Cottages, financial and OCC

[AcaMetis]

1, Laboratories give +50% spaceship part production, and some parts get double production speed if you've got access to Aluminium. I imagine that in your last two games you build a lab, and in your second game you build an Aluminium part before you build a lab. Or something along those lines.

2, IIRC the stronger a military unit is, the more it contributes to preventing a revolt, so those few modern units did more than an early game garrison would have. Also, that city also has Catherine's state religion in it and doesn't have your state religion in it, so that also contributes a flat reduction to the revolt chance (I think around 5% or so?). All told the odds of revolt were probably lower than they seemed, although Catherine probably got at least a little lucky on top of that.

 

[Berul]

1, Laboratories give +50% spaceship part production, and some parts get double production speed if you've got access to Aluminium. I imagine that in your last two games you build a lab, and in your second game you build an Aluminium part before you build a lab. Or something along those lines.

But in that case, I would have seen something like "+100% for access to aluminium", not "+100% for producing a spaceship part", wouldn't I ?

2, IIRC the stronger a military unit is, the more it contributes to preventing a revolt, so those few modern units did more than an early game garrison would have. Also, that city also has Catherine's state religion in it and doesn't have your state religion in it, so that also contributes a flat reduction to the revolt chance (I think around 5% or so?). All told the odds of revolt were probably lower than they seemed, although Catherine probably got at least a little lucky on top of that.

Yep, it's true there are 2 Infanteries in the screenshot, but they were Riflemen not so long ago... I didn't know the importance of religions, thanks for the information.

 

[AcaMetis]

But in that case, I would have seen something like "+100% for access to aluminium", not "+100% for producing a spaceship part", wouldn't I ?

Right, actually, forgot about that. Well, the other two things that would give you a straight boost to spaceship production is either having the Space Elevator (+50%, though I'm pretty sure it would read as +100% if you also have a Laboratory) and a random event that (IIRC) can trigger if there's an unimproved tundra tile within your cultural borders, one of the options gives you some amount of production bonus to spaceship parts. Not sure how much, though, it's not a common event to see in any case and most people play without them to begin with.

 

[Berul]

I can't remember for sure (and I have no savegame to check) but that seems right. I probably had built the SE, hence the +100% (and not +50% with only a laboratory). Thanks.
(and it wasn't an event since I turn them off)

 

[lymond]

This is a bit surprising, since I'm not a very good Emperor player (I'd say that I win maybe 10% of the maps, although that % has probably been increasing lately).
But for some reason, I feel more comfortable with OCC games .

So basically, in a non-OCC game, it seems that I'd have better chances to win if I restricted myself to only one city (settleing maybe a city or two in the mid-late game).
It's kind as if every city I settle drags me a bit more towards defeat...

What's sure is that those 4 last games will certainly change the way I play non-OCC games in the future.

whoa...lol...that is completely the wrong train of thought you are on here. I highly encourage you to not confuse OCC and non-OCC gameplay and encourage you to really learn how to play this game. OCC is a very different animal with many strict limitations compared to Non-OCC. In your case, as a less experienced player, it probably helped you in terms of focus and limiting mistakes, cause you really don't have to do much in OCC. A lot of the micro-strategies that make this game so wonderful and complex are pretty much thrown aside in OCC.

With the exception of maybe culture victory (6 to 9 cities on normal) or AP cheese wins, this game thrives on as many cities and as much land as you can get.

 

[Berul]

You got me wrong.

I'm not saying that in a non-OCC game, it's better to only have one city.

As a matter of fact, I've had several domination wins already, and I know that having twice as many cities as any AI is a sure way to victory.

But since I'm clearly doing better in OCC games than in non-OCC games, it means that I don't use the first settled cities in an efficient way.

So, those 4 OCC games have showed me that I really need to rethink the way I use my non-capital cities (be they settled or gotten from an AI).

That's what I meant when I wrote that those OCC games will change the way I play non-OCC games.

It's a bit weird that I'm quite confident that I can win an OCC game on Emperor level (maybe not 100% of the time, but with reasonnable success chances), while I'm still struggling with non-OCC games on the same level, don't you agree ?

But you're right when you write that there is less to focus on in OCC games. Which honestly I find relaxing.

That doesn't mean that focusing on city development is the only matter. For instance, in my last game, I'm pretty sure that I made a great move by bribing Zara to declare on Catherine. That was just after Catherine declared on me, and that has 1) Diverted Catherine's army from me, which likely saved my a55. 2) Significantly slowed down Zara's and Catherine's teching rate (to the point that Catherine never really recovered). 3) As a side effect, since Zara controlled the AP, this has signicantly improved my standings with other AP members. That was the first time I use that kind of move in a game, and that's certainly something I'll do again in non-OCC games. So, that's another example of things I've learnt with those OCC games that will help me with non-OCC games.

 

[lymond]

Well, I still don't follow your train of thought, and it was this comment that really stuck out to me:

So basically, in a non-OCC game, it seems that I'd have better chances to win if I restricted myself to only one city (settleing maybe a city or two in the mid-late game).
It's kind as if every city I settle drags me a bit more towards defeat...

it's just plain wrong, and indicates to me that you have so much to learn about this game.

There's not much that OCC really helps you in regards to non-OCC. The one thing is you do probably learn a good bit on the diplo side as generally in OCC you are in a much weaker position so you have to really pay attention to Diplo stuff. Plus, wars are usually avoided in peaceful pursuits like Space as they don't really benefit you much unless your goal is more conquest related.

Bottom line, the earlier you own more cities - via settling or conquest - the sooner they are doing more for you. This game is about the snowball effect and doing more stuff earlier and better.

Learning to bribe AIs into wars has nothing to do with OCC, you simply did it during an OCC game. It is a common tactic. One must indeed learn how to optimize to win effectively in the confines of an OCC setup with OCC limitations, but there is little about OCC that helps with learning the game as a whole. It really is a very different animal.

 

[Berul]

I write

It's kind as if every city I settle drags me a bit more towards defeat...

and you read

It's kind as if every settled city drags the player a bit more towards defeat...

I was not thinking that it's detrimential to settle a city; just that I do it in a detrimential way

Along with diplo, you also need to pay attention to tech trades in OCCs (as in any other game).

But you're right. For non-OCC games, they key to victory is usually to have more cities. Well... as long as you know how to make use of them (which was my point).

If I had to emphasize what I've learnt from those games in one sentence, it would be:

The capital is enough to take care of teching. Others cities are (most of the time) better used for another purpose.

(well, that was two sentences )

 

[lymond]

It is true that for much of the game the cap is going to be your research center. Bureaucracy cottage cap is one of the more powerful mechanics in the game. Secondary cities in most cases can be abused for your needs such as whipping out fast armies. Yet, some cities can be setup for specific purposes like gp farm, and secondary cottage cities are normal. Still each city does increase your overall research potential as the game progress....from increased trade route commerce, running specialists (namely scientists), and cottage type cities.

And then you look long term such as Space. Optimal Space victory means more land as more land means more research. At a certain point in the game you will start converting to a hammer economy, whether State Property or Corps are used, with enormous potential for research and production. You can produce thousands of beakers per turn with victory dates centuries earlier. Just check out Katzilla's recent BOTM Space win here:

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/results/index.php?month=70176

I believe that is the fastest date ever recorded for normal speed/size Space, even HOF. (You can download his save from there as well but need BUFFY 005 installed)

 

[Berul]

It is true that for much of the game the cap is going to be your research center. Bureaucracy cottage cap is one of the more powerful mechanics in the game. Secondary cities in most cases can be abused for your needs such as whipping out fast armies. Yet, some cities can be setup for specific purposes like gp farm, and secondary cottage cities are normal. Still each city does increase your overall research potential as the game progress....from increased trade route commerce, running specialists (namely scientists), and cottage type cities.

Exactly. My mistake was using practically all of my cities as cottages cities, because I was afraid that otherwise I'd fall behind in tech.
Those last games I've played have clearly demonstrated to me that it's not the case (at least until the mid-late game).

And then you look long term such as Space. Optimal Space victory means more land as more land means more research. At a certain point in the game you will start converting to a hammer economy, whether State Property or Corps are used, with enormous potential for research and production. You can produce thousands of beakers per turn with victory dates centuries earlier. Just check out Katzilla's recent BOTM Space win here:

I've already experienced with corps and know how powerful they can be (but certainly not in an OCC game!) but I'm completely inexperienced with State Property. I've never done or even tried that, as a matter of fact. I've always had the impression that a cottage economy would do better. I'm certainly missing something here. Probably focusing too much on long term and not enough on short term.

As for the game, that's quite an impressive date. I'm really interested in checking the save, but I'll need to install buffy first.

 

[lymond]

BUFFY can be found here:

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/mod.php

You can get a lot of fun outta GOTMs and HOF.

Corps, namely Sushi/Mining, can be powerful on certain maps like Big & Small, but are only as powerful as the resources you can acquire. Some maps simply are not as good for it. State Property can always be powerful on any map where you have a lot of land. Most tile will be converted to Workshops...maybe some watermills too. This does not mean that you will not have a strong Bureau cap and have developed a few good cottage type cities early on. They will power you through until workshops really become strong so most new/captured cities and the extended tiles in old cities get workshops and watermills. With likely enough land to come fairly close to the Dom limit, you will produce tremendous amounts of wealth/research simply from hammers..further boosted in many cities by forges/factories/plants.

Here's a little glimpse though of Kait's save:

Spoiler mastery :

look at his bpts and look at all the Russian red in the mini-map..he is ~2% below Dom limit in land. OCC is not even in the same hemisphere as what you can do with non-OCC, and there is nothing about OCC that prepares you for this.

ha...I can't come close to doing this myself. Kait is just a very awesome player, but it shows how good some players can get at this game, which means that you can get that good too if you wish.

 

[Fippy]

You should also stay with the facts thou, Lymo
This map was edited / created (silver on green hills), and we started with Communism and SP.

I would not recommend such games (or HoF) to most players, better have fun with normal maps.
I have followed this pattern for years, and many players who optimize such maps and HoF either leave, get burned out or act strange in some other ways.

 

[lymond]

True...forgot about starting with SP, but really just wanted to show the power of the late game hammer economy. It was the only thing I could think of at the time that I could access.

 

[Anysense]

I used classic SP powered hammer economy in my early space games. Shame they are forgotten now Still not sure what is best on normal speed, corps and SP seem to be on par.

 

[drewisfat]

What you said makes sense to me Berul. I recall feeling the same way at one point. I was stuck on Emperor for a decent amount of time, yet was able to win OCC Emperor. I wasn't able to win OCC Immortal though. The difference between Emp and Imm was enough that I couldn't win with peaceful space races. The good news is when I finally was able to start beating Imm non-OCC, I was able to move up to deity relatively quickly, even though Imm -> Deity is a bigger leap than Emp to Imm. I'll lay out some of my weaknesses back then and maybe a couple will apply to you:
- I was scared into being peaceful by all the AI's unitspam, not realizing that I was actually handicapping myself by not taking advantage of how much better I could be at combat than the computer.
- I struggled to make new cities profitable. This was due to two things: I cared more about the long-term potential than short-term, so I cared more about an optimal BFC than an optimal small cross.
- I also didn't fully understand trade routes. I knew they were important but I wasn't sure on how roads/rivers/coastal worked, as well as the differences between domestic, foreign and intercontinental routes. Prioritizing a foreign trade route ASAP helped.
- I was building too far from my capital, again thinking about how my city would look when it was size 10+. In reality nearby cities can share big food resources to get a quick start, and then share cottages to prep your bureau capital.
- I always wanted to build something to improve each city. I underrated just building wealth and instead talked myself into "well the aqueduct is an investment, eventually I may need more health." With your capital it's fine to build most of the buildings, so this could be the type of bias that makes OCC attractive. Most cities only deserve a few buildings and should spend much of the game building wealth or units.
- I was too hesitant when it came to chopping. I was hyperaware of forests giving health. This problem actually solved itself, as when I moved up levels the happy cap was more limiting than health.
- I didn't have a mod that showed bulb possibilities. I couldn't plan bulbs, so I thought they were stupid.
- I didn't realize "avoid growth" would avoid growth (lol!). I figured it was a way to automate city management that would avoid food tiles (like the buttons right next to it). Since I knew how poor the game's automation was in other aspects, I just manually adjusted the cities to work lower food (often inefficient tiles). Or whipped at an awkward time. Or just let the city be unhappy for a while. Ofc it still isn't ideal to avoid growth, but I wasn't great, and confusion around the button made me worse than I was.
- Ultimately I cared too much about making my cities as big as possible, instead of just getting them just big enough to work their core tiles. This meant my whips were less efficient, that I was overspamming infrastructure and that I was hoarding resources that would be more profitable if I just traded them for GPT.

 

[Berul]

Thanks alot, @drewisfat .

It's certainly more than a couple

Except bulbing (I'm using BAT) and trade routes, they probably all apply to me, at least each to some extent.

For the most part, I knew about those weaknesses, but it doesn't hurt to have them explicitely listed, along with some explanations that I hadn't thought of. Thanks again.

In particular, I have very little experience with wars (scared too!) and it's only lately that I've done a successful HA rush and several - more or so - successful cuir rushes (btw, why does everyone call them Cuirassiers when in the game the are Heavy Horsemen ?). I still need a lot of practice, though. Never done a conquest war without horses, for instance (or, as a matter of fact, I've had several tries quite some time ago, usualy without much success). Before that, all of my wins were cultural wins (with one that I've been proud of on t265, but it's quite rare that you can peacefully settle 9 cities (which I did in that game). And t265 is probably not such a good turn, anyway).

However... well what exactely is "avoid growth" ? This is one point that I was completely unaware of

 

[Anysense]

btw, why does everyone call them Cuirassiers when in the game the are Heavy Horsemen ?

Because they are called cuirassiers in unmodded BTS. BAT makes a few alterations apart from interface and graphics. For example, it allows overflow gold, just like BUFFY.

Cuirs are good, no doubt about that, but you might want to try something different. Rifles and cannons are only a little bit deeper into the tech tree and have significant advantages. Rifles are 14 and can be drafted; cannons, on the other hand, do tremendous collateral damage and have access to CR promotions.

'Avoid growth' means avoid growth, that is a city can't grow, regardless of the food.

 

[AcaMetis]

One piece of advice I can give you on fighting a war without Horses: Bring stack defenders. A healthy spear in a stack of axes and catapults will, almost certainly, dissuade the AI from attacking your stack out in the open since their chance to survive the attack is so low. Especially bring stack defenders if your siege weapons are technically the strongest units in your army, and as such would take any fights with the odd roaming Knights or other units. Bad idea to get your siege wounded or even killed before reaching a city, needless to say.

 

[Berul]

Thanks for the answers and advice.

There's something that I discovered recently, it's the importance of GMs when you need to upgrade your obsolete units. In a recent game, I got 2900 gold from a GM (city with ToA was on another continent) which immensely helped upgrading a good fraction of my Numidian Cavalries into Cavalries iirc.

'Avoid growth' means avoid growth, that is a city can't grow, regardless of the food.

I've just been testing that a little. The excess food is lost.
I can see how this can be useful when you have only +1 food surplus per turn and the next citizen would be unhappy. Apart from that case, wouldn't it be always preferable to grow, even if the next citizen is unhappy ?

 

[Anysense]

In most cases it is preferable to whip the unhappy population away. While in whipping phase of the game, it is best to keep most of your cities small, anyway - except for a few cities which you need to be large for some reason. Typically, NE city should grow as much as possible while in slavery, and you don't want to whip your capital at all, with very few exceptions.