Aggie
Deity
The red line shows the whale. Our curragh needs to cross the sea to reach new lands...
AG8 - Let's try Sid
- Thread starter Aggie
- Start date
TedJackson
Cunning old Celt
I can't look at the save until later but I'm curious to know whether or not we can speed up Lit.
I would risk the sea crossing now, as if we're lucky tech prices will likely drop (for us).
Ted
I would risk the sea crossing now, as if we're lucky tech prices will likely drop (for us).
Ted
Aggie
Deity
We can only speed up lit by two turns...
TedJackson
Cunning old Celt
As I feared... not enough to warrant holding off trading until completed.
I think attempting the sea crossing before trading is the best we can hope for - looks to be 2 full turns at sea from the picture.
Ted
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
I see we're building lots of temples, is this wise on Sid? Seems like a big shield expenditure to me.
I almost NEVER build temples on Deity, let alone Sid. Personally I think we need rax -> horse units much much more.
I almost NEVER build temples on Deity, let alone Sid. Personally I think we need rax -> horse units much much more.
Aggie
Deity
You are probably right anarres. I started and completed temples mainly at the border of India. I fear the flip chance...
Aggie
Deity
I like to discuss the path of glory 
What should our tactic be? We have a UU thtat is strong until muskets, so it seems logical to take one or two cities from an AI.
I assume that trhe most essential improvements are aquaducts and markets. And probably libraries aren't worthwhile? Temples in the bordercities?
Being a total newbie at Sid, I also know nothing of AI prices.
What should our tactic be? We have a UU thtat is strong until muskets, so it seems logical to take one or two cities from an AI.I assume that trhe most essential improvements are aquaducts and markets. And probably libraries aren't worthwhile? Temples in the bordercities?
Being a total newbie at Sid, I also know nothing of AI prices.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Focus on military is all important IMO, although empire improvement is also essential.
Buildings I would build (and more or less the order I would build them in) are:
- Aqueduts to grow to 7 for Republic free units (each one is an extra 4gpt in savings!). This is essential in all non-river cities, even 75% corrupt ones. Obiously this should be "timed" as best as possible to complete just before growth to size 7.
- Courhouses, essential in most cities. My guidelines are corruption from 20% to 80% (up to 90% cities sometimes).
- Barracks ASAP, but not at the expense of Aqueducts.
- Markets since we are 100% cash, but not until the "right time", which is probably after we have our first war.
- NO TEMPLES, unless they are border towns in danger of flipping. Even then the AI will build a temple and lib and take back the tiles, so I am not sure I would even bother here.
- NO LIBS EVER
That is for the moment anyway. Banks, etc are good when we get there.
Also note that it is essential to "gear" your empire in a certain direction. IMO Aqueducts are the most important building in C3C as Agri (for Republic), and after that building an Iro army to take India is our #1 priority.
Building non-essential buildings is a real waste of shields that we simply can't afford. Border cities can be fortified with lots and lots of units and is probably better than Temples which will be ineffective (or non-border) soon enough.
Buildings I would build (and more or less the order I would build them in) are:
- Aqueduts to grow to 7 for Republic free units (each one is an extra 4gpt in savings!). This is essential in all non-river cities, even 75% corrupt ones. Obiously this should be "timed" as best as possible to complete just before growth to size 7.
- Courhouses, essential in most cities. My guidelines are corruption from 20% to 80% (up to 90% cities sometimes).
- Barracks ASAP, but not at the expense of Aqueducts.
- Markets since we are 100% cash, but not until the "right time", which is probably after we have our first war.
- NO TEMPLES, unless they are border towns in danger of flipping. Even then the AI will build a temple and lib and take back the tiles, so I am not sure I would even bother here.
- NO LIBS EVER
That is for the moment anyway. Banks, etc are good when we get there.
Also note that it is essential to "gear" your empire in a certain direction. IMO Aqueducts are the most important building in C3C as Agri (for Republic), and after that building an Iro army to take India is our #1 priority.
Building non-essential buildings is a real waste of shields that we simply can't afford. Border cities can be fortified with lots and lots of units and is probably better than Temples which will be ineffective (or non-border) soon enough.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Oh, and implicit in my last post but not stated is that any city that has the "essentials" (rax and sometimes aqueducts) ONLY horse-based units should be built!
Edit:
I would just like to add that in nearly ALL SG's I have been in people play too fast! I think you should discuss the tactics EVERY new player.
Certainly on Sid we don't have the luxury of "quick play". If we try it we will make mistakes and will lose badly.
Edit:
I would just like to add that in nearly ALL SG's I have been in people play too fast! I think you should discuss the tactics EVERY new player.
Certainly on Sid we don't have the luxury of "quick play". If we try it we will make mistakes and will lose badly.
Aggie
Deity
Originally posted by anarres
I would just like to add that in nearly ALL SG's I have been in people play too fast! I think you should discuss the tactics EVERY new player.
Certainly on Sid we don't have the luxury of "quick play". If we try it we will make mistakes and will lose badly.
I agree. Let's make time for discussion in between turns!
Nad
Known Troublemaker
what about courthouses? To me they are one of the most important pieces of infra one can build. I would rate them just after markets for core cities and before markets for 2nd ring cities.
Also: I don't agree with going to war against the AI just because we can and we have mounties. For me there has to be a reason to divert so much of our resources to a war effort. Why should we prepare to attack India? Are there are resources in border areas that we can get? Is there a particular area we want to control? I'm not sure, we need to think this through more clearly...we have not been screwed in the landgrab so I can see no reason to divert so many resources into an offensive war where we might gain a couple of cities...that is just not good value when we could be using that time to improve our cities, improve our economy, improve our defence. Even if we are planning for a military victory, which I don;t think we should be just yet, this is still too early in the game.
I'm not opposing military action outright, I am simply proposing that we should have clear and true objectives before we divert so many resources into an offensive.
Also: I don't agree with going to war against the AI just because we can and we have mounties. For me there has to be a reason to divert so much of our resources to a war effort. Why should we prepare to attack India? Are there are resources in border areas that we can get? Is there a particular area we want to control? I'm not sure, we need to think this through more clearly...we have not been screwed in the landgrab so I can see no reason to divert so many resources into an offensive war where we might gain a couple of cities...that is just not good value when we could be using that time to improve our cities, improve our economy, improve our defence. Even if we are planning for a military victory, which I don;t think we should be just yet, this is still too early in the game.
I'm not opposing military action outright, I am simply proposing that we should have clear and true objectives before we divert so many resources into an offensive.
Aggie
Deity
I think that a clear objective for a war is to get cheap techs out of the peace deals. Otherwise the techs might be too expensive...
Oh, and we must make contact with the world asap.
Oh, and we must make contact with the world asap.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Whoops - courthouses are essential! My bad - I've updated my post to reflect this. 
Well, I agree with not blindly rushing to war, but the main reason that India has to come under our thumb is that they control land that will be VERY productive for us!
Getting your core as productive as possible is essential at most levels, but especially so at higher levels where the AI bonus is so great.
Well, I agree with not blindly rushing to war, but the main reason that India has to come under our thumb is that they control land that will be VERY productive for us!
Getting your core as productive as possible is essential at most levels, but especially so at higher levels where the AI bonus is so great.
I disagree on the never build libraries. Cultural victory is a big risk in conquests. I feel libraries are low priority, but definitely worth the maintanance cost. If we can keep within 1/4 -1/6 the AI culture we may be able to reach 50K before the AI gets to 100K and prevent a loss in the case of a single strong AI.
My inclination in our position would be to concentrate on infra rather than military. We got a goodly number of cities and can grow pretty strong at our current size. On the other hand, I do admit that early warfare can be very strong if you can pull it off. I am not sure that we will be successful at SID difficulty. Attacking and not making any progress could be very costly.
We should definitely decide on one path or the other. If we are going the military route, I agree we need to concentrate on that almost exclusively to be able to win a war at SID. If we are not going to be attacking, large numbers of barracks and units should be much lower priority.
My inclination in our position would be to concentrate on infra rather than military. We got a goodly number of cities and can grow pretty strong at our current size. On the other hand, I do admit that early warfare can be very strong if you can pull it off. I am not sure that we will be successful at SID difficulty. Attacking and not making any progress could be very costly.
We should definitely decide on one path or the other. If we are going the military route, I agree we need to concentrate on that almost exclusively to be able to win a war at SID. If we are not going to be attacking, large numbers of barracks and units should be much lower priority.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Hmm, Libs really don't appeal to me at all, even though on Deity I play Sci most the time and love them.
If we don't take India by the time they are at the end of the Middle Ages I think we are kidding ourselves that we ever will.
Our empire isn't very big at all! If we don't expand we will have to take a UN win, we may as well be playing a 5CC variant. I don't like this thought - we need land, we need future production power.
I think it would be a huge mistake to not build for war against India, we would tie ourselves to a peaceful builder game where we have about 50% of the land we need...
...one last thought - tech costs for us are 200% of the AI's, and trying to buy when we can't rase much cash (due to a small empire) will mean it's extra extra hard.
If we don't take India by the time they are at the end of the Middle Ages I think we are kidding ourselves that we ever will.
Our empire isn't very big at all! If we don't expand we will have to take a UN win, we may as well be playing a 5CC variant. I don't like this thought - we need land, we need future production power.
I think it would be a huge mistake to not build for war against India, we would tie ourselves to a peaceful builder game where we have about 50% of the land we need...
...one last thought - tech costs for us are 200% of the AI's, and trying to buy when we can't rase much cash (due to a small empire) will mean it's extra extra hard.
Nad
Known Troublemaker
16 cities is hardly a small empire!
For a largely builder game that is more than enough to win. Ideally we would want about 25 cities, and if we can get more, great. But with 16 cities either diplo, space, or a late military victory is very possible on deity, and I do not think that the gap between deity and sid is so immense that all paradigms go out of the window.
Nevertheless, I agree with the principle of trying to get some more land...the execution will be much more difficult. The danger is that if we go the military route and fail, we almost certainly lose the game. If we stick to a builder plan then we may not grow as powerful as we could be but we make sure we stay in the game, through economy, brokering and trading.
Thus I see the the military route as a gamble, an early but potentially decisive throw of the dice. If we succeed, if we can swallow 5-10 cities we set ourselves up beautifully for the rest of the game. If we fail, and maybe lose 3 or 4 cities as well as the shields invested in units then we're marginalised for the rest of the game. That is a big gamble to be taking so early in the game.
I see that I'm up but I won't start playing until we have more discussion on which of these routes we head down.
For a largely builder game that is more than enough to win. Ideally we would want about 25 cities, and if we can get more, great. But with 16 cities either diplo, space, or a late military victory is very possible on deity, and I do not think that the gap between deity and sid is so immense that all paradigms go out of the window.
Nevertheless, I agree with the principle of trying to get some more land...the execution will be much more difficult. The danger is that if we go the military route and fail, we almost certainly lose the game. If we stick to a builder plan then we may not grow as powerful as we could be but we make sure we stay in the game, through economy, brokering and trading.
Thus I see the the military route as a gamble, an early but potentially decisive throw of the dice. If we succeed, if we can swallow 5-10 cities we set ourselves up beautifully for the rest of the game. If we fail, and maybe lose 3 or 4 cities as well as the shields invested in units then we're marginalised for the rest of the game. That is a big gamble to be taking so early in the game.
I see that I'm up but I won't start playing until we have more discussion on which of these routes we head down.
Well my SID experience is very limited. I may be trying to play the game in a manner that I would play a deity game - for a deity game, your statement is not at all true - we could stay close enough to make the war easier rather than harder.
So I am not at all sure what is best. If your statement is based on previous SID games, then I am willing to defer to your expeience.
[Edit: cross-posted with Nad.]
[Edit: For deity at least, I agree with Nad. Early failed attacks has been one of the leading causes of Deity losses in my single player games].
So I am not at all sure what is best. If your statement is based on previous SID games, then I am willing to defer to your expeience.
[Edit: cross-posted with Nad.]
[Edit: For deity at least, I agree with Nad. Early failed attacks has been one of the leading causes of Deity losses in my single player games].
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Well, on Deity I always attack early and always win, and I'm sure I'm no better than any of you. Maybe a better warmonger if you lose Deity ancient wars, but I doubt it.
I've never played a Sid game to completion, but many to the Middle Ages (for me, not the AI), and war is certainly possible, even with fewer cities than we have. With our empire we have plenty of cities to go to war, but the AI bounus seem just to great to realistically try a builder game to conclusion with this many cities.
The main point I wanted to make that was without an early war I don't think we will ever get to take India, although I could be wrong on this.
Greebly, please don't defer anything to me, I'm really not that good a player, sorry if I gave a different impression.
I've never played a Sid game to completion, but many to the Middle Ages (for me, not the AI), and war is certainly possible, even with fewer cities than we have. With our empire we have plenty of cities to go to war, but the AI bounus seem just to great to realistically try a builder game to conclusion with this many cities.
The main point I wanted to make that was without an early war I don't think we will ever get to take India, although I could be wrong on this.
Greebly, please don't defer anything to me, I'm really not that good a player, sorry if I gave a different impression.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
I guess the biggest difference between Deity and Sid is that on Deity I am tech leader out of the Ancient Age 90% of the time, and on Sid they are near or at Industrial by the time I get Knights.
This is the reason I say that we need to fight India now or not at all - the gap widens VERY quickly...
This is the reason I say that we need to fight India now or not at all - the gap widens VERY quickly...
Nad
Known Troublemaker
I think most (all?) of us here are Sid newbs, so we're allowed to experiment and make mistakes .
One thing that would favour an early war is the India-Sumeria fight...if they can weaken each other then we may be able to stride in at a decisive moment and make significant gains, then take a winning peace.
For me, the biggest motivation to go to war would be security rather than land. Extra land is always nice and increases our chance of future resources, but I think we can all agree we want a weak India...we do not want to spend the rest of the game praying that India stays sweet and relying on that for survival. At some point we do want to negate India as a military threat, the sooner the better (also to relieve cultural pressure on our borders).
So maybe we should discuss that point? Do we think that now is a good time to cripple India? If so we can begin preparing for a mountie strike to raze a number of cities and make India's empire significantly smaller. Or maybe we should wait for this? From Annares' experience, the suggestion would be that we have to attack sooner rather than later...I am willing to go along with that, but we must ensure our preparations are correct and anticipate the potential difficulties and how we can solve them.
.One thing that would favour an early war is the India-Sumeria fight...if they can weaken each other then we may be able to stride in at a decisive moment and make significant gains, then take a winning peace.
For me, the biggest motivation to go to war would be security rather than land. Extra land is always nice and increases our chance of future resources, but I think we can all agree we want a weak India...we do not want to spend the rest of the game praying that India stays sweet and relying on that for survival. At some point we do want to negate India as a military threat, the sooner the better (also to relieve cultural pressure on our borders).
So maybe we should discuss that point? Do we think that now is a good time to cripple India? If so we can begin preparing for a mountie strike to raze a number of cities and make India's empire significantly smaller. Or maybe we should wait for this? From Annares' experience, the suggestion would be that we have to attack sooner rather than later...I am willing to go along with that, but we must ensure our preparations are correct and anticipate the potential difficulties and how we can solve them.
