Ask Me Anything

[peterw1987]

How do you handle runaway civs, the ones that are leading across the board in every category? Do you try to war against them when their troops outmatch yours in both quality and quantity? What if they're too far away to fight?

First , try to use spies to cripple him a bit.
Second , try to steal all his cs allies either by great diplomat or kill the cs.
Third (try this only if you are confident in your defense), try to lure them into war, and swallow all his unit slowly. Use advantage of city garrison,fort,citadel,river. Try to only fortify your meele unit in forest or fort, unless you can kill. And put a line of archery unit behind. Defending has a lot advantage than attacking.

 

[tu_79]

First , try to use spies to cripple him a bit.
Second , try to steal all his cs allies either by great diplomat or kill the cs.
Third (try this only if you are confident in your defense), try to lure them into war, and swallow all his unit slowly. Use advantage of city garrison,fort,citadel,river. Try to only fortify your meele unit in forest or fort, unless you can kill. And put a line of archery unit behind. Defending has a lot advantage than attacking.

Defense is easier, I agree. But by defending you can only hurt the aggressor, while if attacking you might increase your civ size.
I'm missing the option to befriend another civ and go to war together against the runaway, not just States. Or even paying someone else, but I guess this is really difficult for the player to convince a weak AI to fight a stronger one.

 

[Lifariz]

Defense is easier, I agree. But by defending you can only hurt the aggressor, while if attacking you might increase your civ size.
I'm missing the option to befriend another civ and go to war together against the runaway, not just States. Or even paying someone else, but I guess this is really difficult for the player to convince a weak AI to fight a stronger one.

Uhh by defending I think is just a tactic to kill enemy units. And then siege them slowly. On ancient and classical era I just raze undeveloped cities since it's a pain to fix them.

Question, what mechanic allows the ai to spawn multiple units when being sieged? Difficulty? Events? Some kind of hidden deity bonus?

 

[Funak]

Defense is easier, I agree. But by defending you can only hurt the aggressor, while if attacking you might increase your civ size.
I'm missing the option to befriend another civ and go to war together against the runaway, not just States. Or even paying someone else, but I guess this is really difficult for the player to convince a weak AI to fight a stronger one.

The AI loves overextending. He attacks you, you kill his units, he get massive war weariness and then you refuse to peace out.

 

[Lifariz]

The AI loves overextending. He attacks you, you kill his units, he get massive war weariness and then you refuse to peace out.

Yeah and slowly kill off all the civs on your continent then settle your land asap after securing your naval defenses. Pretty much standard tactic for Deity plays since you can only beat the Ai if you outgrow them with higher base numbers.

 

[cammcken]

I believe the yields are the CS's, like a Feitora. But if you puppet/annex a CS you get a nice tile for your trouble, and the embassy owner loses that vote.

Also works if you annex with the GG citadel. Happens to me sometimes because I can get a bit obsessive with grabbing my full three-tile radius. Sometimes the sucker even comes back with a second GD.

I take 2 policies in Tradition before moving to Authority. It works so much better.

I was just wondering whether someone else does this! I came up with it when trying to play both Tall (sorry, I'm still stuck on Vanilla terms. Maybe I'll grow out of it as I get better) and warmonger. Opener and Sovereignty, right? Sovereignty also helps if you want to grab a religion without too much city-spamming.

On that note:

Funak, what's your take on unconventional Policy combinations? Do you ever take more than one tree from the same "tier"? Or mixing policies between trees without finishing? Are there strategies that work? Are there any decisions I should avoid?

Spoiler Parenthetical :

(I'm playing a game as Casimir of Poland: Progress is a no brainer, while conquest is still possible later on thanks to UU's. I was planning on taking Piety but failed to found a religion. Would this be a good time to choose Authority instead?)

Thanks for the AMA!

 

[CrazyG]

Funak, what's your take on unconventional Policy combinations? Do you ever take more than one tree from the same "tier"? Or mixing policies between trees without finishing? Are there strategies that work? Are there any decisions I should avoid?

I'm not Funak, but I'll offer a thought or two

In general Authority can mix pretty well, because most of its strength is in the top of tree, while the later policies are relatively weak. Authority and tradition mix pretty well, tribute and sovereignty have awesome synergy. Aesthetics can mix for similar reasons, you can grab a lot of early culture then shift to another tree. You mostly give up tourism, so if that isn't your intended victory the opportunity cost is fairly low. Uffizi is a pretty bad wonder, I never miss it

I wouldn't mix with Progress at all. The opener itself is pretty weak (especially if it isn't your first policy) and the finisher is incredibly strong. Similarly, the Piety finisher is really good, especially for a big empire, so I open Piety as my 7th policy I will almost certainly finish it. Hopefully this was helpful

 

[Funak]

Funak, what's your take on unconventional Policy combinations? Do you ever take more than one tree from the same "tier"? Or mixing policies between trees without finishing? Are there strategies that work? Are there any decisions I should avoid?

Spoiler Parenthetical :

(I'm playing a game as Casimir of Poland: Progress is a no brainer, while conquest is still possible later on thanks to UU's. I was planning on taking Piety but failed to found a religion. Would this be a good time to choose Authority instead?)

Thanks for the AMA!

Personally I don't do it.

I might grab exceptionally good opener if I'm doing some very specific tactics.
Like if I'm having serious religious unhappiness problems, picking up the piety-opener helps moderate it at least a bit.
If I'm doing a tradition strategy that doesn't lead into Aesthetics (like Germany or Portugal who wants to go into Statecraft) I might grab the Aesthetics opener anyways.


Other than that I'm kinda opposed to grabbing multiple trees at the same tier, generally higher tier trees are just plain better.
Exceptions include strategies that makes use of Statecraft or Piety and still plan on going for a cultural victory. It is however quite possible that both Rationalism and Industry makes for stronger tourism-trees, just because of how powerful they are.

Honestly, it mostly comes down to personal preference. I don't do it, but the game is designed so that the possibility is viable.

 

[tu_79]

Personally I don't do it.

I might grab exceptionally good opener if I'm doing some very specific tactics.
Like if I'm having serious religious unhappiness problems, picking up the piety-opener helps moderate it at least a bit.
If I'm doing a tradition strategy that doesn't lead into Aesthetics (like Germany or Portugal who wants to go into Statecraft) I might grab the Aesthetics opener anyways.


Other than that I'm kinda opposed to grabbing multiple trees at the same tier, generally higher tier trees are just plain better.
Exceptions include strategies that makes use of Statecraft or Piety and still plan on going for a cultural victory. It is however quite possible that both Rationalism and Industry makes for stronger tourism-trees, just because of how powerful they are.

Honestly, it mostly comes down to personal preference. I don't do it, but the game is designed so that the possibility is viable.

I do like you most times. If ever, I take sometimes the Aesthetics opener, if the world around me looks peaceful.

 

[peterw1987]

Do anyone ever consider imperialism? I think that tree is too situational to use. Most of your cities must be coastal to get much benefit from it. And the bonus is for unit production, which lategame, usually i am just rush buying units, and focus on building and wonders.

I dont really like coastal cities anyway. It is more difficult to defend.

 

[Funak]

Do anyone ever consider imperialism? I think that tree is too situational to use. Most of your cities must be coastal to get much benefit from it. And the bonus is for unit production, which lategame, usually i am just rush buying units, and focus on building and wonders.

I dont really like coastal cities anyway. It is more difficult to defend.

Imperialism provides crazy bonuses to some of the most common tiles available, watertiles and farms.
On top of that you're getting a bonus promotion to all planes and ships.

Does those factors make the tree viable? I'm not sure. All I can say is that the tree is better for wide play and better for domination, two things that I generally don't do.

 

[tu_79]

Cheaper upgrading saves quite a bit of money,but I guess this helps wide too.
On the other hand, how is it possible to stay small and be imperialistic?

 

[Funak]

Cheaper upgrading saves quite a bit of money,but I guess this helps wide too.
On the other hand, how is it possible to stay small and be imperialistic?

The main problem I see with cheaper upgrades is that upgrades are so expensive in the first place that it's rarely worth upgrading units anyways.

I mean I seriously think it's cheaper to buy a new cannon than upgrading a trebuchet to one, and that's just insane to me.

The point is, if upgrading is bad, then the value of cheaper upgrades becomes a lot less valuable.

 

[peterw1987]

And sea tiles is too weak.
1. No GP improvement
2. Sea resources is scarce. Maybe because i mostly play fractal or oval.
3. (I hate this thing the most). Water tiles if being sieged, all adjacent tiles are also blocked.
4. Improvement need more effort and investment compared to land resources. ( thanks god ai and barbarian is not pillaging workboat so often)


I never try to calculated it, but what is the highest maximum yield of sea tile(counting all tech,building, and improvement upgrade) ?

I guess it will be either coral monopoly tile or pearl, or maybe great barrier reef.

 

[cammcken]

And sea tiles is too weak.
1. No GP improvement
2. Sea resources is scarce. Maybe because i mostly play fractal or oval.
3. (I hate this thing the most). Water tiles if being sieged, all adjacent tiles are also blocked.
4. Improvement need more effort and investment compared to land resources. ( thanks god ai and barbarian is not pillaging workboat so often)


I never try to calculated it, but what is the highest maximum yield of sea tile(counting all tech,building, and improvement upgrade) ?

I guess it will be either coral monopoly tile or pearl, or maybe great barrier reef.

All you say is true; however, it's assumed that you're going to be working all of your bonus tiles anyway. I think the main advantage of imperialism + sea tiles buff is for all the normal, non-bonus tiles. And those are easy to come by. You can get a lot of decent tiles, which do not need to be improved (other than lighthouses etc), out of a city spot that would otherwise be limited. I'm not saying 1-tile islands suddenly becoming good spots, but cities that got squeezed on the edge of a continent—you know, those with 40%-60% of its workable radius over the ocean—can continue to thrive. Land tiles and bonuses should still be the main considerations, but imperialism let's you get that much more out of it. I think that's the argument being made here.

 

[CrazyG]

I also find imperialism kind of lacking, or maybe its just that rationalism is a touch too good. The monopoly bonus can be very strong with just one monopoly, if it get several it becomes disgusting. War becomes really easy with a tech lead and really hard if you are behind, so I'd say that extra science is far more valuable in terms of war that the bonus to great general or great admiral generation.

 

[Funak]

I also find imperialism kind of lacking, or maybe its just that rationalism is a touch too good. The monopoly bonus can be very strong with just one monopoly, if it get several it becomes disgusting. War becomes really easy with a tech lead and really hard if you are behind, so I'd say that extra science is far more valuable in terms of war that the bonus to great general or great admiral generation.

Really don't think so.

Industry is a better comparison, does industry allow you to field a bigger army than Imperialism?

 

[CrazyG]

Really don't think so.

Industry is a better comparison, does industry allow you to field a bigger army than Imperialism?

You don't think what? That a tech lead is more valuable than great admiral/general generation? Frankly I value those two bonuses at almost zero (along with faith purchasing the admirals).

Or that the monopoly policy is good? In a game right now I'm getting 15% production and 15% gold from that monopoly policy, that's like a mini industry for just one policy. If I'm conquering lots of territory, this the policy that I consistently see putting in a lot of work

Industry lets units become really cheap to buy, but its not that valuable if you already have an army. The big strength is to develop infrastructure

 

[Funak]

You don't think what? That a tech lead is more valuable than great admiral/general generation? Frankly I value those two bonuses at almost zero (along with faith purchasing the admirals).

Or that the monopoly policy is good? In a game right now I'm getting 15% production and 15% gold from that monopoly policy, that's like a mini industry for just one policy. If I'm conquering lots of territory, this the policy that I consistently see putting in a lot of work

Industry lets units become really cheap to buy, but its not that valuable if you already have an army. The big strength is to develop infrastructure

'I really don't think rationalism is a touch too strong'

The monopoly policy isn't bad, but it's crazy situational. For GA duration or any of the flat yield ones it's barely worth the policy. For %production it's probably the strongest policy in the game, quite possible that the +2 production from specialists or the +1F +1P from farms are comparable.

And Industry isn't really about buying cheaper units, although that certainly helps. but higher income means you can afford to keep a larger standing army and the extra production (both from the policies themselves and from the fact that you get your infrastructure up faster) makes sure you can produce more units or anything else really.

 

[CrazyG]

The monopoly policy isn't bad, but it's crazy situational. For GA duration or any of the flat yield ones it's barely worth the policy. For %production it's probably the strongest policy in the game, quite possible that the +2 production from specialists or the +1F +1P from farms are comparable.

And Industry isn't really about buying cheaper units, although that certainly helps. but higher income means you can afford to keep a larger standing army and the extra production (both from the policies themselves and from the fact that you get your infrastructure up faster) makes sure you can produce more units or anything else really.

I wasn't saying that Industry is weak, I think its right where it needs to be.

But comparing rationalism to imperialism, rationalism is currently an instant pick if have certain monopolies (and the tree is plenty strong even if this policy does nothing for you). Imperialism is full of situational benefits as well, military tradition in particular seems pretty useless to me. Maybe I'm underestimating how strong the farm boost is (but i consider it pretty damn good)