COTM 02: Spoiler 2: End of Middle ages

[klarius]

Then England declares on me. I realize later that the trade I had with Inca went through England, causing it to break when England declared. Shortly later I could trade again. This confuses me because Inca still has no harbor, France has no harbor, and I'm at war with Spain and England. Spain had a harbor, and I did too, but neither one of those should have worked.

You can still trade if your trading partner is at peace with the civ having the harbor and has a safe trading route to you (that can also be blocked by other civs controlling sea tiles).
That's also a fun way to shoot your reputation that happened to me several times: trade a lux for an alliance not noting that the trade is only possible because your partner is still at peace. He declares and the trade is broken immediately.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

It's always the same: The top players, in any game, will always be called cheaters.

Playing civ is not my main internet hobby. My main hobby is driving simracing. That is, racing over the internet using race car simulations, like "NASCAR 2003", "Grand Prix Legends" or "F1 Challenge". The top simracers take their hobby just as seriousely as the top civers do, and the discussions on the simracing forums are just as complex as they are on this forum. The difference for me, is that in simracing, unlike in civ, I am one of the "gods". I am one of the "SirPlebs" or "civ_steves" of the simracing world. And just like them, I have from time to time been falsly accused of cheating. Some average simracers just cannot understand how my laptimes can be 2 or 3 or 5 seconds faster than theirs, just like average civers cannot believe how a 500 AD victory is possible in a monarch game in C3C. But fact is that it is possible.

What has once and for all proved to other simracing drivers that I, and other top simracers, are not cheating, is LANs. On a LAN, everyone can test driving on my computer, and see for themselves that I do not have more grip or horsepower than they do. And I can drive on their computer, and instantly beat their personal bests (which I have to admit is lots of fun ). Not only does a LAN prove that the top drivers are not in fact cheaters, but it also bonds the community together in ways that plain forum talk can never do. Suddenly, the strange names in the forum get a face and a voice. I bet that if leopalas had ever met SirPleb in real life, he would never have written a post like that.

I think the solution for the civ-community, could be something just like this. Get together in big LAN parties, and play civ together, discussing strategies and just generally having a great time! Organizing a Civ LAN would be far easier than organizing a simracing LAN, as you don't really need a top-of-the-line computer and monitor to play civ, and you don't have to carry around with steeringwheels, pedals, gearshift devices, cockpits, and god-knows-what like we do on each LAN. You don't even need a LAN connection, if you're not going to play multiplayer.

If this hasn't already been done, it's high time that it is!

-- Roland

 

[eldar]

Open

Ancient Ages

To recap, though, I'm 'at war' with Inca (not seen an Incan units yet though... saw a French Galley...), and pulled France, Spain, and England into the conflict.

70 Entered MA, the first Civ to do so. Only one outstanding Barb camp and the French just planted a new town right next door to it. Oops.
90 Founded Delft.
210 My Alliances all end, and I haven't spotted a single Inca unit near me (nor have I actually gone to the aid of my allies). I placate them by selling them tech, and negotiate peace with Inca for Literature to him, and gold to me.
250 GL completed in The Hague. Research set to 0%, and I revolt. Now is the moment of truth: which route do I take? With a supply of Horses and Iron, I can easily hold my own in the early MA - but if there's no Saltpeter [note: oh how right I was, and boy did that lead me to my worst period of the game later on!], things could get tricky. Later resources may also be scarce. Spain is looking a little weak, though, and is within easy reach, so maybe hitting Spain and placating France, Inca and (tiny) England [I should've left them out of the war with Inca - Inca overrunning them made Inca far more powerful than they needed to have been; England only survived because Warwick was on a 1-tile island] with gifts might help me along. Oh, except Spain have built SoZ.
290 Out of Anarchy into Monarchy. Breda founded.
540 Galley meets Zulu. Sell Feudalism for 29g.
550 Contact with Egypt. Sell Feudalism for 6g.
940 Busy building up military. Land a stack on Spain's Ivory, planning to cut off the SoZ. They also have KT. Will be handy for taking the rest of the continent.
950 DoW vs Spain. Give up Gunpowder to France to have her join in. Take Zaragoza and Toledo (after pillaging the Ivory just in case). No more Ancient Cavs.
1010 Took Murcia & Madrid (Oracle, SoZ, KT)
1020 Madrid produces an AC - hmm, must be more Ivory somewhere [there wasn't - I didn't think SoZ produced ACs if you lost your Ivory? and I hadn't re-connected it by then].
1040 Took Barcelona. Her two biggest cities are gone….
1080 Took Seville.
1110 Took Santiago.
1120 Took Salamanca.
1140 Took Valencia, Peace with Spain (their last city, Vilcas, is beyond French territory. France is next.)
1210 DoW vs France. Took Lyon (and got back the Dyes I lost when I declared… how neat is that, eh?)
1220 Took Paris (MoM)
1250 Took Orleans
1290 Took Marseilles - and the French are finished. Inca took out Spain on the turn before; so now it's just the two of us. How cosy.
1310 ToG researched, and I enter the IA in 1310. [Which I think is my earliest ever... so I must be learning something, right? ]

A very straightforward, bloodthirsty, MA. I took care of my two nearest neighbours, claimed #1 position for land, and looked abroad for my next hit. Inca had gobbled up England, and I'd not bothered to get MT (no flippin' GLs - I had to wait for FP to build in Madrid) as I had no Saltpeter.

The Hague was turning into something of a Super Science city - after GL, it built Copernicus, would later get Newton and Shakey. I also had Leo's in Rotterdam - again, I switched from Sun Tzu to Leo's as soon as I could, because barracks in every city of such a small continent isn't such a big a boost as on a Pan map, but the 1/2 price upgrades are universal and an unbeatable deal.

I didn't get a GA [during the MA] - my invading force had Maces and Spears, and later on I used Crusaders as my defending units.

The World in 1310:



(The minimap doesn't have the blanks filled in because nobody's researched Navigation yet! I bypassed it because I already have better naval movement than anyone else, apart from England, and Astronomy took care of all the trade routes.)

Neil.

 

[grs]

@leopalas: no reason to bash you. You just make the mistake of valueing your play much too high. If it was possible for me to research at 4-6 turns throughout the middle ages, there are definetely people who can do it in 4-5. Especially if you regard the fact, that I didn't even own a single libaray most of the age Just get yourself used to the thought, that there are always people much better and research speed is nothing to need cheating.

 

[klarius]

1020 Madrid produces an AC - hmm, must be more Ivory somewhere [there wasn't - I didn't think SoZ produced ACs if you lost your Ivory? and I hadn't re-connected it by then].

You didn't look close enough. There is another Ivory under Toledo (in your case, was Santiago in mine).

 

[eldar]

You didn't look close enough. There is another Ivory under Toledo (in your case, was Santiago in mine).

Ah, so there is...


Oddly enough, the same happened later on with an Iron source (but I spotted that one).

Neil.

 

[dojoboy]

leopalas, I don't believe I've noticed one of your previous posts, so welcome. Your disblief of some players' results is not surprising. I too am amazed, and impressed. But, these people ARE very, very good. They've broken the game down to its basic component...math. I, myself, pretend those other colored units across the border have feelings. I'm also not strong in the area of math, but over time, I've come to understand "things" through the help of our top players here at CFC.

Also, notice the nature of replies to your initial post on this topic. The members here are willing to assist your understanding, not bombard you w/ dismissive remarks.

Men, i know im going to be kicked out of these forums , like , for ever...but i need to say something. First, im 29, married, one kid, playing Civ since i was.., well since i was very young... Today i play it on weekends with the child on my lap .

On the lighter side of things, I know when I play w/ one of my sons on my lap, my level of play drops significantly.

There was a guy asking SirPleb how could he get 4,5 turns discoveries in the early ADs with 14 cities or so when everybodie else is having a hell of a time getting a new tech. Well he didnt answer of course,...

SirPleb has addressed questions I've asked, particularly in regards to courthouses & markets and number of units used in offensives.

In this COTM02 Inca are cultural monsters so any victory condition means that sooner or later we are bound to defeat them...That brings me to battle outcome and cultural flipping. Anyone who says conquering the Inca nicely on 450 AD without having any major problems is just a major liar....!!! Inca has , in this game, such a powerfull cultural play that it is allmost impossible to keep a conquered city for two turns in a row.

As Civ_steve mentioned, any civ w/ out iron & horses is a sitting duck. But also, no civ has reached a cultural level that is too overwhelming by 450 AD. At least, not in my experience.

So like a honest good player, who must be producing knights not science, .

When you have many cities, science research is increased just from critical mass. Strong players usually have a core, or two, of cities that are tweaked out for production. Some of these cities produce the war machine while the others provide the basis for research. Then, there are so many other little things to work on.

I do hope you keep an eye on this discussion and remain involved in the community.

 

[Offa]

It's always the same: The top players, in any game, will always be called cheaters.

Playing civ is not my main internet hobby. My main hobby is driving simracing. Some average simracers just cannot understand how my laptimes can be 2 or 3 or 5 seconds faster than theirs.

-- Roland

How do you do that? I always find those games fun, but never believed the top levels were playable.

.Those guys, who arent to be worshiped, like Sir Pleb and many others, are in fact guys who know a lot about computer games and their codes and utilities attached, but are nothing but cheaters. It s just not possible what that guy pleb argued for early ADs.btw IM NOT GOING TO SUBMIT....Even though i think i would get a top 20 result. WHAT I ASK YOU GUYS IS TO QUESTION THINGS... COMMENT ON THIS TO IMPROVE COTM.....

I think honest top players in Civ and racing sims should be flattered by allegations of cheating, as it shows how good they are. SirPleb in particular has of course enriched the Civ world enormously, and to say that he can't explain his results is very wide of the mark. I gave up on this game in pique after getting off to a poor start, but have no problem at all with accepting very early wins as possible.

Nevertheless i consider myself a reasonable player, i used to get the best results on private tournaments with my friends, i think i got the best results ever on the civII ww2 scenario.

I think you will find that the top scores in Civ 2 are even more impressive than those at civ3, and do not require cheating. The early landing games of Solo and others are particularly brilliant.

 

[Xevious]

Xevious , are u happy about all the random results in battle. Im sure you are , have you ever lost a battle..????cultural flips??? none??

If the results of battle weren't random, it wouldn't be much of a game. We lessen the effects of randomness by using superior forces wherever possible, i.e. knights or cavalry versus spears or pikes. I lost a number of battles in this game, and suffered a number of flips (at least a dozen). The Inca may have been a cultural powerhouse, but as I noted, if you read through my posting, they lacked both iron and saltpeter. This means the best unit they had was the crusader (5.3.1) from the Knights Templar, and they only had a half dozen of those. Beyond that it was spears, horseman and chasqui scouts. When I attacked them I had cavalry. 6 attack versus 2 defense makes for an effective steamroller. I still had to deal with flips, which has been a hot topic lately, but most people know, myself included, not to leave a lot of troops in captured cities that are likely to flip. If all that isn't enough to convince to, I have a nearly turn for turn log of my entire game which I will be happy to upload and post a link too. It not only includes what I did, but some of my thinking along the way. It shows where I made a lot of mistakes too. In fact I will post it and edit a link in here when I get downstairs.

EDIT: Here's my turnlog. Beware, it's long and wordy.

 

[dojoboy]

dojoboy: I saw in your screenshot that you maintained your capital in Amsterdam. How much Corruption and Waste did you experience in the rest of your empire? For comparison, here is my Tiny Dutch Empire at 630AD, and my F1 screen:

civ_steve, here is mine in 1250 AD, four truns after I entred the Industrial Age. I forgot to take one in 1230 AD. Note: my FP is in Utrecht.





It looks as if my corruption is 4 gold (-68) greater than your corruption (-64) / turn. If I'm reading your screen correctly. Had you built the FP at this point of your game? OMG, we're both 9 turns from Steam Power. How odd is that? Looks like I need to tweak my research methods.

 

[SniperDevil]

i moved my capital to the center of my island. That way there is way less corruption

 

[eldar]

i moved my capital to the center of my island. That way there is way less corruption

I split the difference and Palace Jumped early on - not that it did me much good in the early game. How many others did that? I'm not reading many instances.

Neil.

 

[Roland Ehnström]

Wow eldar, we seem to be almost exactly equal after the MA. Our world maps look almost exactly the same, except that in my game there was no war between English and Inca, so the English were still pretty strong. I'm looking forward to seeing how your game develops in the IA, it's gonna be interesting to compare our strategies and results.
-- Roland

 

[Roland Ehnström]

How do you do that? I always find those games fun, but never believed the top levels were playable.

Unlike civ-strategies and to some extent flight-sim and fps-skills, it's pretty darn impossible to explain how to "master" a racing sim. For me it comes pretty natural, but that I think is more a result of immense amounts of practice than pure talent. I've been simracing in one form or another since I was less than 10 years old, and now I'm 25. I've probably gained some speed by discussing driving techniques and car setups in forums, and even a little from getting the best steeringwheel and pedals in the business, but most of it comes from nothing but practice, practice, practice...

If you're dedicated enough, and have enough free time, I believe you can get to the top of any computer game. But this takes years and years, and to keep on doing it for so long, takes more than just a will to win: It requires a pure interest in what you are doing, and you must enjoy what you are doing. I'm genuinely interested in every kind of motorsport, and I immensly enjoy simracing, and always have. Compare this to SirPled's genuine interest in strategy games, puzzles and artificial intelligence, and you start to understand why he is one of the civ gods: http://gotm.civfanatics.net/players/profiles/sirpleb.shtml

-- Roland

 

[Civgeek]

civ_steve, here is mine in 1250 AD, four truns after I entred the Industrial Age. I forgot to take one in 1230 AD. Note: my FP is in Utrecht.

.......

It looks as if my corruption is 4 gold (-68) greater than your corruption (-64) / turn. If I'm reading your screen correctly. Had you built the FP at this point of your game? OMG, we're both 9 turns from Steam Power. How odd is that? Looks like I need to tweak my research methods.

civ_steve, dojoboy; here's my F1 shot from the same point (entering IA, researching SP) althought it is from 1450 AD. A couple of questions; both your corruption rates are ~13-15%. My total income is much higher, but my corruption is more than double at 33%. My FP was off the main island; does the FP have that much of a difference on corrution rates if built in the core cities? Can you share any tips on how you kept your corruption rates that low?

Second question; you are both running 100% to science & luxaries (80/20 and 90/10) yet still managing a surplus per turn. I could barely sqweek a surplus at 50%, all to research, despite the much higher total income. You are both bringing in much more from other Civs however, which leads me to wonder if that income is not impacted by corruption (i.e. goes staright to science/lux/tres)?

Any insights you'd care to share would be appreciated!

 

[Xevious]

Second question; you are both running 100% to science & luxaries (80/20 and 90/10) yet still managing a surplus per turn. I could barely sqweek a surplus at 50%, all to research, despite the much higher total income. You are both bringing in much more from other Civs however, which leads me to wonder if that income is not impacted by corruption (i.e. goes staright to science/lux/tres)?

When you run at 100%, all your uncorrupted income goes to science or luxury. This means there's nothing left to pay for maintenance and unit cost, hence the negative income. The money from other civs is never applied to science or entertainment, but instead pays for maintenance and unit costs, and if it completely covers those, the rest becomes net income. And no, there is no corruption on income from other civs.

 

[bradleyfeanor]

I split the difference and Palace Jumped early on - not that it did me much good in the early game. How many others did that? I'm not reading many instances.

I jumped mine in 975 BC. Between the jump and Republic, corruption was almost non-existent on the home island. If I had gone for a diplomatic, space or culture victory, I probably would have jumped it again around 200 AD, to around the center of spanish/french lands.

 

[Xevious]

I split the difference and Palace Jumped early on - not that it did me much good in the early game. How many others did that? I'm not reading many instances.

I jumped mine in 1625BC, after building a settler, but instead of resettling the BG, I walked the settler to found on the coast NW of silks. This cost me the starting peninsula when France settled a hill there later, and also hampered my early growth. Still, I think it was a good decision to move the palace next to the cow.

 

[dojoboy]

civ_steve, dojoboy; here's my F1 shot from the same point (entering IA, researching SP) althought it is from 1450 AD. A couple of questions; both your corruption rates are ~13-15%. My total income is much higher, but my corruption is more than double at 33%. My FP was off the main island; does the FP have that much of a difference on corrution rates if built in the core cities? Can you share any tips on how you kept your corruption rates that low?

The FP acts completly different in C3C v. Civ3/PTW. In Civ3/PTW, the FP acts as a second Palace, thus creating a true second core of productive cities which can be any where on th map. In C3C, the FP will be ineffective if placed too far from your Palace. Its best to build it within 10 - 14 tiles of the Palace, I believe. I'm not sold on the effectiveness of palace-jumping in C3C after the FP is built. Maybe someone could produce some data on it relevant to COTM02.

Also, its important to build corruption reducing buildings, such as courthouses.

Second question; you are both running 100% to science & luxaries (80/20 and 90/10) yet still managing a surplus per turn. I could barely sqweek a surplus at 50%, all to research, despite the much higher total income. You are both bringing in much more from other Civs however, which leads me to wonder if that income is not impacted by corruption (i.e. goes staright to science/lux/tres)?

As previously mentioned, gpt earned through trades is what allows one to keep the sliders set toward research rather than gpt. To do so, you need to have luxuries or strategic resources to trade, as well as techs. I often sell techs for the high gpt yield. Out researching the AI or researching a different tech path than the AI is important. At the time of my FI screenshot (1250 AD), I had the following deals:

* Receiving 8 gpt from France
* Receiving 40 gpt (for tech) & furs (increases happiness = increase in production) from Egypt
* Receiving 49 gpt (for tech) from Inca
* Receiving 45 gpt (for tech) & 6 gpt (for silks) from Spain

 

[Civgeek]

Thanks for people’s feedback/clarification on corruption. The fact gpt from other Civs isn’t impacted by corruption is something I hadn’t realized before. It’s a subtle point, but probably explains why the top-tier players always seem to be bringing in a lot more income that way than I do in my games. And I suppose the flip side is also true? Gpt traded away to other Civs comes from your treasury after the impact of corruption so hurts you a little bit more than it might appear? Sort of like spending pre- and post- tax dollars I guess. I’ll have to try to focus more on bringing in gpt from other Civs in next months game.