Deity Introduction Guide for Julius Ceasar
- Thread starter Moonsinger
- Start date
ionimplant
Prince
i tried this strategy this morning and the biggest problem i had is that AI develop very fast and by the time i could rush Roman UU, there aren't many forest left (on tiny map. AI surrounded my land so fast even at marathon speed). i can get about 4-5 of them before i run out of forest. i have to declare war on AI to get more forest. but 4-5 UU run out pretty soon...
Littlewolf
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2004
- Messages
- 29
Excellent inventive thinking Moonsinger. How anarhy works is probably an exploit, but that doesn't diminish your creative solution.
In reply to my former post (under the name of DolAtoR): I finally managed to win with this strategy (standard map, marathon speed, deity level, 4 opponents: Catherine, Gandhi, Isabella, Washington). The key in this game was the geographic distance I had to my enemies, their first settlement that bordered my territory came arround the time I had 5 axeman and was close to finish my research on IW (bout 6 turns).
I finished the game with some 330k something points in 340 BC, and learned quite a lot. I had nothing to do with Pyramids, though - Catherine had them (strongest opponent), and they were too far away. I did not get them before 500 BC. It was possible to dump my civ into anarchy long enough because I was able to swith RELIGIONS as well as from slavery to nothing: this gave me perpetual anarchy as well once I had enough cities for the anarchy to last 3 turns.
It was interesting, nevertheless I think that there are too many unbalanced things that are exploited:
First I do not agree that anarchy itself is an exploit - why not play like barbarians, only waging war, not caring for anything except building strong military units - but I totally agree that it lasts too short on marathon speed, should be sth like 10 turns imo.
Second the pretorians are NOT overpowered - there is a reason that Rome was THE leading civ in its days. But, they are still too cheap to build. A pretorian demanded a long and expensive education, strong and again expensive armory and weapons.
Despite those points, it is possible to play the game like that (under 1.52), and I am always against rules that prevent sth that is IN the game. Reloading is not, anarchy, pretorians and forest chopping are. So, this strategy is innovative and well thought through - thanks for posting it, Moonsinger!
I finished the game with some 330k something points in 340 BC, and learned quite a lot. I had nothing to do with Pyramids, though - Catherine had them (strongest opponent), and they were too far away. I did not get them before 500 BC. It was possible to dump my civ into anarchy long enough because I was able to swith RELIGIONS as well as from slavery to nothing: this gave me perpetual anarchy as well once I had enough cities for the anarchy to last 3 turns.
It was interesting, nevertheless I think that there are too many unbalanced things that are exploited:
First I do not agree that anarchy itself is an exploit - why not play like barbarians, only waging war, not caring for anything except building strong military units - but I totally agree that it lasts too short on marathon speed, should be sth like 10 turns imo.
Second the pretorians are NOT overpowered - there is a reason that Rome was THE leading civ in its days. But, they are still too cheap to build. A pretorian demanded a long and expensive education, strong and again expensive armory and weapons.
Despite those points, it is possible to play the game like that (under 1.52), and I am always against rules that prevent sth that is IN the game. Reloading is not, anarchy, pretorians and forest chopping are. So, this strategy is innovative and well thought through - thanks for posting it, Moonsinger!
LeSphinx
Bachogwa
Thanks to Moosinger's strategy I have a conquest victory around 560AD for a 60.000 scoring.
Well it's my best Civ4 score. (prévious around 56.000).
I did not use the anarchy strategy. I burn some cities.
I 've played at deity: still too hard for me!
I had problem with maintenance cost: as I do not use the anarchy permanent revolt, I had to disband units (praetorians and workers).
I maximize commerce in all the cities to get the most cash possible and built 3 chariots in order to pillage all lands improvments.
Well it's my best Civ4 score. (prévious around 56.000).
I did not use the anarchy strategy. I burn some cities.
I 've played at deity: still too hard for me!
I had problem with maintenance cost: as I do not use the anarchy permanent revolt, I had to disband units (praetorians and workers).
I maximize commerce in all the cities to get the most cash possible and built 3 chariots in order to pillage all lands improvments.
A_Turkish_Guy
EminC
60000??.come on man what level did you play.?you can get that score with settler.
LeSphinx
Bachogwa
A_Turkish_Guy : i've played at Prince I think 
strinalena
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 2
I Also Play Mainly With Ceaser On Normal Speed Though.my Prefered Style Of Play Before This Strategy Was "beat Them Up" And Now It Became "beat Them Up To The Ground With No Chance Of Counterattack" - This Strategy Is Great!!!
I Wanted To Just Ask - How Many Pretorians Do U Have At The Finish Of Your Game And Do U Build Any Other Buildings Different From Barracks?
I Wanted To Just Ask - How Many Pretorians Do U Have At The Finish Of Your Game And Do U Build Any Other Buildings Different From Barracks?
fung3
Warlord
The strategy descibed here is an exploit. However, I heap praise onto Moonsinger for using this technique. After all the whole game is a matter of exploiting the mechanics of the game in such a way as to gain advantage. Top marks Moonsinger.
The strategy she descibed inspired me to use a rush of praetorians on my last game. 8 civs, no barbarians, epic speed, small panagea map, no city razing, monarch level.
From the start the plan was to settle three cities, build barracks in each and create a small team of workers to link up resources and chop rush praetorians.
Very soon I had a small but powerful army and marched them to my nearest neighbour Tokugawa of Japan. My praetorians crushed his archers and 10 turns later my empire included 4 ex-Japanese cities. During this short war my three original cities were pumping out more praetorians in preparation for the destruction of Washington's empire. Taking Washington (with Pyramids), New York and Boston was easy with level 3 praetorians.
By 250AD, I had 10 cities, a scary army, and the pyramids. I had the highest score, much more land than any of my rivals. In general a convincing lead.
The downside of this tactic was the cost to my economy. Running 10 cities in the early game is expensive. As a result I lagged behind on science and could only apply 60% of my commerce to science. However, now that war was over I could sit back and allow my new cities to mature.
I B lined to Liberalism (free tech) and got the Taj Mahal and at the end of my first golden age I was unstoppable. Space race victory by 1864.
All inspired by Moonsingers praetorian rush!!!
I don't really care for Caesar's organised trait so next time I will try a similar tactic using the Incan (aggresive and financial) Que Cha to take out my two nearest rivals. The Que Cha need no resources and only cost 15 hammers on normal speed against 40 hammers for praetorians.
That was my first game playing at Monarch level having worked up from the novice ranks. It was an easy victory.
I like the early rush strategy in preference to slowly building a base of my own cities. Get your rivals to do the hard work then take their empires from them before they have time to get strong.
The strategy she descibed inspired me to use a rush of praetorians on my last game. 8 civs, no barbarians, epic speed, small panagea map, no city razing, monarch level.
From the start the plan was to settle three cities, build barracks in each and create a small team of workers to link up resources and chop rush praetorians.
Very soon I had a small but powerful army and marched them to my nearest neighbour Tokugawa of Japan. My praetorians crushed his archers and 10 turns later my empire included 4 ex-Japanese cities. During this short war my three original cities were pumping out more praetorians in preparation for the destruction of Washington's empire. Taking Washington (with Pyramids), New York and Boston was easy with level 3 praetorians.
By 250AD, I had 10 cities, a scary army, and the pyramids. I had the highest score, much more land than any of my rivals. In general a convincing lead.
The downside of this tactic was the cost to my economy. Running 10 cities in the early game is expensive. As a result I lagged behind on science and could only apply 60% of my commerce to science. However, now that war was over I could sit back and allow my new cities to mature.
I B lined to Liberalism (free tech) and got the Taj Mahal and at the end of my first golden age I was unstoppable. Space race victory by 1864.
All inspired by Moonsingers praetorian rush!!!
I don't really care for Caesar's organised trait so next time I will try a similar tactic using the Incan (aggresive and financial) Que Cha to take out my two nearest rivals. The Que Cha need no resources and only cost 15 hammers on normal speed against 40 hammers for praetorians.
That was my first game playing at Monarch level having worked up from the novice ranks. It was an easy victory.
I like the early rush strategy in preference to slowly building a base of my own cities. Get your rivals to do the hard work then take their empires from them before they have time to get strong.
ruff_hi
Live 4ever! Or die trying
I gave this strategy a whirl last night and won a conquest victory in 390AD worth about 60k (Noble) - sure, not much but its a start. I did make a few mistakes and I have some questions / observations and stats ...
Mistakes:
1) Didn't hook up copper so produced warriors until my Praetorian army came on stream
2) Listened to the suggested placement for my city with Iron - result, iron was outside the city and I had to waste about 20 turns expanding that city
3) Failed to check 'no barbs' and lost 8 workers to them - that is what happens when a male follows instructions
Stats:
1) Produced 56 Praetorians and 28 Axemen (some of these were warriors that I upgraded)
2) Killed 43 Archers, 1 Chariot, 6 War Chariots, 3 axemen, 20 Warriors, 6 Workers, 2 Settlers, 1 Bear and 2 Lions
3) Lost 8 workers (@#$%$ barbs) and only 10 Praetorians
Observations:
1) I wish there was an auto-chop forest option - maybe someone could create a mod
2) I must learn how to set rally points (see here)
3) You only really need one extra unit to take a city (ie if there are 4 units in a city, attack with 5 and you should take it) - this was even true when fighting axemen as long as there wasn't any city / terrain bonus
4) Alt Click unit in the product screen was really useful - keep producing Praetorians
Questions:
1) Do you leave a unit in a newly captured city or just leave the city empty?
Mistakes:
1) Didn't hook up copper so produced warriors until my Praetorian army came on stream
2) Listened to the suggested placement for my city with Iron - result, iron was outside the city and I had to waste about 20 turns expanding that city
3) Failed to check 'no barbs' and lost 8 workers to them - that is what happens when a male follows instructions
Stats:
1) Produced 56 Praetorians and 28 Axemen (some of these were warriors that I upgraded)
2) Killed 43 Archers, 1 Chariot, 6 War Chariots, 3 axemen, 20 Warriors, 6 Workers, 2 Settlers, 1 Bear and 2 Lions
3) Lost 8 workers (@#$%$ barbs) and only 10 Praetorians
Observations:
1) I wish there was an auto-chop forest option - maybe someone could create a mod
2) I must learn how to set rally points (see here)
3) You only really need one extra unit to take a city (ie if there are 4 units in a city, attack with 5 and you should take it) - this was even true when fighting axemen as long as there wasn't any city / terrain bonus
4) Alt Click unit in the product screen was really useful - keep producing Praetorians
Questions:
1) Do you leave a unit in a newly captured city or just leave the city empty?
fung3
Warlord
I always leave 1 or 2 units in a captured city for happiness and defence
kniteowl said:
From the unit stats i do not think so.
Praetorians do not have a real counter, immortals do have.
As soon as the AI decides to have 1 spearman in a city, you're offense will stop or you will lose many immortals. And i often see spears in city on monarch and emporer so expect them on deity.
Also it would be more difficult to balance the number of axes and immortals, since axes are neccessary to fight the spearman outside the cities, while with Praets it is not that dramatic to run out of axes, praets against axes is unit wise a win and resource wise not a big loss. If the immortals wun out of axes and come across spear, they are lost.
Carn
strinalena said:
I usually have about two barracks from my original two cities (Rome is one of them). Almost 1/2 of my troops was producing without barracks. There usually plenty of enemy archers out in the open for your troop promotion.
I usually leave a cheap unit behide. If you don't, some citizens will be unhappy and refuse to work. Also, after you have captured the Pyramid, you can switch to a government civ that yield one extra happiness per military unit (not sure if there is cap) station in the city.ruff_hi said:
Roland Johansen
Deity
This does not only show that the anarchy disadvantages were programmed badly in the game, but also shows that the number of shields that are gained for chopping a forest are too high. I wonder why the people at Firaxis changed the number of shields that you get for chopping a forest from 0 in civ1 and civ2 to 10 in civ3 and 30 (on normal speed, without production bonusses) in civ4. It's just asking for exploits.
You could still do a lot of damage in a deity game by chop-rushing a whole lot of praetorians and attacking the enemy (even if anarchy was programmed well in the game). There's not much strategy in that in the sense that you don't need to know a lot about the game mechanics and don't have to think a lot to accomplish this. I would like the strategies needed to accomplish something in a Deity game to be a little more complicated.
It seems that in Civ4, forests are a kind of bags of production spread over the map and you need certain technologies to access the bags....
You could still do a lot of damage in a deity game by chop-rushing a whole lot of praetorians and attacking the enemy (even if anarchy was programmed well in the game). There's not much strategy in that in the sense that you don't need to know a lot about the game mechanics and don't have to think a lot to accomplish this. I would like the strategies needed to accomplish something in a Deity game to be a little more complicated.
It seems that in Civ4, forests are a kind of bags of production spread over the map and you need certain technologies to access the bags....
DaviddesJ
Deity
Roland Johansen said:
Well, I think there are many other threads that collectively show that forest chops are worth too much. This one, by itself, is only a small part of the picture. I agree with the conclusion, though. I'd rather see them worth 10 or 15.
Roland Johansen
Deity
DaviddesJ said:
That true. This thread is not about the value of forest chops. But I think that giving it such a high value would inevitably lead to strategies/methods/exploits that are well... strange.
I don't want to name extreme use of forest chops an exploit because it is completely according to the rules the makers consciously programmed into the game. I just think the forest chop value inevitably leads to whole strategies heavily dependent on chopping forests. Civ should be about more than that.
