountainous hilly bottleneck or a tough GW to crack, or if you're not a master strategist, it's a problem. Any delays on deity can push those units out of their era, and there's no denying that a unit with logistics and range can take a capital 30-50 turns later than they otherwise could. That's why I generally recommend the promotion route to domination newbies. Also, archer rush isn't as fast as chariot rush (on most maps) so you're more dependent on those promotions to keep you in the game. IMHO.

I could be wrong, but I've never heard of anyone clearing a deity Pangaea via CB rush with insta heal. I think Zulu could do it with impi, and any of the horse ranged units can, but the archer line? I just don't see it being done. You'd be hard pressed to clear the map by t110, and without teching machinery, at that point unpromoted CBs don't insta heal, they insta die.

 

[tommynt]

deity is the new King

I wrote that in my 1. post on this forum after bnw came out (poland strategy guide)

But that happens to pretty much every game - nefing.
Thats like in WoW every 1 month bosses getting a bit lower hitpoints and so so finally could every1 beat everything without any effort and could enjoy "the full game".

civ devs seem to think beating deity is part of a full game experience and therefore it requires so little effort now.

 

[klaskeren]

i agree, if the civ devs were reading these forums, maybe they would make the hardest level with AI winning space turn 200 on standard. Then certainly it would be a level which only a few could beat.

 

[megabearsfan]

I posted in a 2K suggestions forum that instead of giving the A.I.s bonuses on higher difficulties, the game could use a slider set similar to sports games. The player could then adjust said sliders to nerf the player instead of give bonuses to the A.I. (or do both). That way, A.I. growth and tech rates would remain the same as on "standard" difficulty settings, but the overall game pace / length would be the same. Instead of the A.I. having to have huge bonuses and rushing through the tech tree by 2/3 of the way through the game, the player would just be slowed down.

 

[joncnunn]

I posted in a 2K suggestions forum that instead of giving the A.I.s bonuses on higher difficulties, the game could use a slider set similar to sports games. The player could then adjust said sliders to nerf the player instead of give bonuses to the A.I. (or do both). That way, A.I. growth and tech rates would remain the same as on "standard" difficulty settings, but the overall game pace / length would be the same. Instead of the A.I. having to have huge bonuses and rushing through the tech tree by 2/3 of the way through the game, the player would just be slowed down.

In case of Science, that's what Civ III did after the Conquests expansion as it worked better with Civ III's min 4 turns to research anything.

Also, that suggestion can be done in a mod; the XML has fields that will do this; mostly because prior to BNW the AI's handicap used Chieftain.