Breaking builder habits strategy.

[Ringo Kid]

This is a fun strategy to play, something different for a builder type who wants to try a conquest game for a change.

Level: Monarch
Standard Map , continents.
Civ Russia
C3C
I play with culture flip turned off.

The idea here is to play the whole game with out building anything not military or production related, and to be at war all the time.

Start out by expanding rapidly to a size of ten to fifteen cities with good production potential. Build a worker and garrison units , plus barracks for each city. Have the workers build mines everywhere to max out production.

Research towards horseback riding. Start building veteran horsemen in all your towns until you have a nice stack of fifteen to twenty.

Start conquering your neighbors, one by one, building nothing but veteran horsemen in your 10- 15 productive towns.

Use the captured towns to build garrison units for the next towns you capture, so your horsemen stack can continue attacking and taking territory. Have one of the captured towns with strong food production build workers to build roads and improve production in the captured territory.

Research towards Monarchy, and switch to that when you get it. After Monarchy the next goal is Cossacks (Military Tradition), then communism (switch to that when you get it)and finally Infantry/Artillery.

Dont build aqueducts, temples, libraries, marketplaces or anything else but military.

You can build the Military wonders and forbidden palace if you like.

I like Communism with this strategy, because by the time you get to it you have a ton of corrupt towns, that will become production centers under communism. You will have cossacks galore. Research is slower, but thats fun because it gives the AI better defenders. Huge stacks of cossacks attacking huge stacks of infantry!!

Its a lot of fun, and a nice change for anyone who normally plays a more peaceful style.

 

[vmxa]

Ok, but why do you want to take an additional switch to Commie? Just stay in Monarchy. All the corrupt towns get beakerheads and are not concerned about corruption.

 

[Optional]

The problem perhaps is, if you're a builder at heart, then you wouldn't like to play like this. I'm sure it's fun, but some people like nightclubs, others like fishing, it depends on who you are, it works like that in civ as well. At least the game supports different play styles.

I find it very hard to play a conquest game. I don't know if your post is meant as a tip to get people out of their peacenik habits, but what would pull me out of my shell and out on the war path is when I'm missing a vital resource. Actually I like to be forced to go out on an expedition. I often pick a jungle start; less chance to have Iron and Horses.
Choosing an Archipelago map can be Ok as well for that reason. I don't like Archipelago that much, but you'll rarely find everything around you that you need, and that sets you out on campains.

As a builder, if I have all the resources I need, I stay put, because I have no reason to go bothering my neighbours and create hostilities. I get by, don't I? I can always build the UN and rake in the votes of my gracious neighbours, or I can go into Space and see the stars.

It's probably just as difficult to break the habits of a hardened peacenik as it is to break the routines of a serious criminal, I tell you.

 

[Pyrrhos]

The funny thing is that civ as a turn-based strategy game is the perfect fix to get people out of those horrible shoot-em-up, real-time all-war think little, blast a lot do-it-with-cheat-codes habits, so why should a builder want to go back towards that sort of stuff?

Nice idea though! In fact, you could use the editor to delete all those culture buildings and wonders in case you had a severe case of "builder's syndrome".

 

[vmxa]

If you mobilize, you cannot build them, so your options are remove as you cannot make in AW either, so you cannot get out of mob.

 

[timerover51]

I am a builder type, and enjoy building the star ship and heading outward. However, I am also a military historian, and enjoy playing with unit combat capabilities, and seeing what are the best combat ratings. Therefore, I also start wars to experiment. I find them to require a lot of micromanagement to get the results that I am looking for. Generally, that also means that I set up a map, either continents or archipelago, with pretty much everything that I need, or close to it, so that I can build units as needed. I enjoy working on the combat ratios, and trying to figure out how to deal with the bizarre RNG, but I cannot envision myself ever playing an all war game, or going for a total conquest game. Had enough of a headache beating the Pacific War scenario that comes with the game. I fight to get combat results, but normally end the game by heading for the stars.

 

[Spoonwood]

Or you could read Drakan's excellent builder article http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=122419, or the article on multiplier buildings http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/multipliers.php... as well as the ideas and articles Drakan basically references and keep on build, build, building. I think an article on worker management might help also (I think I'll post one shortly). Turn-about seems like fair play... so for warmongers I basically suggest the "modern war variant":

Level: Whatever you usually play or one harder
Probably a large or huge map, although any will do, Pangea (so the AI can attack you easily and so tech moves fast)
Civ-No militaristic civs... any will do really, but probably somebody like India works out as most fitting
C3C
Cultural flip on
All victory conditions on.

The only acceptable condition for the human player comes as domination or conquest (or for another variant turn domination/conquest off as a victory condition and only allow spaceship or diplomatics or cultural as a victory).

The idea here lies in NOT having any wars until the "blitz" era of the modern age (meaning one has discovered both motorized transportation and flight). Then one can either have wars or must always have one war in progress or no wars. Don't have that iron that you want? You'll have to trade for it. Since, on harder levels, the AI sometimes declares war foolishly early, I'd say the AI declaring war on you in the ancient ages comes out as o.k., as long as you didn't try to provoke them. But, do you have the AI declaring war on you in the middle or industrial ages? Sorry, you lose. Build as little military as possible, and ONLY use it as a deterrent to your competitors. Don't have that coal you want and you discovered steam power first? You'll have to trade for it. Playing for a completely peaceful SS victory and have no aluminum or uranium and you can see a civ has extra aluminum in an unroaded square and they still have to research magnetism? You'll have to figure out how to get that square roaded, how to get them technologically to rocketry, and have the resources to make a trade.

As another variant we might allow ONE "fake" war to trigger a Golden Age. During this war, you may only fight one opponent, you can't capture any cities, and you can only kill enemy units if they lie inside your borders or if you need to kill ONE enemy unit in their borders to trigger your GA. For an even more challenging variant (certainly not the way I play) do it on demi-god or above and disallow building of the Great Library.

 

[TheOverseer714]

It's funny you bring these things up, we are doing a Modern war variant in CBob 04, where after 10 BC, we can't build any more cities or capture any enemy cities (at least that was our plans) and only do serious war in the modern era with Panzers. In my private "fun game", I am playing as India at Monarch level, on a pangaea. My goal is conquest or domination only.

 

[Spoonwood]

[In my private "fun game", I am playing as India at Monarch level, on a pangaea. My goal is conquest or domination only.]

And I take it you have the "modern war" variant, correct? I somehow feel you might actually find this too easy on Monarch... but I don't know.

 

[TheOverseer714]

It is going pretty well, that's why it is fun. My tanks are making short work of everyone I fight, since I am almost an entire era ahead.

 

[Aabraxan]

I've been reading Doug.Lefelhocz's variant described below. I've edited parts out, but there's really only one part that I wanted to comment on. It's underlined.

. . . . Turn-about seems like fair play... so for warmongers I basically suggest the "modern war variant": . . . .

The only acceptable condition for the human player comes as domination or conquest (or for another variant turn domination/conquest off as a victory condition and only allow spaceship or diplomatics or cultural as a victory).

The idea here lies in NOT having any wars until the "blitz" era of the modern age (meaning one has discovered both motorized transportation and flight). Then one can either have wars or must always have one war in progress or no wars. Don't have that iron that you want? You'll have to trade for it. Since, on harder levels, the AI sometimes declares war foolishly early, I'd say the AI declaring war on you in the ancient ages comes out as o.k., as long as you didn't try to provoke them. But, do you have the AI declaring war on you in the middle or industrial ages? Sorry, you lose. Build as little military as possible, and ONLY use it as a deterrent to your competitors. Don't have that coal you want and you discovered steam power first? You'll have to trade for it. Playing for a completely peaceful SS victory and have no aluminum or uranium and you can see a civ has extra aluminum in an unroaded square and they still have to research magnetism? You'll have to figure out how to get that square roaded, how to get them technologically to rocketry, and have the resources to make a trade.

As another variant we might allow ONE "fake" war to trigger a Golden Age. During this war, you may only fight one opponent, you can't capture any cities, and you can only kill enemy units if they lie inside your borders or if you need to kill ONE enemy unit in their borders to trigger your GA. For an even more challenging variant (certainly not the way I play) do it on demi-god or above and disallow building of the Great Library.

I'm not sure that the underlined part is very feasible as a condition. Maybe I just lack enough finesse to pull it off, but I don't understand how you're supposed to build a minimal military that is enough to be a deterrent to the AI DOWing me . . . . and I lose if I build either too little military (causing the AI to DOW me), or too much (violating the "as little military as possible" rule). Perhaps especially if I've been forced to trade for resources all along. The AI regularly DOWs me during these periods, even when my military is "strong" compared to theirs. I think part of that might be because trading with me has gotten so expensive that they can no longer afford it. In fact, in one of my recent games, the English launched a sneak attack when they: (1) are behind me technologically; and (2) have a smaller military. Perhaps it would be suitable if the condition were changed to "no capturing AI cities during the Middle or Industrial Ages," or "only defensive wars" during that period?

 

[TheOverseer714]

Our solution is defensive wars only during the non-modern, non-expansion time frames. You can kill any enemy that is in your territory, you just can't capture any enemy cities.
Those rules could apply from the beginning of the medieval period to the end of the industrial era.

 

[Spoonwood]

Sorry, I stated my idea a bit poorly. By "minimal military" I prefeably wouldn't have said "as little military as possible." I more meant that you only build military as a deterrent, or as a possible protection in a defensive war. You don't build swordsman stacks to crush the opposition or have a stack waiting around to attack an AI city if it declares on you. It DOES work as possible to NOT have the AI attack you in the middle or industrial ages... I've done it a few times on standard sized emperor maps, and I've done with the French on a huge demi-god map. I think in the French game I had something like 1.15 to 1.3 warriors per city on average before my camp towns started building pikes in the middle ages. I feel rather sure my military got rated as "weak" with almost everyone (maybe not the civs who lay close to extermination) until the mid or late industrial age, when I basically had only senseless improvements (for the game involved... like a police station in a city with only one shield lost to corruption) left to build in many of my cities... so I built infantry, artillery, etc.

"Perhaps it would be suitable if the condition were changed to "no capturing AI cities during the Middle or Industrial Ages," or "only defensive wars" during that period?"

That seems a bit better. I'd add that you can't raze cities, since CBob 04's team somehow seems to think razing as not involving real wars. Not razing can actually work in your favor in this sort of game.

 

[Aabraxan]

The restrictions of "defensive wars only" and "no capturing or razing cities" during a given time period both sound pretty workable. As I said, perhaps I simply lack the finesse to keep the AI from declaring on me, but I've been declared on for being weak and declared on when I was strong. I'd hate to lose a game just because I couldn't guess when the AI would run out of money to afford its payments on Metallurgy.

@ the OP -- If I may ask, why Russia?

 

[Spoonwood]

[@ the OP -- If I may ask, why Russia?]

I know I can't answer for certain, but even though I play as a builder, I'd guess that he would say that "cossacks can attack multiple times." Does that make cossacks preferable to siphai??? I certainly don't know that one.

 

[vmxa]

I will take the Siphai, because you are not going to get that many blitz attacks anyway. I guess you would if you are in a game where where using them on obsolete units, but then I would just scrap that game an look for tougher one.

If Cossacks are fighting cavs or rifles or even muskets, how often will you be able to attack again?

 

[anaxagoras]

If Cossacks are fighting cavs or rifles or even muskets, how often will you be able to attack again?

How many artillery do you have in the front line?

 

[Ringo Kid]

@ the OP -- If I may ask, why Russia?]

Scouts, and blitz. Scouts help me figure out which civ to attack first, and blitz -both for the attack itself and because it leads to more elite units.

Ok, but why do you want to take an additional switch to Commie?

More units produced.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

What do you mean by scouts helping you to decide who to attack first?

 

[Ringo Kid]

For example if you are next to a civ with an early unique unit that requires iron, you might want to know if they have any iron and if so where it is. Or if a civ is in the middle of a jungle you might want to wait a while before attacking them , until they had cleared some of it for you.

THat is what I think is valuable about the expansionist trait, and I think some players undervalue the need for early knowldege of the enemy. The sooner you see the map, the better you can plan your attack and expansion.