Advice on first Regent game

[undertoad]

Hiya

I've picked up so much info and tips from these forums. I'm finally playing my first "serious" game on Regent, having got bored of Warlord. (People on a different game's forum have a good expression for what I was doing on that level: "comp-stomping"!).

I think a pretty good summary of what I'm unsure about is:

a) What do I do now? and
b) How did I get into this position? In particular, could I have done anything to prevent Sumeria from "running away" the way it has?

Sure, you can't see what happened up til now. But this is the first Regent game where I've persisted even when things go "wrong" - it's a completely different style of gameplay from Warlord in the early stages, I've found I have to be extremely careful, and accept some defeats/giving gold to prevent war. (Previously I just got frustrated with this and just gave up).

Quick summary of The Story So Far:

0. I'm Greek. Win conditions allowed are Space, Diplo, Conquest (my choice). I'm using a mini-mod I made which just reduces corruption and increases the OCN. AI Aggression level normal.
1. Met Zulus to my east.
2. Deliberately expanded eastwards to contain them (I know what they're like!), and to get that Ivory by Pharsalos.
3. Fought a back-and-forth war with them over possession of the city now known as Thesssalonica (Zulu, I conquered it, they got it back, I razed it, I founded Thess, they got it, I got it back). Zulus are no longer a threat.
3a. Did a LOT of tech-trading with Korea, Zulus, Sumeria. (Zulus generally for money, as they weren't very advanced).
4. Meanwhile the Celts dogpiled on me with their ****ing Archer-spam (Jeez, do they have a cloning machine just churning them out?) and conquered Knossos and Mycenae.
5. Definite sign of "all space taken up on this continent": annoying little Settler/offensive unit combos from Korea, Sumeria and Zulus wandering about through my territory and generally getting in the way (they love sitting on a crucial road junction on the route to my front). A few times when I said "Oy, Get Orf Moi Lannnd!" they just declared on me.
6. Annoying demands for gold from Sumeria and Korea, which at the time I felt I had to give in to (though I didn't always), being busy bashing the Celts.
7. Meanwhile Hittites and Indians also turn up, but just found crappy "my sister is also my aunt and my daughter" hick towns up in the north and don't bother me. Sometimes ask for gold, but they're too far away so I tell them where to shove it.
8. Celt-bashing starting finally going well, with two Armies (of Medieval Inf and of Knights) decimating the Archer-spam. Then Sumeria declared on them as well - and I did well to secure the whole Western part of Celt-land for myself.

So Sumeria is now dominant on this continent, and has Military Tradition (if they had a Military Advisor, he'd say "The Greeks fear our Cavalry"!).

TRADE
a) I'm confused as to how I can trade with India and Hittites. I bought their territory maps, but there's no route to them (but my F2 Trade Advisor insists I can trade with them, and the Diplo screen does allow me to propose resource-deals). Doesn't make much diff at the moment as I haven't been able to buy any of their (very advanced) techs, or get them to part with any luxuries.
b) I've constantly tried to get more luxuries (I only have Ivory), but Korea isn't interested in giving me Wine, and I'm nervous about getting into a PT deal with SUmeria for Dyes since I want to bash them soon. (Maybe this works the other way - getting into trade will stop them bashing me? Or does the AI not care about reputation?) Maybe the Babs will give me some Spices? They didn't want to before.

TECHS
Got Gunpowder and Metallurgy (and a very lucky Saltpetre by Isipezi - I think Korea has no saltpetre, but Sumeria definitely has). Now researching Nav to make better contact with the remote civs, and will then go for Military Trad and upgrade my Knights to Cavs.

The Situation
(I've attached a CivAssistII screenshot).

Sumeria is the problem. Once I've stabilised my new ex-Celt cities, I have to do something about them. My main aims are:

a) Get hold of the Sumerian cities north of Athens (they'll be good, uncorrupt cities for me - also I hate having enclaves in my empire).
b) Cut off the ex-Celt part of Sumeria by taking Augustodorum - with my ex-Celt Eboracum, that'll make a barrier of Greek culture just where the continent narrows to a "waist".

But should I go for the weaker Korea first? (This would allow me to go for the Korean enclaves in my empire - again, good uncorrupt cities once they're mine). Or try to enlist them in an alliance against Sumeria (if I did that I'd like to give them Saltpetre, but I only have one resource)? Is it worthwhile trying to get the more remote civs (e.g. Hittites, who may - as far as I can tell - have a border close to SUmeria) to gang up on Sumeria? I'm finding it very difficult to get other civs to co-operate with me, in spite of not having really done anything to offend them. (In this, I think I'm coming up against the big jump from Warlord to Regent).

Apologies for the lengthy post - any advice would be great! I think the length of this post is a reflection of how I'm playing an entirely new game now I've ratcheted up to Regent level - it's not just a comp-stomp anymore! I'm a very experienced CivI/CivII player, who loves CivIII, but until this game I don't think I've really challenged myself against the AI. CivAssistII has been a godsend, because my instinctive reaction to the current situation is "no way, I've lost, resign"; I'm so used to having a tech lead, as that's my usual play-style on Warlord. But CivAssistII tells me I'm pretty high up in the rankings in terms of population, land and number of cities (of course, that's just compared to the KNOWN civs - I have no idea of the extent of Rome or Arabia's empire, simply because I'm still researching Navigation). And reading accounts here from higher-level players taking on the insane Emperor/Deity/Sid levels makes me think that this situation is actually not too bad - as a Warlord player I got too used to a smooth game with few setbacks and a pretty early lead.

 

[vmxa]

I suspect that any mod to corruption will act like you are in communism. By that I mean that you will now have a lot more towns that have marginal value. You will be tempted to put up every known structure in those towns and be hard pressed to smash others.

I view the corruption model as a good thing. It lets me ignore most of the towns and just let them be farms.

 

[vmxa]

I must say this is the fewest workers I have ever seen at this stage of any game. You have 5 workers and no settlers. You have about 44 defenders and 15 attackers, no wonder they make demands.

You are running 30% science and 70% tax, what is the rush? I mean why not crank it all the way 80% and actually learn Navigation, before the game ends? It is either a needed tech or it is not.

If the money is more important than the tech, the drop to zero research. The real problem is why are you tying to learn Nav in the first place? It is an optional tech, you are behind in research, so skip it.

A quick scan of F1 shows you are making lots of muskets and almost no knights. Have you not seen that attackers win games? If you can not defend with over 40 defenders at regent, something is really amiss.

One reason that could be true is the placement of the towns, they are spread very far apart. You have a few towns behind you and it is 1470AD? I would have cleared that land long ago and not had to look over my should all the time.

I hate to see the capitol with so many tiles that do not even have roads. Of course as you have so many dead tiles in all your towns, they cannot benefit from roads right now. You could have benefited from chopping those trees though.

If you have about twice as many towns down in the same amount of land, you would be much farther down the road. 1470AD is a good time to have gone to the modern age. This is not possible with 5 workers and so few towns.

What is the value of making a temple in Eretria? It is size 6 and not able to grow. It has a granary and a lib and getting a temple. This is what I mean by the corruption model. It has all shields net.

So you are encourage to build stuff here. The game put the corruption in to discourage having large empires (that did not work though).

I always recommend that players stay with std map size and no mods, until they are smashing Regent and Monarch. Then go ahead and mod things.

I would start by making a lot of workers right now and settlers to fill in some of that dead space. Switch all muskets to knights or no unit. They must have a barrack of course to build any troops.

 

[undertoad]

Hi vmxa

Thanks for your comments. I think you've (inevitably) got the wrong impression on a few things from the moment I posted that save.

I must say this is the fewest workers I have ever seen at this stage of any game. You have 5 workers and no settlers.

The reason I have hardly any workers is my enormous army of slaves - 40+?

You have about 44 defenders and 15 attackers, no wonder they make demands.

Interesting point, I'd never thought of that. I've got a builder-mentality, so I always think of defending what I've got rather than attacking. From what you say, seems the AI judges threat on attacking units. Makes sense, and worth knowing!

You are running 30% science and 70% tax, what is the rush?

Gave you the wrong impression here - this particular turn, I was at 30/70 momentarily because CivAssist warned me I'd over-run on beakers - so it was one of those "crank tax right up just for one turn and make some money while still getting the tech next turn" turns. All the rest of the time I was on more like 80 science/20, or 70/30.

A quick scan of F1 shows you are making lots of muskets and almost no knights. Have you not seen that attackers win games? If you can not defend with over 40 defenders at regent, something is really amiss.
One reason that could be true is the placement of the towns, they are spread very far apart. You have a few towns behind you and it is 1470AD? I would have cleared that land long ago and not had to look over my should all the time.

This is very interesting. I think I over-defend the core (maybe over-afraid of barbs?) and so spend a lot of resources on more defenders than I need. What you're saying implies something like the "cities close enough that defenders can move between them in one turn" density. I'll have to try that. And, a look at the replay (I played on in this game in my own style, and watched the Sumerian Cavalry Stacks of Doom go through my empire like a knife through hot butter!) shows that I expanded territory and population very slowly - by 500AD the Koreans and Sumerians were already ahead of me on power!

(Another reason so many Muskets being built is that I'd recently got Gunpowder - it is an advantage to get the "hot new unit" into the field, especially with Sumerian CSODs hovering about...)

If you have about twice as many towns down in the same amount of land, you would be much farther down the road. 1470AD is a good time to have gone to the modern age. This is not possible with 5 workers and so few towns.

I would start by making a lot of workers right now and settlers to fill in some of that dead space.

Great advice. I think this is my key problem in this game. I tend to build towns in too "perfect" locations, looking forward to the time when they'll be glorious size-25 metros, and neglect the value of just getting culture coverage/production centres down on the ground right now. Another hangover from CivI (and II?) is paranoia about losing a city - back in one of the previous versions, this allowed the conqueror to steal a tech off you...

But looking at the replay, I should have built more towns back in 1000AD!

What is the value of making a temple in Eretria? It is size 6 and not able to grow. It has a granary and a lib and getting a temple. This is what I mean by the corruption model. It has all shields net.

Got me there! What do you mean by "all shields net"?

Something else I'm wondering about - when Sumeria started getting aggressive (after the replay I posted), I found I didn't have any friends to call on. I hadn't done anything to upset the remote civs (India/Hittites/Rome/Arabia), and even given them some gold and got into resource deals. Do you have to make a special effort to butter up these "sensitive" AI civs on Regent right from the start (I believe I read somewhere that they start with a worse attitude to you on higher levels)? Or would having more attacking units (as you said before) "adjust their attitude"?

thanks again!

 

[Daeron]

The reason I have hardly any workers is my enormous army of slaves - 40+?

26 slaves, though, I think even if you had 40, I would still build some more workers. You've got 23 cities and tons of unimproved tiles, some of which are even being worked. Which means you're limiting your own growth and production, because your workers couldn't keep up with your expansion and growth.

When you try to go for 1.5 workers per city, do realize that slaves only work at 50 % of a normal worker's rate.

Building too few workers was one of my beginners mistakes as well. You really need like 17 more workers to get that land developed. Cities like Corinth can function as a workerpump I think.

 

[vmxa]

As to workers, I just go by the number of tiles that need improvements. If I have citizens working a tile that needs a mine or water, I need more workers. I do not care, if it a native one or a pair of slaves.

The break downs stem from maybe 2000BC. I would expect most newly founded towns to make a worker as their first build after maybe the 4th town. This tends to make sure I have enough to get the task needed finished when needed.

You add in some slaves and you are close to what is required. Workers are the key to a strong empire.

I am confused on the 70/30 bit. I mean you had something like 21 turns to go, so any over run was a very very long way off. I pushed it to 80% and I think it went to 7 turns. Again it is the wrong tech anyway and should not even be researched.

Overruns can be dealt with on the last turn or two. I mean at 21 turns, much will change, so it does not matter about over runs. The cost could come down as others learn Nav. You could increase your beakers via more towns, less maint and so forth.

Metros are just a waste of time in most games. You don't need them and you should be winning long before you can built them and grow them. Yeah, if you have some histo run or space race, then maybe.

In the mean time you have at least 9 dead tiles in all those towns and some are even to far to fit in the 21 tile scheme. Remember you are not going to be using more than 12 tiles for nearly the whole game.

Your workers and units have to travel over all those dead tiles, losing time.

Net shields, I mean just that. What you have left after corruption, which you have eliminated.

You cannot go by me on the relations part as I do not care about that. I like to go to war and stay at war with everyone the whole game. That way they do not have to contact me.

I would say you will tend to be on good terms, if you stay small and have few lux/resources. If you make trades and deals. OTOH you will not want to stay small and have few resources.

If you get larger and have techs, they tend to get unhappy with you. At Regent, so what. They are not good at war, so whack them when they get out of line.

Barbs are of no threat to you at this level. If you are growing as fast as you can, you will remove the spots for them to spawn. A few units out in the fog, till then will prevent camps. You could just let them form and sack them for experience and gold.

If you were playing at say DemiGod or better, then barbs are an issue. Have you read my thread on Regent in the strat forum? I think that game I was in the Modern Age around 1470AD.

 

[undertoad]

Thanks for your advice!

I've just started another Regent game, and changed my opening tactics according to what you said - it's going much better! (OK, I also have a lovely starting location with a cow next to my capital, and had Ivory, Incense and Dyes hooked up by about 1000BC).

a) Workers Workers Settlers Workers! Result is my culture is not up to much, but I don't need it right now...
b) Not so fussy about placing cities far apart. Result is I've crammed in more pop than anyone else encountered so far (Romans, Hittites, Koreans, Indians) and am dominating my continent. About to defeat the Romans, Koreans next, then Hittites and I rule the continent. Also accounts for being 1-2 techs ahead of Indians (the most advanced apart from me), and waayyyyyyyy ahead of anyone else.
c) Screw the improvements (for the moment). I've limited myself to Barracks by the front and a 2-3 Libraries in the core.

I think, as a hangover from CivII, I thought that Libraries were essential to getting and maintaining a tech lead. The cheapness of them as Greeks encourages excessive librarianship. When in fact the key is population - hence Workers Workers Settlers.

 

[|\/|oonlight]

Barracks are good in shield cities - where you have forests and such. Having them on the front isn't necessarily that useful unless you need quick healing.

 

[undertoad]

Barracks are good in shield cities - where you have forests and such. Having them on the front isn't necessarily that useful unless you need quick healing.

Absolutely. It's always a toss-up for me in a newly-conquered city between a(n other) defender (e.g. Hoplite), a Barracks or a Library (since I'm playing Greeks, the Crack 101st Rapid Deployment Librarian Corps is the solution to preventing culture-flips).

I didn't used to bother with barracks-at-the-front until after the Library and defender (I always carry defenders in my stack) - and then only if the city shields were worth it. But recently I've started being more Barracks-at-the-front friendly, and I find that that almost-instant healing power, without having to move possibly slow attack units (e.g. Swordsmen) back when they're badly injured makes an enormous difference. And there's the fantastic effect on units defending the city. Especially since the AI (like me) likes using Stacks of Doom.

(I finally figured out the Archer-spam problem - spamming of one type of unit in the AA is a good sign that the AI civ is in a GA).

A few more thoughts on vmxa's advice about workers/settlers vs city-growth/improvements in the opening game, and about closer city spacing. This has been extremely helpful (thanks again!). It just occurred to me that this is a tactic that's trickled down from the dizzy heights of the Sid/Deity players to Regenters like myself. At those high levels, I imagine it's not really a "tactic", i.e. something you choose to do. You simply have to keep your cities tiny in the early game (and thus many and close, if you want pop) at those levels, just because the citz are so claustrophobic that they go into disorder at size 2-3 by default.

I get the feeling from digging around the forums that I'm not the only one who found Warlord->Regent quite a hard jump - much more than Chieftain->Warlord. IMHO, it's because the more leisurely opening style, combining territory expansion with city growth and improvements and culture suddenly doesn't work any more at Regent; you have to adopt some of the styles of the higher levels (and I'm speaking as someone who turned the hi-growth, ideally-spaced cities, hi-culture, hi-education tech-lead early game on Chieftain/Warlord into a fine art in CivI/II and III). I've no idea why this particular level-jump - to Regent - feels hard, when most of the difficulty settings change linearly right through from Chieftain to Sid - but then I've never tried the even higher levels past Regent.

If anyone else struggling with Regent comes across this:

a) Take vmxa's advice about closer cities and much higher Worker/Settler production on board
b) Use CivAssistII (among many other wonderful things, it gives you a Workers/Cities ratio)
c) Read Cracker's excellent opening moves and forestry analysis here.

happy AI-bashing to all!

 

[Spoonwood]

The easiest and most generaly way to prevent flips in newly captured towns comes as...
1. starve out citizens in those cities (and not have it revolt)
2. similarly, train settlers or workers from those cities until it's down to size 1
3. exterminate that civilization as quickly as possible.

If you have a cultural lead, that's not necessarily all that necessary, but if you ever start playing levels where it's very hard to do anything in culture, that's probably your best bet.

At those high levels, I imagine it's not really a "tactic", i.e. something you choose to do. You simply have to keep your cities tiny in the early game (and thus many and close, if you want pop) at those levels, just because the citz are so claustrophobic that they go into disorder at size 2-3 by default. [/undertoad]

I know I've had a size 12 in plenty of high level games prior 1000 BCE. I use the luxury slider or have happiness buildings such as the Museum of Mausollos. Already, I said *a*... and those generally are 20k games. Generally speaking, it's better to pump out as many settlers and workers before a city hits size 7 (or exactly the time it *would have* hit size 7) during the expansion phase. It's not a happiness problem as much a desire to grab and develop territory ASAP, AND you spend less food for growth up to size 7 than beyond size 7.

you have to adopt some of the styles of the higher levels (and I'm speaking as someone who turned the hi-growth, ideally-spaced cities, hi-culture, hi-education tech-lead early game on Chieftain/Warlord into a fine art in CivI/II and III).

Somewhat a curious comment to me. In civ II, ICS almost universally worked out as the best strategy. It's not so much that way in civ III.

 

[undertoad]

The easiest and most generaly way to prevent flips in newly captured towns comes as...
1. starve out citizens in those cities (and not have it revolt)
2. similarly, train settlers or workers from those cities until it's down to size 1
3. exterminate that civilization as quickly as possible.

Yup, with a bit more experience on Regent under my belt, I'm finding that's easier. Sure, there's an AI-attitude cost tips hat to that excellent thread investigating AI attitudes, but it's better than building a Lib, which sometimes doesn't expand culture soon enough.

Generally speaking, it's better to pump out as many settlers and workers before a city hits size 7 (or exactly the time it *would have* hit size 7) during the expansion phase. It's not a happiness problem as much a desire to grab and develop territory ASAP, AND you spend less food for growth up to size 7 than beyond size 7.

I've been doing this for the first time in my current game, and I'm surprised how effective it is. My builder mentality made me worry about not allowing cities to grow - but with many more closely-spaced cities, lack of growth doesn't matter in the early game.

Somewhat a curious comment to me. In civ II, ICS almost universally worked out as the best strategy. It's not so much that way in civ III.

Fair point. Maybe my OCP (is that the right acronym?) addiction was just something that works OK on Chieftain/Warlord, whatever the version. At higher levels, it doesn't do the job for a tech-lead/conquest game.

 

[Spoonwood]

I don't see a problem with OCP so much as the fact that going for OCP tends to end up with tiles not within the fat X of *any* city. Consequently, there exist tiles that cannot and will not get worked ever. If you have a tighter city spacing, you generally don't have this. One strategy consists of going for OCP, and then filling in spots that won't get worked by any city ever. That tends to end up more alongs the lines of a CxxC or a CxxxC though when all gets said and done.