ALC Game #8 Pre-Game Show: Playing as Alexander

[yavoon]

Gah here's somebody else trying to get everybody going on numbers again!

The very brief answer is that in the literal sense, a scientist is better than an actual cottage. You get 3 beakers from the specialist but only one from the cottage. You'll get 2 from the hamlet and then 3 from the village, where you finally have a tie. After this simple comparison is when we starting sharpening torches and lighting pitchforks.

The specialists start better since you're earning a good, fixed number of beakers right away. The cottages finish better since you have 5 from the fully developed town + Printing Press. Add a river and you have 6. Add Financial and you have 7. But I wouldn't go any further with this analysis since you'll have to start making fictional empires to convince yourself that one way of playing is better. If you create a scenario showing when specialists are always superior, somebody else will make their own numbers to show how cottages are so much better and vice-versa. Like everything else in this game it comes down to how you enjoy playing the game the most- how do you prefer to develop cities, what are your favorite civics, what is your prefered victory type and so forth.

oh don't copout like that.

 

[Tennyson]

Gah here's somebody else trying to get everybody going on numbers again!

Actually, my eyes glaze over when you guys pull out the calculators. I'm just looking for rule-of-thumb from people who have played a lot more games than I. Based on what you said it sounds like 50/50 depending what kind of research curve you want to run.

 

[aelf]

Alex is one of my two favourite leaders in vanilla (the other being Napoleon). IMO, it's better to have a GP farm or two with him and cottage up the rest. You are Aggressive and have the Phalanx (which I find excellent). Why waste your early turns building the Pyramids when you could be building an early SoD of Phalanxes and axemen? Remember, Aggressive is strongest in the early game. The Great Library later will be nice, given your Philosophical trait. I usually chop everything to get it. It's worth it.

Don't underestimate the Phalanx. Between him and an axeman, I'd take him to attack an enemy with only archers. Like someone mentioned, the Phalanx has the same strength and can't be attacked by chariots (especially in Warlords, since chariots now eat axes). Plus he has better defense against non-axe units when on a hill, which allows you to utilize the terrain better. On Prince, I think building mostly Phalanxes early is safe and worth it, as the AIs can't even hook up copper as fast they can on Emperor. And the most wonderful thing about the Phalanx is their long shelf life. They do not fear elephants and can defend a city against knights when fortified (especially a hill city or cultured city or both).

After Aggressive has allowed you to take control of the early game, Philosophical will help you zip along the research path, allowing you to dominate later on too. With the Great Library built, my favourite strategy is to get CS asap, then Paper and then burn a GS (should be your second, the first and third can help research by building academies) on Education. I always get to Liberalism first on Emperor that way, grabbing Nationalism as the free tech. Gunpowder and MT follow, after which I will start building cavalry to attack the longbows defending AI cities. Flanking cavalry are cost-effective enough to take over those cities without siege weapons. Watch your enemies lose their empires faster than ever in mid-game.

 

[Jet]

If the Phalanx's +50% was subtracted from the axeman's strength, then it wouldn't also be added to the phalanx's strength and vice versa.... So a Phalanx with shock would be equal to an axeman with nothing.... either 5 vs. 5 or 5.5 vs. 5.5. This is not taking into consideration the +10% bonus for aggresive leaders. So a phalanx would be slightly better than a non-aggresive axeman. Of course, as Alexander, using axemen would still be superior than using Phalanxes since you don't need that promotion to compete with other axemen. In other words.... if there are no horses around, don't use Phalanxes.

I'm afraid you guys are mistaken and Nares and IPEX-731BA5DD06 are right. The Phalanx doesn't get +50% in this situation; it gets +10% from Combat I and +25% from Shock, for a total of +35%, compared to the Axeman's +50%.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

Axe men get automatic 50% v's melee and the 25% for the phalanx cancels out the axemans full 50 %

Ah, right. I don't know why I was thinking Shock gave +50%.

 

[pigswill]

It's not that big a deal. All it means is that instead of adding a spear to axestack to protect from cavalry you add a shock axe to phalanxes to protect from melee.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Why not? I mean, obviously I'm ignoring enemy promotions -- a Shock promoted axeman would still crush a phalanx -- but shouldn't a Shock phalanx vs. a plain, unpromoted axeman (ex. a barbarian) be 5.5 vs. 5? As I understand the combat calculations an attacking phalanx's +50% would be subtracted from the axeman's, so the axeman's multiplier would be 1 + .5 - .5 = 1.

Shock is only +25%

The problem is that an Axeman can do everything a Phalanx can do Better Except defend against a mount/defend a hill from an Archer

A CR Axe is better to have than a CR Phalanx in case they have a melee on defense ...it is worse than a Phalanx if they have a Mounted on Defense...but a Mounted defense is almost Never a Problem.

They cost the same, so Alex's unit strategy is the same as anyone else's... CR Axes with a Phalanx defense (probably Medic)

What he Might do differently is defend some spots with a Phalanx.. a Shock Phalanx Is better than an Axe for defending a Hill. (it has a +25% hill advantage and add in the +25% shock, and it can hold off an Axe...once fortified it can hold off a Shock Axe)

 

[NaZdReG]

Sisuitil,

games I play with philo leaders I tend to go for a hybrid econ, run as many cottages as you can, and in cities where you have food overflow (and you're not using the extra citizens for production) you should assign scienctists to start GS generation.

also leads you to just making 1 GP farm w/ the great library.
2 assigned plus 2 free and you're at 24GPP/turn that'll stack up quickly.

unlike a specialist econ where you'll want to assign them as super specialists, I usually drop academies in 2-3 cottaged up cities (I figure might as well since you have to build universities everywhere to unlock oxeford)

pop the rest for techs which tends to be more beakers than they will give you over time.

NaZ

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well to beat a Settled Scientist (in the GL City... with Only a Library and an Academy=10.5 flasks), a City needs to have ~21 base Flasks... which means if you are at ~70% science, it needs ~30 Commerce... Pretty high for most of the game

Of course once you start Getting High Commerce Cities, you also start getting Oxford which means that Settled Scientist is now 18 Flasks
the City now needs to have 36 Base Flasks... again meaning about 40-50 Commerce

[and both of those are Without Representation OR any monasteries, and not counting that hammer... which is useful in a Science City]

As for popping them for Techs...well after ~100 Turns they've given you more settled than as a pop (assuming you get the full pop amount) Plus its what you chose... there it depends, if its something really useful (say Education, or Philosophy for a Religion when you are on a heathen continent) yes, otherwise Settle in that Super City.

 

[Sisiutil]

Based on the usual conflicting advice , I'm thinking of going one of two routes.

The first route is pretty much what Notoptimal described in his post; he put very effectively into words an overall game strategy I was thinking of pursuing. After my first attempt at a specialist economy in the previous ALC, refining it in the next one with another Philosophical leader had a lot of appeal. So Alexander isn't ideal for the SE, mainly because of his starting techs? Therein, as Notoptimal pointed out, lies the challenge. If I go this route, I would definitely remain on Prince level.

However, Aelf's points are very well-taken. Leaving aside the idea of pursuing different strategies in the ALCs for educational purposes, if I was just sitting down to play a non-posted game with Alex, I would play it very much as Aelf recommended. In many ways, that's a tried-and-true strategy I've employed several times before. If I go this route, to keep it challenging, I would finally make the jump to Monarch (gasp! ) with the ALCs.

The thing is, I can't leave aside the educational element of the ALCs. That is their whole raison d'etre, so that I and others can learn.

So here is what I propose:

Let's try the SE with Alex on Prince. If it fails, as Notoptimal said, we get to learn how to "punt" an SE and go to a CE. If it works, well, maybe it's not the optimal use of Alex, as Aelf points out, but it will certainly help further illustrate the proper use of the SE, and again, it adds a little more challenge to the game. Either way, I would also like to try for my first Conquest victory, so let's throw that in as an additional challenge for this game.

But this will be the last ALC on Prince. (Gasp! again.) As several people have pointed out, I'm winning handily on Prince. I've hung on this long to the level mainly for educational reasons, again, for myself, but as time has gone on and I've become more adept at the game, mostly for others. Once we exhaust the alternative strategies with this particular ALC game, I think it's time to move on.

(Full disclosure: I have to admit that on my own, I'm starting to play on Monarch level now. I've had one win so far as Catherine and it looks like I'm on my way to another one with Elizabeth. I've made some slight adjustments to the ol' tried-and-true strategies, but so far I'm not finding Monarch to be such a night-and-day contrast with Prince. This is my way of reassuring everyone playing on Prince, Noble, and lower levels that the ALCs will still be relevant to you.)

The other factor in my thinking here, you see, is that the next ALC will be with Huayna. I know he's kind of popular, but I've never played a game as him before. He's often touted as an ideal leader for beginners, or for making a first attempt at a new level (ah-ha!), because his characteristics lend themselves to several different approaches (Financial for building, Aggressive with a good ultra-early UU for warmongering, starts with Mysticism if you want to go the religious route). So he strikes me as the perfect leader to use for my first (public) attempt at a Monarch game.

Sound like a plan?

 

[UncleJJ]

Proof by contradiction.

That proof can probably prove black is white as well since it must have some false assumptions somewhere.

A SE with Representation (from the Pyramids) will not be in the same state as an alternative SE that did not build the Pyramids and it will not be run in the same manner. So your simplistic comparison assuming the only difference was the 3 extra beakers/ specialist from Representation is manifestly false.

Building the Pyramids is a major early game gambit that distorts the economy for many turns. When the Pyramids are completed in about 1000 BC the player has stunted economy with 2 cities. He then spends many turns trying to expand and actually run some specialists to make use of Representation. An alternative SE based around a Super Science city could have it's academy by 1000 BC and 4 cities all growing and ready for an axe rush or whatever makes sense in that game... It will be well ahead of the Pyramid economy at that stage.

Running Representation is not entirely benificial even in a SE, especially in the early game. Hereditary Rule is a very good civic for a SE allowing bigger cities where plenty of food is available. HR is suited to using slavery and raising and running a big army that goes hand in hand with early conquests... but be careful to not overexpand and be sure that Markets and Courthouses are available soon to cut costs. Then at say 500 AD I'd expect the SE without the Pyramids to have a bigger empire and have better buildings than either a CE or SE with Pyramids.

One great weakness I have observed is the tendency to use specialists plus Representation as the only source of beakers, and that restricts the use of Slavery to whip enough buildings. I think Sisiutil demonstrated this behaviour in ALC #7. He would have done much better in the longer term if he had taken action early to build key infrastructure such as markets, grocers and banks in certain well chosen cities. That would allow the Science slider to be run at 100% for more turns than at 0%. Instead, acting on advice, he ran scientists with Representation for too long thereby stunting growth of the economy. A large part of the growth in output of gold and research in a SE comes from the multipliers buildings give and so the sooner they're build the quicker they provide the benefits to the economy.

Finally a major part of the research done by a SE is by considerate use of GP and a Philosophical leader can make them just as fast with or without Represenatation. It is totally false to make the trivial assumption that difference in tech rates between a SE with Represenatation and one without is a factor of 2. It is nowhere near as much once you take into account the real differences in how those economies are run.

 

[Orgull]

Congratulations Sisiutil on Moving up to Monarch soon! I'm not skilled enough to offer suggestions but your first route (Notoptimal's) sounds good. I really enjoy reading your ALC AAR's, I've learned a lot from them. Thanks and keep up the good work!

 

[pigswill]

To add a soupcon of piquancy and get ready for (public) monarch why not have raging barbarians?

 

[Sisiutil]

To add a soupcon of piquancy and get ready for (public) monarch why not have raging barbarians?

Interesting idea! What does everyone think? Or is trying to do a Metal Casting/Pyramids gambit with Alex's non-ideal starting techs challenge enough?

EDIT: Regarding UncleJJ's points: what about trying do as he suggests and attempting a SE without the Pyramids for early Representation, since Alexander doesn't lend himself to that? That could amount to an additional challenge and certainly require fine-tuning of the specialist economy.

 

[Phrederick]

I'd be interested to see what a non-Representation SE would look like.

I also think you should try my variant rule of after declaring war the first time, always ending a turn at war with at least one nation.

 

[pax]

Regarding UncleJJ's points: what about trying do as he suggests and attempting a SE without the Pyramids for early Representation, since Alexander doesn't lend himself to that? That could amount to an additional challenge and certainly require fine-tuning of the specialist economy.

I'm on-board for this. It sounds interesting! I've been holding back on trying an SE because I've only seen one in action. This would be the opportunity to test a different version of the SE strategy.

I also think you should try my variant rule of after declaring war the first time, always ending a turn at war with at least one nation.

I don't like this idea so much. To me, the ALCs tend to be about trying different strategies going for a win (sometimes, a specific type of win, even). This variant on "Always War" doesn't tell you about how to play a better game of Civ generally, but how to play a better game of Civ with a specific set of self-imposed limitations.

 

[Sisiutil]

I don't like this idea so much. To me, the ALCs tend to be about trying different strategies going for a win (sometimes, a specific type of win, even). This variant on "Always War" doesn't tell you about how to play a better game of Civ generally, but how to play a better game of Civ with a specific set of self-imposed limitations.

I have to agree. I don't want to load up the game with too many requirements. Civ has a tendency to throw a curve ball at you when you do that (even when you don't).

However, if I (a) build a specialist economy with (b) an Aggressive leader and (c) aim for a conquest victory, then you're gonna see a LOT of warring, have no fear. Don't be surprised, Phrederick, if I live up to your variant rule without consciously intending to.

 

[carl corey]

Whoa, non-representation SE? That will require some fine tweaking to get it to work well I think. Oh well, maybe you get lucky and land near a wonder-happy Gandhi. Anyway, given the aggressive trait I'd be more inclined to go for an early war then for early wonders. Not sure how to mix Phalanx in, I've never played Alexander yet. This should be fun!

 

[Nares]

Why not? I mean, obviously I'm ignoring enemy promotions -- a Shock promoted axeman would still crush a phalanx -- but shouldn't a Shock phalanx vs. a plain, unpromoted axeman (ex. a barbarian) be 5.5 vs. 5? As I understand the combat calculations an attacking phalanx's +50% would be subtracted from the axeman's, so the axeman's multiplier would be 1 + .5 - .5 = 1.

EDIT: It's been covered already.

...attempting a SE without the Pyramids for early Representation, since Alexander doesn't lend himself to that?

Sounds like you're trying to maximize GP production. That would still be better done with a CE, I think.

 

[Gnarfflinger]

I'd like to vote for trying for the Pyramids. The SE is more efficient for warmongering, and it lets you kick people's teeth in (which you want to do as an aggressive leader) without your science going in the tank. Also Phil gives cheaper Libraries and Universities IIRC, so You'll keep pace with less warlike neighbours.

My guess would be Mining->Masonry->Bronze Working->The Wheel...