Alan Nicoll's How I Play Civ2: comments

[starlifter]

posted July 05, 2001 12:55 PM
Quote: in the bit he talks about King Richard's Crusade

"Factories cost so much to build (200 shields) and 4 gold per turn I'm often curious whether they're really worth building. (I'm even less sure about Manufacturing Plants, Solar Plants, and the like"

To understand just how valuable Factories are, one needs to look at the underlying mathematics of the game. I won't do that here (because math=not so much fun

), but I'll give an overview: if a city produces about 8 or more shields per turn, a factory (with Hoover Dam) is easily worth the construction and upkeep (4 gold). Remember, the "normal" value of a shield is at least 2 gold.

Manufacturing plants cost much more in inial outlay and recurring costs, and my own break-even is 20 natural shields, based mainly on the primary late-game use: to get a city up to 50 or more shields per turn to make freight. Manufacturing + Solar = Bargain if your city can produce 80 or more shields per turn. You need 32 natural shields to do this, however. Offshore platforms are one of the most powerful improvements in the game... without them, about half of the cities would never produce 40/44/54/80 shields, even with factories, etc.

In civ2 for me the most important stage in the game is industralisation:

1. transports: at last trading with caravans is easy -hopefully i have magellans

Industrialization is a very key advance, esp. for trade as you point out!

2. Women suff is vital if u want to be a democracy.

3. factories in good cities make them powerhouses of ironclad production...and ironclads rule.

20-30 Vet Ironclads (and vet destroyers) will rule the seas in mid-game! And all coastal cities can be taken without population destruction!

My general rule: "Every coastal city makes/supports an Ironclad!"... at times, I've spent up to about 3,300 gold to produce several dozen ironclads on the first available turn, LOL...

And then, most civs (like the ones in GOTM 6) never make it past Industrialization

.

 

[Gismon]

It should be noted that in the section near the end referring to the wonders that sometimes, it does not depend only on what you may gain as the beneficiary of the new wonders, but what you are able to deny your enemies. Overall however, it was good information to read... it is nice to 'hear' someone elses viewpoint and strategy.

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

kittenOFchaos sez:

horseback riding is my first tech I go for...exploration is vital for finding people, getting goody huts and finding the best city sites. To prospone it is foolish IMHO.

I'm not advocating postponing exploration (which would be suicide) but merely questioning the best way to explore. I think 2 Warriors are superior to 1 Horse, and bypassing research for Horseback Riding gets me to Republic that much quicker. Many players agree with you on this point. Has it occurred to you that waiting 10 turns to get Horseback Riding, and then another 4-5 turns to build that first horse, is slower than building a Warrior to explore immediately? I'd guess that you build at least one Warrior to explore unless you have the horse tech from the start.

My main goal is to get Republic as soon as possible; Horseback Riding is a detour I can easily afford to skip.

In addition barracks early on a worthless IMHO.

My position is that Barracks (in essence) increase shield production for military units. The only question is whether they are worth the investment at a particular time and place.

My cities don't often get attacked, which is how I want it. But when they do, the difference between a veteran Phalanx and a rookie can decide whether the city stands or falls. I do as little as possible towards defense, even less towards attack, in the early game, unless forced into war. Making every defensive unit count is in line with this strategy. If your military strategy differs, your evaluation of the value of Barracks will as well.

he doesn't advocate use of triremes as a fast method of getting the best colony sites

No, I don't. Colonies across the sea are hard to defend, especially given the level of defense I prefer early (i.e., weak). I want all my colonies close together on good defensive terrain, like on an island all to myself. I'll use a single trireme to expose additional ocean squares and resources, and otherwise not worry much about the navy until I've got ironclads. Then I build them for defense and to harass enemy shipping. When I go on the attack, of course, everything changes.

Most of my mid-game strategy is colored by the fact that I've only played against nev21 in one-on-one situations. He explores and expands much faster than I do, but he's always behind in tech and some wonders I consider critical (the Chapel and Leo's). When I've reached industrialization, he has just about the whole (small) map explored, easily twice the area that I've explored. And twice the cities, but about equal in population. If I get a fleet of ironclads to defend my coast before he invades, I win; if I don't, he wins. That's how it's been so far. In our current game, we're playing 2x1x, which helps my style greatly and hampers his.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Smash]

I never saw anything stating this is THE way to play.It is called How I play Civ2.You may play differently.That doesn't mean these ideas are no good.You may agree with some stuff and disagree with others.There many ways to acheive an end in this great game.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Alan,

I agree with your style of exploration. I have always preferred two warriors to one horseman.

They can go in different directions, since my main goal is to explore my immediate area first, then they can each take different paths to do some long distance exploration. Plus, if contact is made, I can fortify one to hold my position and continue to let the other one explore or bring it up as support, or even try to flank the unit I first discovered.

The main benefits of a horseman is the speed and attack factor. Since most times the terrain is not completely open, the speed factor is not directly at a 2-1 benefit. And as far as the attack factor, if the defender is a phalanx, you have even odds at best; even a warrior with any kind of terrain or fortification bonus is a challenge.

And, as Smash said, it isn't a rule book, just another view point on how someone plays. I think it's great he actually took the time to address so many aspects of the game.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

The horsieman vs 2 warriors is also an issue of support often in those early years...plus the fighting fitness of a horsie and you have a better option (in addition to my previous reasons)...but each to their own!

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

True, support is a factor early on. When you realize that it only takes 20 food to add the second person to the city to give the needed size to the city so that no support is needed for the second warrior and that the city usually is adding two food per turn to its development it only takes around the 10 turns needed to build the two warriors as it does for the city to grow and be able to cover them support free.

Now if you are playing at the higher difficulty levels, once the city gets to two people, you'll need to have a unit there to keep the peace. So it seems like a delema to me for building a horseman.

I'm curious, do you build the horseman first, let the city get to size two and pull the second worker away from working to keep the city at peace until another unit is built to keep order, or do you build a warrior first so he can stay and keep the peace then build the horseman to explore?

Because if it's the first, you lose more than just one shield of support for the second unit, you lose a complete square of prodution for however many turns until a new unit is there.

And if it's the second, exploration doesn't really happen until almost 15 turns into the game.

BTW, I think the main reason I don't actually build horsemen is that I usually find a couple in huts and then I may send the warriors back to the cities as garrison.

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos:
The horsieman vs 2 warriors is also an issue of support often in those early years...plus the fighting fitness of a horsie and you have a better option (in addition to my previous reasons)...but each to their own!

Actually, I use 2 Warriors vs 1 Horseman for comparison only. I generally build a Warrior in my capital as my first build, to explore, then Settlers. And similarly for each new city. So support is seldom an issue. This is how I start a multiplayer game (King level 2x production) these days. In fact, I've played very few games using this scheme as purely stated, first because I came to this conclusion (use Warriors) only recently, and second because units from goody huts often take the place of the initial Warrior. So with a new city I may go straight to Settler production. If I get gold and already have Horseback Riding, I might well rush build a Horse for faster exploration. The strict scheme of Warrior then Settlers is a theory or fall-back plan which I adopt when goody huts don't change things.

And this is far too many words for a minor detail. Much more important than first build or Warrior vs. Horse is the overall game plan, which gets surprisingly little attention.