Defense/Early game

[Rowan]

I'm playing a bit differentley then I usualy do.In the early game does any one have an opinion on the usefulness of barracks in appropriate citys / all citys.
I am trying to keep friendly with the AI so I suppose this query is to do with the barbarians.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Unless you want to go on some sort of conquest, don't build barracks. You have to build several units with the same city to make them useful. In the early game, transportation is usually quite difficult, and your goal should be expanding and covering as much of the world as possible. The 40 shields can be put to a settler, which will give you an additional city; that means that if the barbarians come, the city you are out is one that you would otherwise not have. Essentially, early defence is a numbers game. If you have more cities, the ones you lose are not as important, and you can then make plans to liberate or destroy the city. Oftentimes, the best way to go is to bribe back the city with a diplomat, and get the defender(s).

Of course, there are circumstances which might make a barracks useful. If you have a nice river system, it might be just as well to build a barracks in one city and use it to churn out all of your defensive units. Against barbs, however, attack. At the higher levels they get an attack bonus, not to mention that units are generally weak on defence unless there are city walls.

 

[Rowan]

Thanks.

I've been reading Starlifter again lateley and been trying to put growth as the stragerty. I like it; it is different and at the moment things look good.
Instead of Barracks I have been building Market, Libary, Caravan for trade.
So leaving out my usual builds and heading more into trade is it of benifit to trade with your self (if no other destinations are avalible ) to pick up the shield bonus.

Thanks.

 

[Ace]

"shield bonus"? Don't you mean "trade bonus"...? But, to answer your question, yes, if no AI city is available to trade with, trade with yourself, and if you have the colosseus in one of your cities, besure to run 3 trade routes from each of your other cities to it, the extra trade arrows are well worth it.

 

[Rowan]

Sorry , trade bonus.

I must check it out , I'll be back.Thanks,Ace,Prof G.

 

[WildPony]

I'm playing a bit differentley then I usualy do.In the early game does any one have an opinion on the usefulness of barracks in appropriate citys / all citys.
I am trying to keep friendly with the AI so I suppose this query is to do with the barbarians.

I am a big believer in early fast expansion and only as much military as necessary. This for me means, until Trade, building Settlers, Settlers, Settlers and for the most part nothing else.... including no market places or other buildings. My philosophy in the pre-trade early game is that a building is good, but a settler is better. Not everybody likes "sleazing" cities, but it's hard to argue that it's not the strongest strategy. I'd rather have 40 cities, 20 settlers and zero buildings... and then upon trade become a massive trade empire.

HOwever.... in the real world, we need an element of military, sometimes more, other times less. Usually vs. the ai, it is needed on a very limited basis. This being the case, i am a big believer in designating some cities as "Veteran Builders" and for the most part building military only in these cities, distributing and rehoming these units as needed to other non barrack cities and other strategic locations. Typically, depending upon the need, i would build anywhere from 1-5 barracks for every 10 cities. Vs. ai, probably much closer to 1, unless ready to wipe them out. In a good land war vs. a strong human, probably closer to 3 or 4 or 5 for every 10 cities.

My preference for choosing cities in which to build barracks would be based upon how well or poorly suited a city is for building settlers or for super trade later. Low food and/or Low trade cities for me make the most appropriate barrack locations. High food cities can crank out settler, settler, settler, then when the time comes to climb to size 3 for a celebration, no problem exists. In high trade cities, i would not build barracks because i'd rather these locations specialize in caravan building when the time comes (and settler building until then). Basically, if i build a barracks, i want that city to Specialize in building Veteran Military all game long (or until gunpowder) and nothing else... not diverting itself into settlers or into caravans later. And upon gunpowder if i didn't have my Sun Tzu wonder, i'd probably choose to re-barrack the same cities since they were already chosen for their appropriateness to that task.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Some games (vs. strong human opponents more than anything) u need more barracks than your low food/low trade cities can provide... so u build more as u see fit. In the attached tiny map game vs. a human opponent with the Sun Tzu wonder, i have 51 cities with 20 barracks. For the most part, the 20 barrack cities were chosen with the above ideas in mind. Note too that the barrack cities in this case are denoted by an "*" in the city name. This very good 2x2x king, 39x39 HG/Republic (me) vs. Sun Tzu's/Monarchy game included an exceedingly tough land war but ended about 2 turns after i got Map Making and Lighthouse

 

[BaconLad]

i am a big believer in designating some cities as "Veteran Builders" and for the most part building military only in these cities, distributing and rehoming these units as needed to other non barrack cities and other strategic locations.

I was just about to offer this very same advice.

High shield production cities that can churn out units very quickly are the only place you need to build barracks, providing you have a good transport network, Just a small handfull of cities can provide the whole of your military.

 

[WildPony]

Thanks.

I've been reading Starlifter again lateley and been trying to put growth as the stragerty. I like it; it is different and at the moment things look good.
Instead of Barracks I have been building Market, Libary, Caravan for trade.
So leaving out my usual builds and heading more into trade is it of benifit to trade with your self (if no other destinations are avalible ) to pick up the shield bonus.

Thanks.

If foreign trade is unreachable, self trade can definately be beneficial. If i am forced to trade with myself, i make a point of building island cities so i can avoid same continent trades. I haven't reviewed the formulae recently, but i am nearly certain trades to separate continents are double in value. As well, the 3 trade routes are nice, great even , but i believe the most powerful impact from trade comes in the form of the "initial" bonuses allowing for a tech per turn and wealth beyond your wildest dreams .

Attached is a "15 city" double production game vs. 1 human and some ai's where i was China on the world map. My island cities traded to foreign nations on the mainland and my mainland cities self-traded to my island cities until foreign island cities were located recently with the advent of Galleons then Transports.

 

[Ace]

Good game, but most of us here do not play double production, and, generally, the info and discussions here apply to the regular game.

 

[WildPony]

Good game, but most of us here do not play double production, and, generally, the info and discussions here apply to the regular game.

thanks. yeah i hear u, double production changes the strategy, human enemies change the strategy... though i don't believe i'd have played this game much differently in single production. My cities would have probably stopped growing at about 25's though instead of 12 of 15 averaging size 32 and all (or most?) still growing every turn in a celebrating Democracy.

I like either setting, normal or double production.

Ace, do most players in here not play vs. humans? Do you?

 

[Magic_gorter]

Wildpony...I think most players don't play humans in this part of CFC. Is a totally different game when playing against a human instead of the ai. When playing the ai you know how they play. When playing a human it's a big guess which strategy they play.

99% of the things on this forum (beside the multiplayer part) is about playing against the ai. But you can always discuss some things about a vs human game...but it's probably wise to mention that. Otherwise the readers think it's about the "standard" game.

 

[WildPony]

Wildpony...I think most players don't play humans in this part of CFC. Is a totally different game when playing against a human instead of the ai. When playing the ai you know how they play. When playing a human it's a big guess which strategy they play.

99% of the things on this forum (beside the multiplayer part) is about playing against the ai. But you can always discuss some things about a vs human game...but it's probably wise to mention that. Otherwise the readers think it's about the "standard" game.

True enough Magic Gorter, the human enemy and the ai enemy play very different games. And you're right that the default conversation here seems to be concerning the cpu opponent. A good thing for me to really keep in mind when i am posting. Now with that said, throughout my posts i have made many comments differentiating between the ai enemy and the human enemy. I am a little bit surprised that nobody seems to be picking up on this and then there are "debates" that never needed to take place .

In this very thread, here are some of my quotes:

"HOwever.... in the real world, we need an element of military, sometimes more, other times less. Usually vs. the ai, it is needed on a very limited basis."

"Typically, depending upon the need, i would build anywhere from 1-5 barracks for every 10 cities. Vs. ai, probably much closer to 1, unless ready to wipe them out. In a good land war vs. a strong human, probably closer to 3 or 4 or 5 for every 10 cities.".

"Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Some games (vs. strong human opponents more than anything) u need more barracks than your low food/low trade cities can provide... so u build more as u see fit. In the attached tiny map game vs. a human opponent with the Sun Tzu wonder, i have 51 cities with 20 barracks."

In the following comments, all from this very thread also, i am not differentiating because i feel it is a strong concept whether playing vs. humans or vs. ai. .

"My preference for choosing cities in which to build barracks would be based upon how well or poorly suited a city is for building settlers or for super trade later. Low food and/or Low trade cities for me make the most appropriate barrack locations. High food cities can crank out settler, settler, settler, then when the time comes to climb to size 3 for a celebration, no problem exists. In high trade cities, i would not build barracks because i'd rather these locations specialize in caravan building when the time comes (and settler building until then). Basically, if i build a barracks, i want that city to Specialize in building Veteran Military all game long (or until gunpowder) and nothing else... not diverting itself into settlers or into caravans later. And upon gunpowder if i didn't have my Sun Tzu wonder, i'd probably choose to re-barrack the same cities since they were already chosen for their appropriateness to that task."

"If foreign trade is unreachable, self trade can definately be beneficial. If i am forced to trade with myself, i make a point of building island cities so i can avoid same continent trades. I haven't reviewed the formulae recently, but i am nearly certain trades to separate continents are double in value. As well, the 3 trade routes are nice, great even , but i believe the most powerful impact from trade comes in the form of the "initial" bonuses allowing for a tech per turn and wealth beyond your wildest dreams. "

In other threads including most notibly discussing the merits of "Pre Navigation Lighthouse Domination", in the "Worst Wonder" thread, i was very deliberate in stating that Lighthouse is not needed to dominate the ai, that that their domination can easily be accomplished without it, but that vs. humans, Lighthouse can mean the difference between life and death.

But what i didn't realize is that most players in this forum do not play multi player at all .

That leads to an honest question. How can it be that players who are obviously very strong choose to play vs. the ai knowing they can dominate them every game, when they could instead have exhilarating, sensational games vs eachother where the outcome is not pre-determined? I'm just sincerely trying to understand the reasons behind the choice because for me it is quite unfathomable. Would you say that most players in this forum have played human games and yet prefer the ai enemy, or that they've never played vs. humans and so don't realize what it's like?

I see a lot of players posting in here with such a great grasp of the game and think to myself, " i'd really love to play him. We could give eachother such a game!! "

But alas, they want to face the ai instead.. an enemy widely reknowned for how weak it is .

 

[Prof. Garfield]

That leads to an honest question. How can it be that players who are obviously very strong choose to play vs. the ai knowing they can dominate them every game, when they could instead have exhilarating, sensational games vs eachother where the outcome is not pre-determined? I'm just sincerely trying to understand the reasons behind the choice because for me it is unfathomable. Would you say that most players in this forum have played human games and yet prefer the ai enemy, or that they've never played vs. humans and so don't realize what it's like?

I can only really speak for myself, but there are a couple of reasons.

First, flexibility. I can play when I want for the amount of time that I want, not to mention that I can leave the computer without a problem if something comes up. I also don't have to go through the trouble of arranging a game with someone, nor do I have to wait for them to take their turn, or feel pressured to make my turn go more quickly.

Second, the computer can be made to give a challenge. Deity-plus levels give the computer a very large cut in the price of production, greatly reducing human ability to concentrate forces, because the computer will have lots of forces in ALL of his cities. Also, wonder races get exceptionally tight, and prioritizing becomes key. Essentially, I find it very fun to refine my strategies against the AI to compensate for its large advantages. The post-deity levels make 2 things better: Trade and Luxuries. You have to exploit both of these to their maximum potential in order to succeed, and then if you restrict your trade, you have to play even more cleverly. Strategy refinement can be just as fun as strategy development or variation. One of the reasons I have stayed with Civ2 is that I don't really have the time to learn to play a new computer game and develop strategies for it. Civ2 scenarios give enough variation when I want it, but the fundamentals remain the same (and allows me to listen to the radio while playing the game, letting me get more leisure in less time). I suppose playing against humans would be more like developing strategies for a scenario, but I have already mentioned other reasons why I don't play multiplayer...

 

[WildPony]

Really good post professor. Thanks for your complete answer.

I want to further inquire about some of your points.

"I can only really speak for myself, but there are a couple of reasons. First, flexibility. I can play when I want for the amount of time that I want, not to mention that I can leave the computer without a problem if something comes up. I also don't have to go through the trouble of arranging a game with someone, nor do I have to wait for them to take their turn, or feel pressured to make my turn go more quickly."

I know what you are saying. Many players are not very patient if you need to allow for interruptions or even in general if you are playing civ as if it were a "strategy game" instead of "speed checkers". You might get the "qvickie" players that wonder why you "need 45 whole seconds so early in the game". Might be because you popped 7 units and two tribes in huts and they don't even have a single unit to move. Whatever the reason, there are players who understand the correlation between level of "busi-ness" and the amount of time needed... and there are players who don't. I had a 10 city game recently where i was literally moving 35 units, many of which were trade caras all to different islands with the need to assess where they were going, load and unload them into triremes... had 7x his exploration, having opened up about 85% of the map, contact with (and tech trading, gifting, map trading with) all ai civs when he had met only one, and the opponent was quite literally moving only 4 units to my 35 (checking inside his civ after the game). His turns were a minute and mine were three. Naturally he was complaining ("zzzzzzz") and sadly no amount of logic could help him see why his simple civ clearly required less time to manage than that of an exceedingly busy civ.

Part of this quest, for me has been sifting thru a few players to find the right ones.
If you found certain human opponents who were "compatible" as opponents, as flexible as you needed them to be for your own peace of mind, who always accepted the amount of time you needed for whatever reasons, perhaps who played as busy as you and so needed the time you needed, might that make you (and others) more interested?

Re: the trouble of arranging a game, for me that is made quite easy with windows messenger and/or icq. If i am looking for a game, all i need to do is see who is on. A couple of key contacts can help a player build their friend lists to a formidible level.

Re: triple deity, even though it plays differently than deity and in some ways i'm sure it is a lot tougher, once you adjust your strategy to accomodate it, acknowledging the added challenges, but also taking advantage of the heightened value of a lux rate in easily converting anarchists all the way to happy faces with only two lux, can it be assumed that u are pretty much able to win every time (or almost every time with rare exceptions)? If so, we are still faced with the reality that the ai can never truly challenge a strong player.

"One of the reasons I have stayed with Civ2 is that I don't really have the time to learn to play a new computer game and develop strategies for it."

I understand this and the same is true for me, but if you have developed a mastery over facing the ai enemy, adapting to the human element is a reasonably small adjustment, nowhere near what it would be to master a whole new game, say civ 4. The techs, buildings, units, wonders, governments, trade aspects, happiness aspects.... all being exactly the same, it's just a matter of knowing that you are facing an enemy that will gather all 5 units before attacking your city instead of coming at you 1 unit at a time over 5 turns.

 

[Ace]

What Magic Gorter and the Professor said. And, as for me, I have played against "humans", but not recently. While I agree that Humans are much tougher opponents than the AI, the Professor is also correct about the hassle involved in getting a human player. Even with the internet, many of us are students w/mucho homework, or adults and have jobs, spouses, and kids to interact with as well as play civ, so civ time is a "valuable commodity", and playing SP is much less of a hassle.) And, he could have mentioned that sometimes human opponents quit or have to leave in the middle of a game, or just don't have the same time open as you do to play. Or if you are winning overwhelmingly, a human player will give up and you miss out on the
end game activities.

There is also play-by-email, but it takes a long time, and most of us don't have the patience for that. And, as you are doing, most of us here, are trying to find the "best" way to get the most out of the game. Almost all of the research and discoveries here have been based on the premise that we are talking about the "standard" game, which usually means classic, multiplayer gold, FW, or ToT. 2x greatly changes the speed and "feel" of the game and, to be honest, you are the first player posting than I can remember mainly playing that way. And, IIRC, you can only play that way in a multi-human game.

You are right about needless debates. It is not correct to compare/debate the advantages/disadvantages about the values of wonders in 1x (standard game) vs. 2x. The 2x factor introduces a variable to the game that makes comparisons worthless, because in 2x, one can always do stuff faster than in 1x. That is not to say that 2x is wrong or bad, its just not what is generally played/researched/discussed on this site, and, even through you mentioned 2x several times, I admit I didn't pick up on it and assumed, oops, that the discussion was about 1x.

 

[WildPony]

What Magic Gorter and the Professor said. And, as for me, I have played against "humans", but not recently. While I agree that Humans are much tougher opponents than the AI, the Professor is also correct about the hassle involved in getting a human player. Even with the internet, many of us are students w/mucho homework, or adults and have jobs, spouses, and kids to interact with as well as play civ, so civ time is a "valuable commodity", and playing SP is much less of a hassle.) And, he could have mentioned that sometimes human opponents quit or have to leave in the middle of a game, or just don't have the same time open as you do to play. Or if you are winning overwhelmingly, a human player will give up and you miss out on the
end game activities.

There is also play-by-email, but it takes a long time, and most of us don't have the patience for that. And, as you are doing, most of us here, are trying to find the "best" way to get the most out of the game. Almost all of the research and discoveries here have been based on the premise that we are talking about the "standard" game, which usually means classic, multiplayer gold, FW, or ToT. 2x greatly changes the speed and "feel" of the game and, to be honest, you are the first player posting than I can remember mainly playing that way. And, IIRC, you can only play that way in a multi-human game.

You are right about needless debates. It is not correct to compare/debate the advantages/disadvantages about the values of wonders in 1x (standard game) vs. 2x. The 2x factor introduces a variable to the game that makes comparisons worthless, because in 2x, one can always do stuff faster than in 1x. That is not to say that 2x is wrong or bad, its just not what is generally played/researched/discussed on this site, and, even through you mentioned 2x several times, I admit I didn't pick up on it and assumed, oops, that the discussion was about 1x.

Good points Ace. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Re: triple deity, even though it plays differently than deity and in some ways i'm sure it is a lot tougher, once you adjust your strategy to accomodate it, acknowledging the added challenges, but also taking advantage of the heightened value of a lux rate in easily converting anarchists all the way to happy faces with only two lux, can it be assumed that u are pretty much able to win every time (or almost every time with rare exceptions)? If so, we are still faced with the reality that the ai can never truly challenge a strong player.

It depends on how you define winning. If you define winning as being able to scrape together a 33-16-3 spaceship together in 4 turns in order to land one or two years before the computer, then with a half-decent starting position you can be reasonably sure to win. If you define winning as conquest of all foreign cities, then you'll have a big run for your money to exterminate 20 city civs with 25000+ treasuries as they launch a ship that is to land in 16 turns (remember, at this level the cities are often packed with units, then you get partisans). I have never actually completed conquest on deity plus three.

In any case, the computer will give you a huge run for your money throughout most of the game, especially if you play with some sort of restriction on trading. The computers will gang up on you once you hit supreme, even though some civs will arguably be much better than yourself given their production bonuses. It isn't a piece of cake, and things that would be minor irritations at lower levels are a full blown problem. If a civ has a city within what is otherwise "your territory," it poses a major problem once you go to war, because it will have produced LOTS of units which are wandering around. The human has to produce things other than military units in order to keep pace, leaving cities very vulnerable.

As for playing multiplayer if given the right circumstances, I just can't be bothered to do so... Also, I'm not about to, say, alternate between playing civ and working out math questions depending on whose turn it is. I can certainly understand where you are coming from, however.

 

[forkshy]

It depends on how you define winning. If you define winning as being able to scrape together a 33-16-3 spaceship together in 4 turns in order to land one or two years before the computer, then with a half-decent starting position you can be reasonably sure to win. If you define winning as conquest of all foreign cities, then you'll have a big run for your money to exterminate 20 city civs with 25000+ treasuries as they launch a ship that is to land in 16 turns (remember, at this level the cities are often packed with units, then you get partisans). I have never actually completed conquest on deity plus three.

In any case, the computer will give you a huge run for your money throughout most of the game, especially if you play with some sort of restriction on trading. The computers will gang up on you once you hit supreme, even though some civs will arguably be much better than yourself given their production bonuses. It isn't a piece of cake, and things that would be minor irritations at lower levels are a full blown problem. If a civ has a city within what is otherwise "your territory," it poses a major problem once you go to war, because it will have produced LOTS of units which are wandering around. The human has to produce things other than military units in order to keep pace, leaving cities very vulnerable.

As for playing multiplayer if given the right circumstances, I just can't be bothered to do so... Also, I'm not about to, say, alternate between playing civ and working out math questions depending on whose turn it is. I can certainly understand where you are coming from, however.

I'm sorry for kind of interjecting and going off topic here. I've been playing Civ II on and off since i first purchased it in 1997. In my opinion it, and tetris, are the only video games even worth playing.

I keep seeing people mention Diety+ on this board. Can you explain to me or point me to a thread with an explaination of how to play Diety +3?

Diety is less than a challenge at this point. I derive weird handicaps and give myself barely attainable goals, but every game ends with the AI totally dominated.

I would be extremely interested in attempting something more difficult.

re: the rest of the discussion

Persionally, I play Civilization II to take my mind off of the rest of my life and the number one thing that i need to take my mind off of is other people. I can't imagine why i would ever want to ruin something totally meditative by introducing other people into the experience.

Obviously, this wouldn't neccisarily hold true for other people.

 

[WildPony]

It depends on how you define winning. If you define winning as being able to scrape together a 33-16-3 spaceship together in 4 turns in order to land one or two years before the computer, then with a half-decent starting position you can be reasonably sure to win. If you define winning as conquest of all foreign cities, then you'll have a big run for your money to exterminate 20 city civs with 25000+ treasuries as they launch a ship that is to land in 16 turns (remember, at this level the cities are often packed with units, then you get partisans). I have never actually completed conquest on deity plus three.

In any case, the computer will give you a huge run for your money throughout most of the game, especially if you play with some sort of restriction on trading. The computers will gang up on you once you hit supreme, even though some civs will arguably be much better than yourself given their production bonuses. It isn't a piece of cake, and things that would be minor irritations at lower levels are a full blown problem. If a civ has a city within what is otherwise "your territory," it poses a major problem once you go to war, because it will have produced LOTS of units which are wandering around. The human has to produce things other than military units in order to keep pace, leaving cities very vulnerable.

As for playing multiplayer if given the right circumstances, I just can't be bothered to do so... Also, I'm not about to, say, alternate between playing civ and working out math questions depending on whose turn it is. I can certainly understand where you are coming from, however.

When you put it that way, you actually make it sound pretty good But yes, by winning i would say edging out the ai in the space race would qualify. Sounds like conquest would be quite cost prohibitive given the circumstances. Would you say you edge out the ai with a landing 80-90% of the time?

Your reasons for not playing vs. humans are fair and reasonable. But yes, if it is me and i find myself waiting in between turns, i will always find something constructive to do .

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I keep seeing people mention Diety+ on this board. Can you explain to me or point me to a thread with an explaination of how to play Diety +3?

First: You need classic civ 2.

Second: Go into your civ 2 folder and look for the notepad file marked "game." Save an extra copy to be safe.

Third: Open the file and find the list under "@DIFFICULTY"

Fourth: Add extra difficulty levels under deity.

Fifth (if you want to play barbarian wrath): Find the list under "@BARBARITY"

Sixth: Add barbarian wrath to the bottom of the list.

If done properly, you should be able to select an above deity level and barbarian wrath and play the game. Remember, however, that you take this advice at your own risk.