Are allies important, and a few other questions...

[salendrak]

Hi all! New guy here, and new to Civ as well. I've been playing for about a week or so and am having a blast. The information from this website and the forums is sometimes a bit overwhelming, but I think I'm really starting to get the hang of things. I do have a couple of questions though, if anyone has the time to either answer them or point me in the right direction.

Oh, for reference, I'm playing regular CivII 2.4.2 (I think), and my current game is Prince level, large map, 6 civs.

Anyways, I have a couple of general questions. First of all, is it important to maintain allies? I've been reading a lot about Power Democracy and am wanting to try it out, but it seems like whenever I start to get ahead in tech everyone starts to gang up on me and demand that I give them all my secrets in order to keep them happy. If I try to make any allies by sharing with a select few other civs, they always seem to blabber-mouth to everyone else. That and they keep backstabbing me anyways whenever I do make peace with anyone. So is it better to just keep things to yourself, tick off everyone else, and deal with the consequences?

In my current game, I think I completely lost my tech advantage this way. I guess it's in late game, and I'm a little bit behind in the space race to one other civ. I find myself getting nuked every now and then, and I don't have SDI yet. So I'm wondering if my current situation is my own fault for having given away stuff earlier. Of course, if you do keep things to yourself, which results in you getting ahead and everyone else ganging up on you, won't they still just share everything, making it so that they progress 5 times faster than they would if they weren't united against me?

Another thing I'm wondering, as far as individual city development goes, I understand the concepts of wonder cities, SSC's, and even making military unit cities with Shakespears Theater (especially under democracy), but how do you generally build all your other cities? Is it good to put all the city advances in pretty much every city, like factories, markets, etc, etc? Or is it better to just specialize and make some as trade cities, other's as science, and others for unit production? Basically, what does your average run of the mill city end up looking like?

This one is out of curiousity, but I'm wondering how most people generally like to win the game, whether it's by conquest, or doing the spaceship.

A final question (though I could definitely come up with many more), how important is a sizable naval force? I'm sure that this one is subject to all sorts of personal preference, but in my current game some of the other civ's built huge navies. Since I was able to keep all my cities on one very large continent, I never bothered with ships, and rather than building a navy of my own to knock out the AI navies, I just put up coastal fortresses and watched them beat their battleships against my otherwise piddly defenders. Is that a good way to go? (It certainly is fun to watch a battleship lose to a marine

One last little thing--to anyone else who is starting the game, I found one little trick that makes playing the game much more enjoyable. CHANGE THE ICON FOR THE ALPINE SOLDIERS!!! I got so sick of that yellow suited skier who was never even remotely close to any snow. What a dumb idea for a unit! And it's fun to change the other icons as well. I'm really impressed with how customizable the game is.

Anyways, thanks for reading, and any input is much appreciated

 

[Titi]

Welcome salendrak.

As far as giving techs is concerned, a way not to waste time searching (beakers cost increases if you're too far ahead) is to trade them. But I'm not a specialist at this : as a matter a fact, I prefer keeping my discoveries, and steal the others to the AI with spies (and also have the Great Library to receive free the techs I don't bother to search). But you'll surely get much better tips on that subject from other guys around here.

I usually don't make alliances, because the benefits are (in my opinion) much more for the AI !

Never had a naval force : only transports and one or two battleships...

I also usually win by spaceship.

Finally, I don't bother to have "specialized" cities. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you can afford not to have the various improvements that allow happiness, gold and production. IMHO, even if you want an "industrial city" somewhere, you'll need coliseum, temple, cathedral (or get the wonder that gives you one in every city - I'm not sure of the name it has in the English version) otherwise your city will not work because of unhapiness !

 

[funxus]

I usually only give away techs that doesn't benefit them very much. E.g. giving away gunpowder, conscription, mobile warfare and techs that allows a wonder you want, but you haven't built yet. If you for example have gunpowder and a civ wants the wheel from you, you might as well give it to them. Also make sure that you get something out of it, like lower research costs, maps, them declaring war on someone, maybe avoid a war when you're not ready for it...

I don't care much for allies, they will all break the treaty eventually or gang up on you. I usually try to get them to ally me though, but I won't spend much to get the alliance or maintain it.

I, like Titi, usually don't specialise cities and only give them one type of improvement, but give the cities what they need. If the city is unhappy, it gets a happinesss improvement first, if it has good production it gets a factory first, if it has lots of trade it gets marketplaces, libraries and trade routes first, if it's in a good position to produce a certain type of war unit, it gets barracks, airpot or port facility...

I seldom collect naval units into fleets, but send one to three ships towards an enemy along with land units. Once I get Rocketry, I never build any other units than vet AEGIS. They are fast and can empty most cities.

 

[Terrapin]

If you read the D+2 succession game thread in the "STories and Tales" section you will see a great example of using alliances. The players there managed to beg their way through the first couple thosand years, receiving regular gifts from their friends, the Zulus. Playing at the normal game levels, you are hardly ever as overmatched as in the early part of that game.

 

[la fayette]

Welcome salendrak,

1) This game is 7 years old and the most experienced players go on discovering new features. This means that you cannot expect to learn everything within a few weeks.
Advice #1: If I were you, I would play small maps; they teach you the same lessons...much faster.

2) This game can be played very peacefully or very aggressively (or anything in between).
The best example of peaceful game I have in mind is samson (the best civ2 player of all times IMO) winning at Deity level with ONE CITY SIZE ONE. This looks incredible, but when you are weak and small, you don't frighten the AI: samson managed to have many allies giving him gifts almost every turn, almost until the end.
A good example of aggressive game is when you don't even build a city. You wander and tip huts, which provides you with military units. You just don't care about research or trade; you just don't stop killing any AI unit you come across until you own the whole map.
Advice #2: Choose rather early whether you wish to launch a SpaceShip (rather peaceful game) or conquer the world.

3) Specialized cities are very useful (solo, the master of early landing, uses at least 4 different kinds: SSC, helpers, colonies and SS parts makers)
Advice #3: Read or ask about the SSC (a strong SSC is a winner in almost any kind of game)
Advice #4: Try NOT TO BUILD any improvement in any city other than your science city (a common mistake among beginners is to build too many improvements)
Advice#5: Build camels instead (strong civ= strong trade)

Happy civing

 

[la fayette]

Yes, they are, in a peaceful game.
Choose them preferably far away: they will grant you peaceful trade routes. If you choose your neighbour, you run the risk of having all your roads invaded by his units (this is allowed between allies)

No, if you wish to play Conquest
You cannot expect to conquer the world AND make your neighbours happy. Be ruthless. Crush them. Anything else is a waste of time.

 

[Old n Slow]

I’m with La Fayette on 95% of his advice -- read & play (or maybe play & read.) I usually don’t decide on what my winning goals are until later in the game because most of my games tend to have the same general path and very similar routes. Build some cities, trade a lot, grow both the quality and quantity of your civ.

Are alliances worthwhile? Yes, if you can get one or two, they can be worth significant gifts. I’ve often received a couple of techs that way in addition to many coins. The step before alliances is more important -- trading with the ai for the techs that they have & you want and exchanging maps -- especially early on in the game.

How do I generally build my other cities? Not fast enough I guess. I’ll have about four or so when I start my first wonder (at prince level), should have a couple more by the time I switch to Monarchy. Maybe a dozen by republic. I usually will have a temple in each, and a defender/diplomat for my outer border, but nowadays some of my interior cities are empty. I try to have my SSC up to speed with the relevant wonders & infrastructure, but the rest of my cities are usually building camels, settles, diplomats and a boat or two for the common welfare.

Once I have a reasonable level of trade activity (trying for a tech per turn) and once I have the key wonders in my control, then I’ll start building infrastructure in my major cities. After the temple, settler, a bunch of camels, I’ll build a market, aqueduct, harbor, library, bank, sewer, in pretty much that order.

War is postponed for as long as I can (some others can do the rapid conquest route, but it has not been my forte), often until Tactics.

Once I get democracy, there is no real reason why my civ should remain so small. My primary foible is that I seem to build my cities too slowly, & don’t get them started soon enough. Ah, well. The better players will often start a city, then (b) build in two more settlers/engineers to make it size three, then celebrate it up to a reasonable level. I’ll get thee some day.

Sometimes, things don’t go as ideally -- so part of my civ will make a barracks or two too soon & I may have to place a couple of phalanx & vet elephants in the field to ‘take care of business’. The goals may be one of avoid distraction from the wonder building effort to develop a reasonable border to complete elimination of a front to dominance of the continent. I usually don’t get around to serious war activity until tactics -- and then my goal is to take out a civ or three & have half of the world.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally posted by la fayette
Advice #4: Try NOT TO BUILD any improvement in any city other than your science city (a common mistake among beginners is to build too many improvements)

As Old n slow says, most of what la fayette suggests here represents very good advice. HoweverI would qualify this one a bit. If you are playing a peaceful game like the Early Landing Games, it is possible (desirable) to keep most cities on a shoestring. However, if you are playing aggressively, you will probably need more cities and more improvements in them as this will allow you to better produce and support your military while still keeping the citizenry content.

However, I agree that many (including myself) often build too many improvements.

In general, don't build an improvement unless you have a good reason. A new colosseum in an already stable, content city is of little use. Make sure you are getting sufficient return on your investment (which includes the build cost andmaintenance costs) when you build things.

 

[salendrak]

Wow! Thanks for all the pointers everybody. Especially about building improvements. I've pretty much been guilty of gradually building almost every improvement into every city, but it sounds like a better way to go is simply to keep it happy and then build camels/freight? And then do you simply rush build new units and improvements because you're making mega money? Sounds like a good plan--I'll have to try it out in my next game.

It just seems counter-intuitive at this point. I guess that starting out it is natural to associate production, whether improvements, wonders, or units, directly with shield output. But from what I've been gathering, the coin is mightier than the shield. I read a couple of posts that talked about having nothing but grasslands around a city, and I was confused as to how they could ever produce anything without any mined hills or developed plains. Get the trade flowing I suppose.

Cheers!

 

[B52]

Lafayette, where can I find out more about samson's "one city" game? I am very intrigued by this idea. I once tried to play a game with a "peace" policy, having the bare minimum of military and not growing. But I found that the AI civs used me like a jail-house b**ch! It was very unsuccessful.

 

[Terrapin]

B52.. Are you playing Multi-player Gold Edition (MGE)? The ai is very hostile in that version. Once you start to get strong everyone turns against you.

 

[la fayette]

Originally posted by B52
Lafayette, where can I find out more about samson's "one city" game?

I have found the thread, but I have problems with my connection to Apolyton. I give you the link as soon as it works again.

 

[B52]

Thanks Lafayette.

Terrapin, yes I am using MGE. I have experienced how the AI hates you when you are strong. But, what I also found is that he dispises you if you are too weak! I would love to see a strategy for pursuing a successful "peace" policy.

 

[la fayette]

B52

I have started a new thread giving the link to samson's 'One city size One'.
It deserves it

 

[Titi]

Originally posted by la fayette
B52

I have started a new thread giving the link to samson's 'One city size One'.
It deserves it

It sure does !

 

[The Mass Leader]

About allies.
It´s almost impossible to play with 2 allies. The only way to do it, is to have each one very isolated from the other, in a way they will never meet until the nuclear age.
Because having 2 allies or more is invitation for confusion. Let´s imagine you ally with Romans and Germans. Once they start to fight for the european hegemony, they will both go talk with you. And then, you will have to choose.

Other things: if you´re really strong, allies won´t break the pact just because you gave no techs. Alliances give you the escuse to declare wars, and give some twist to the game. If you live in an isolated continent, it´s fun to receive invitations to participate a war you will only reach by travelling with ships.

About technology sharing. Only give away techs when you got a better thing to use. For example (I play Prince Level and always build Leo´s Workshop - I sell everything if I need, to build it).
So, when my entire army (including the defensive line... read my thread "Maginot lines") has became Riflemen, I give gunpowder as a gift to my allies. They will have musketeers, but I need to be affraid no more of the muskets, because I have Riflemen! I also give metalurgy when I start building Artillery units.
I do it as a way to keep world balance of powers - there is always a 2nd ranked nation after me, that is stronger than my allies. It´s good to keep an ally between you and the rest of the world. It is important to keep this "wall country" strong enough to show some resistance and not to be a give-away-cities to your enemy. Sometimes I need a helping hand from a not-so-strong ally too.

Don´t bother if some nation breaks the alliance because of techs you did not gave. If this happens, be preapred: ex-allies often try to steal the technology (that´s why building defensive lines is important - blocking spy and diplomats). Or, keep an spy in each city (which is a largely more expensive solution). (about defense lines, read my thread).

It´s good to keep an ally that is way weaker than you, but that represents a real challenge to the enemy nations. It provides one thing: You can pay them to fight wars against your enemies when you have no conditions to do that, do not want to do that or is involved in some diplomatic jam that will lower your reputation or put you against an enemy you do not want to fight now, if war is declared by you in person.

It´s all. However, it´s almost too much for one post.

 

[B52]

Thanks la fayette!

 

[Cactus_Jack]

i have noticed if you pay nations to attack each other for the hell of it later on they are less likely to ally with each other and team up against you even when you are powerfull. Maybe i am wronb but i swear that does happen.

 

[Achinz]

There's a thread by solo at Apoliton which mentions that there is a limit to the number of allies you can have depending on your powergraph. With Supreme you can only form one alliance - it increases by one as you go down the powergraph.

 

[mardukes]

Originally posted by TimTheEnchanter
In general, don't build an improvement unless you have a good reason.

What is the diagnosis if the good reasons are always
--can't support anymore settlers
--not enough happiness to build any more cities with them
--will run out of shieds if I build more units
--lack of supply to demand matches for the caravans

In other words, how good is a poor trade?