earth 18civ tutorial

[InFlux5]

I also want to thank you for the thread. I have always loved the Earth maps in Civ games, and I'm loving this dicussion.

As I started reading, I wanted to ask about Mali and Russia as these are my favorite civs. Then you got into a discussion on the Mali, so that was nice. But I haven't played this map on multi-player, and you gave us the caveat that your strat only applies to certain settings. Without asking you to re-write the whole Mali strat, can I just ask whether you even think they are viable in a single-player game? (Assume whatever difficulty level is appropriate to the player.)

I find it interesting that you see the Mali as being so weak. Their lack of resources is undeniable, but what they have in abundance is food. Shouldn't a land-grab in sub-Saharan Africa followed by cottage spam be a viable strategy? Playing as the Mali the question early-on is "North or South?" North means metals and military, but if you go South your Skirmishers find more use as you defend your numerous early cities. A defensive force and an army of workers is all you need to transform the area from a huge swath of jungle to a commerce center, right? (I don't have a lot of experience here. I'm speaking mostly in theory but also based on Earth 1000AD strats.)

But enough about the Mali. What I'd really like your opinion on is two other civs, Russia and Spain. Russia is the civ I "get into" the most on the Earth map, but also what I find to be one of the hardest. On the one hand you've got large expanses of land to the East and Northwest. On the other you have your South/West border to defend. How do you balance expansion and defense/wars? Going for an aggressive war leaves Siberia and Scandinavia open to Mongolia and England, respectively. But grabbing the land to the E/NW can leave you vulnerable to the "barbarians" in the south.

Finally, I'd like your views on Spain, but more generally those civs that are "boxed in" at the beginning of the game, e.g. Spain and France. (We won't count Rome since they can break out of that box so easily.) Spain is the epitome of this problem, having no early-game advantages. Even with an early religion France's culture is dominant. The Iberian peninsula is so small that you can just barely eke out two cities (if memory serves, you have to move your first settler East to even have two) and neither one of them are that great. How do you break out of the box as Spain (or France?)

 

[Locki]

Joe, been really enjoying reading your strats. From someone who's not all that great, it has helped quite a bit in terms of thinking outside of the box when it comes to civ. Two Civs I really enjoy playing on this map are Greece and Japan, but I have a lot of difficulty breaking out of they're respective boxes and putting myself in a position of power. I was hoping you could do what you did for the other civs for these two as well.

I have been wondering about tech rushes as well. I've heard them refered to as Slingshots or CS rush or things like that. from what I understand rushing certain techs are key to technological dominance. I know what all the techs do to some degree. but I don't know the specific tech paths or tricks of the trade so to speak. so i was hoping you could comment on them.

Lastly I was hoping you could explain how important founding religions and building wonders is as it seems in your explanations you haven't included either. (in the 18 civ earth map context of course)

I know it's a lot to ask, but I figured I might as well give it a shot and ask and maybe if you were feeling nice you'd answer

 

[InFlux5]

Quick addendum:

Forget my questions about the Mali. My experience with them was mostly in the 1000AD scenario. I just tried them in 18 civs, and my attempt at a southern land grab quickly came up against a wall: Egypt. They quickly swarm the eastern and southern part of Africa. The major issue for Mali is health, and there are two food resources on the northern coast in addition to Iron, making it the clear choice.

Would still be interested in your Russia strategy, as well as general strategies for "boxed in" civs that me and the previous poster are wondering about (Spain, Greece, France, Japan.) Although it occurred to me that bee-lining for North Africa is probably the best choice for Spain. (Could be tough in a cutthroat MP game though.)

 

[JoeHollywood]

wow, great string of intelligent questions guys...

this is going to take several posts.

Alright...this seems to have turned a lot more into a discussion of game theory than specific civs ( with questions of about 5 civs thrown in...grin )

So, let me take some broad strokes in this first post, and then I'll give some direct answers.

First I need to give an insane amount of credit to the map designer for Earth18. It pains me hear unexperienced or shortsighted players to say the map is "terrible", "unfair", etc.

Now, that being said, the map IS unfair...but that's the way it's supposed to be!!! It's what makes this map fun, and it will actually draw on your sense of history to be successful...what more could a civ player ask for?!

To be successful, you pretty much have to do what the "real civs" did, and where they historically made a mistake, "fix it"

Here's some examples...Don't grow rome to the point it's infrastructure brings it down...Don't make mistakes in the war with france that bogged down england for centuries...Don't let a massive military break down the greek empire...Don't let a "substandard" military keep egypt from being sovriegn, etc etc.

Now to apply this to game mechanics...One would think that starting land/resources is the first most important thing when selecting a civ and selecting how to play it. It's not, it falls a distant number 3 actually.

First lets talk about leader traits and traits combinations.

Now, I will accept that people have thier "favorite traits"...I know I do...I'm actually quite partial to spiritual. However, if you think there are "weak or substandard" traits, you are shortsighted and have not built the skills to use them properly, it's not that the traits are "weak"...if you can accept that, then there's room to grow. I'm not trying to be condescending, there are traits I know how to take full advantage of, and traits I don't know all the quirks of, it just irritates me that traits are dismissed as weak, when a lot of people who are much smarter than I am have tested/tweaked/ and balanced the system.

Now...how to use them. There are TONS of trait orriented strat guides on this site. If you want to find the "good" ones, read them, and listen to the ones that say what I just said...that no traits are weak.

Here are a couple examples...Rome gets the organized trait...this one gets beat all to hell in boards, examples I've seen say that it's nothing compared to financial...doesn't yeild near the commerce, etc...think of it this way...Rome expands early...and it's a HUGE early game advantage...the "prae" is NOT what allows rome to take all of europe so early...the organzied trait is what allows it. England is packed with resources, so cottage spamming isn't a viable option...but wow, all those early acadamies...and using a scientist to pop philosophy, and most of education makes the english a tech leader in most games ( and often the first to get liberalism )...starting to see historical contexts here? The point of this is simple...play the traits you get...don't try to force the traits into YOUR game.

Second, and another thing that most people put low on their priority list. The UU of each civ. Yeah we all love our UU's, in a lot of cases that's WHY we pick our civs, but do we use them correctly?

If you notice the civs that I have ranked lowest on my "tier" list..look how much that corrolates to the ability to take advantage of their unique unit...In europe praes rule more than any unique unit can/does for any time pieriod ( tier 1 civ )...it's difficult/impossible to effectively use skirmishers/quechas on this map ( and I'm NOT saying these units are weak, just that with this layout it's hard to take advantage of it ) and these are low tier civs. The point of this...when your UU comes to bear...use it, use it to death...all UU's dominate assuming tech parity when they exist ( with the possible exception of the camel )...don't throw their advantage awy by being passive...also, if you have a neighbor that's about to hit their UU, strategize accordingly ( be really friendly or take them out first ).

Now for land and starting resources...lets keep this simple...some is great...some sucks...maximize it the best you can either way...get over it if you're in a bad spot, and win using your brain...not game mechanics. If you want to whine, do it in another forum...grin

Now for a little multi-player/single-player issues.

I play both, but prefer multiplayer.

Now there are a couple reasons people don't play multiplayer so much...connectivity, 13 year olds ( yes nuclearkid this is directed at you ), 30 year olds who act 13, game abusers, the ability to find a good game at the time you want to find a good game, the limiting factor of the turn timer, and the biggest problem of all...assuming you get around all those other problems, it REALLY FREAKING HARD TO WIN AN EARTH MAP WITH TEN OTHER GOOD PLAYERS, and really frustrating putting 10 hours in on your day off just to lose in the modern age to another good player.

I like multiplayer for one reason...it tests your skills more than any single player scenario can. It tests tactics more than strategy, diplomacy is not an equation, it's ... diplomacy!

So here are Joe's top 5 ways to increase your skills in multiplayer Earth18.

1) the power graph...check it every turn if you can. Don't be the dumbass who takes on rome or persia early 1v1...pick on the weak, and don't be the weak.

2) diplomatic advisor, bottom of the screen, technologies...even with tech trading off this will show you what techs civs you've met have that you don't...check this as often as possible too

3) demographics...see where you're strong, see where you're weak...use your advantages...expand on them, try to fix your weaknesses.

4) diplomacy - never backstab...people have great memories...I've not once backstabbed on an earth 18 map, that and me being a decent player makes me a pretty sought after ally...the players that have backstabbed me...they get to do it exactly once...I don't like to make the same mistake twice...which means when a "neutral" player is picking who to ally with, the non backstabber generally gets the advantages of this. Me commenting that someone has backstabbed me in the past generally results in 5-8 players per game that won't ally with him ever as well. Kinda makes the game impossible and a lot less fun for the backstabber.

5) play the player, not the civ...you're playing humans, realize it and adjust accordingly.

now...on to some specific questions...

 

[JoeHollywood]

ok lets divide the world into "chunks"...this post will be about "europe" ...I'll also try to do western asia, eastern asia, north america, and africa.

Europe will consist of England, France, Germany, Spain and Rome.
Western asia will consist of Greece, Russia, Persia, and India
Eastern asia will consist of Mongolia, China, and Japan
North America will have America and Aztec
Africa will have Arabia, Egypt, and Mali

yeah I know that Inca got left out, but for all intensive purposes they live in a vacuum.

I also know that some civs were put in "odd" categories...like greece russia and arabia, but I put them together where you see the most conflicts.

Now on to Europe.

Europe has the densest set of resources on the map...It is VERY food heavy and there are several terrific production sites. Theres no jungle, no desert, even the water tiles are pretty packed with fish, clams, etc.

There are two superpowers incredibly close ( england and rome )

There is only ONE tile with copper on it!...WOW

Now lets look at the civ dynamics...

Everything revolves around Rome, everything in a secondary way relates to england. To put this in a bit more light, I tried running a few "controled" experiments.

I took 7 regular, GOOD earth players. The other 6 had one goal and one goal only...to kill rome. The 6 played, england, egypt, france, spain, germany, and greece. Three of Five times Rome survived to praetorians and held...One of those...Rome took out all 6 civs. Talk about a great set of starting conditions.

This being said...its in everyone in Europe's best interest not to allow Rome to get Praetorians, or worst case to at least have axemen BEFORE Rome has Prae's.

So...to keep it simple...don't sit back and try to tech to axemen and hope Rome doesn't go for you at first...get warriors and chariots into Roman land and fight the war on his soil...and bring a friend or two you're going to need them.

As Rome, your first choice is a friendly Germany...their copper resource makes them your biggest early game threat. They will have axemen before you have Prae's...you just have to have enough warriors on the forrested hill to the northwest of rome to hold off the axes till your first axe /prae can get there. Your first target will be Paris 9 times out of 10, and you will be at war with both paris and spain, parking praes on the forrested iron tiles.

As all other civs, settle your capitol in place ( with the exception of spain ). Madrid should be settled one east on the plains hill...this allows for 3 cities in the iberian peninsula. The KEY to making a successful run with spain. Rome and Spain have the two best tactical locations...both can be completely defended by land with only two, one tile choke points. I can tell you this...5 STRONG players in Europe has land an naval battles of an epic proportion...and you look up at 1AD and everyone has their initial territory and that's about it...heh.

War is not a 1v1 thing in europe...or a 2v1 or 2v2 thing...War, done correctly in Europe ( like in history ), is a 2v1v1v1 or 2v2v1 thing. Diplomacy gets so complex at this level, and leads to some of the more fun games I've played in. I've seen every combination of alliances happen here, and there's always something new in the combinations. Alliances tend to take the form of, lets ally for 20 turns...or lets ally till we reach this tech, or lets ally till this one choke point is secured, etc...you don't see any GAME long alliances happen here ( with rare exceptions ).

If Rome does expand ( Paris, Madrid, Thebes, Athens, whatever ) they will generally be the dominant power for the first 5000 years or more...if not it shifts to, ok we held off the praes, now what are we going to do about england. Surprisingly, the longer the war goes...the more powerful Spain becomes...it's actually becoming one of my favorite civs to play. They're the only civ that can pop ships in both the atlantic and mediteranian...have the shortest trip to shift navy back and forth, and have 3 good cities, 2 production powerhouses, and 1 nice commerce one. And to answer one question from earlier...don't waste time with NW africa, it's not worth it.

The dynamic between rome ( brute force ) and England ( finesse ), is truly enjoyable...with all the wildcards thrown in it leads to great games all around if you can pack europe with compitent players...

"The France Problem"

OK, I used to be one of the players that said, don't play france, they just can't win. I'm quickly altering that philosophy. Lets look at them in some detail because far and away they are the most challenging european civ to play.

Everyone wants Paris...it's the natural expansion for every civ in europe...it's the city that's the "hub" of europe...England has a straight drop on it...it's closest to Madrid, it's closest to Rome, it's closest to Berlin...it has no copper...but has everything else...what a tasty treat for all the other civs.

France has one thing that no other civ in Europe has...the Creative trait.

that +2 culture helps a lot.

The key to france is military and military tactics.

Assuming that Spain and Germany realize that rome is the immediate threat...you will have a "little" breathing room early.

The most common mistake I see being made with france is the emphasis on archers. Archers are great city defenders, but you will be turtled all game long. The power in Europe and France specifically is the CHARIOT!...

Insert laughs here.

Bulk chariots with the withdraw upgrade can be huge...and you're using them untill you can get to iron working ( which you'll beeline after animal husbandry )...If you can get to axemen, and have at least 2 built when the praes are knocking on your door, you will quickly shift to being the dominant civ in europe. You have great production so you'll be getting axes every 2-3 turns...and then you have 4 great choices who to go after first...the old "hey rome" lets end this war, give me spain and england and you can have germany" tends to work well...grin

The key to all the civs in europe is don't waste time with buildings...if you do, you're building them for another civ...with the exception of barracks. One worker is enough for all european civs ( don't feel shy about stealing one though if you can as well )

Massive ancient armies, complicated diplomacy, and military tactics are what make Europe fun to play.

I would say that covers most of the basics. Feel free to comment, question as appropriate.

Joe

 

[InFlux5]

I still don't see how France is viable. In single-player you have a slim possibility of a 2nd city to the south, but if Spain settles one tile East then France is limited to one city, while all her neighbors have room for more. Also, France isn't the only one who's Creative: Germany is too.

A multi-player game sounds like a lot of fun. I would definitely sign up if you organized one. There are certain aspects of the single-player game that make it much different. Most notably, the AI only puts 2 cities on mainland England, then quickly settles Ireland and western Scandinavia. (Yet in the 1000AD scenario England is indeed given 4 mainland cities.)

I would still like to know any thoughts you might have on Russia in particular, or other civs that have to balance expansion with defense/war, such as Persia or Mongolia. Is it best to launch an early war even though you have huge expanses of open land nearby? Or should you focus on defense while you expand rapidly in the beginning?

I realize that for these civs it's pretty similar to a standard game of civ; but the trade-off on this map seems particularly tough, because there is such an inordinate amount of land available to some civs. On the one hand I feel I should expand toward my enemies and try to cripple them. But on the other, I'm wary of leaving such huge areas unsettled because the AI will gobble them up quickly if I don't. (It is, of course, a much bigger issue in single-player, where the computer is much better at grabbing land without crippling their economy.)

 

[JoeHollywood]

my bad, you're absolutely correct about germany...I guess when it comes to europe I focus on a 3 tile area where rome/spain/france meet, and disreaguard all other early culture issues...also with germany starting with a scout there are many games with france where germany doesn't see turn 4...grin

 

[wkndwrrr]

Someone asked about Japan. You could try and make a monolithic empire in Japan, Korea, China and Siberia, but I think it is probably better to create a little base in Korea, and then colonize the SE Asian and Pacific islands as well as an empty and ignored Australia, and maybe go all the way to Argentina. You probably won't get a military win if you do this, but with China and Mongolia right on your doorstep, it would be very hard to break out of your bubble in that direction (west) anyway. Just expand your colonizes and get a peaceful victory.

 

[JoeHollywood]

ok, on to russia...

whereas in europe the "strat" is pretty much the same with all local civs, russia, with all it's choices makes it a very difficult civ to play well.

the motto I use with russia ( and I really don't care for playing this civ on this map ), is I want to get cossaks fast, and I want them to be a dominant unit for as long as possible. I want to be able to do as much damage as humanly possible, and make great gains with them in the 200-300 years where they're a dominant force.

russia, even though they're financial, will win or lose their game based on their production abilities. If you are not in the top 2 in manufactured goods, you're going to lose the game. The warmongering phase of russia is with cossacks and tanks/air force...again note the historical similarities.

"threatening civs"...the natural enemies for russia, are germany ( with a stable europe ), persia ( with a weak or allied india ), and greece ( surprisingly enough ).

your expansion plans should consist of not pissing these guys off...grin. I tend to drop st petersburg on the coast to wall off scandanavia from germany, and to settle scandanavia quickly ( to slow down england )...I've even pulled off some great drops on an unprepaired england but I wouldn't make that a common tactic.

russia should be managed as a "buffer" civ, and if played right will generally have a large number of "ally requests"...russia is generally seen as too big to go after, but not powerful enough to be a threat. That's what you want people to think as well.

generally I've found that people who take russia expect to be an imperialistic threat from early in the game...now granted they "can be"...but the civ will "fizzle".

expand...take the territory peple don't want...specialize your cities...get some cottage spam, some workshop/watermill cities on the rivers, try to get one really strong food city ( yes this is tough with russia ), and just slowly spread like a cancer...then when cossacks pop...BAM pick either east or west...or both...grin and just ransack like crazy...they're the rome of the industrial era.

don't be afraid of tundra...don't neglect putting up 5-10 tundra cities over the course of the game...5 strong tiles and you get a size 8 city that will produce military units in the late game...just don't grow for the sake of growing...grow as much as possible, as safe as possible while keeping your economy strong.

as for civics, police state and state property are your friends...don't be afraid to beeline for them once you have MT...

again we're following history and fixing the mistakes...become a production powerhouse but don't let your potato(e)s rot in the field.

the key to war with russia is audacity...when you do decide to strike...hit hard...and learn how to manage "reserves"....russia is one of the civs that "stacks" dont work as well as wave after wave of "mini" stacks and lone units. If you don't have this concept down, don't play as russia, there's a reason they say don't fight a land war in asia.

as always if I left something out you wanted to know please ask...

next I'll address religeon/wonders, then come back to some civ specifics.

Joe

 

[JoeHollywood]

ok lets start with religeons...

I'm by no means anti religeon in this game. I just belive there are very few civs that can pull off an early religeon and still be "in the game"...

religeon is a gamble, plain and simple. Its great to have a holy city, temples/monestaries, etc. It's not to great if you can't hold these cities.

Izzy is the number 1 "religeous" AI...she gets one fast and if you're not of her "faith" she hates you...but in earth 18...you have to waste a turn moving your settler...AND you have to deal with praes...so you can't waste one turn and still get an early religeon...even if you did, it slows you down about 6 turns to getting iron.

Ghandi can pop a religeon fairly easy...the biggest decision is choice...I tend to go poly...but meditation is viable as well.

I tend not to "make" holy cities...I tend to take them. I don't like gambling when at all possible during the first 10 turns of a 10 hour game.

now to wonders...ahh I see SOOOO many people make mistakes trying to get these...

with a religeon if you go for the tech but miss the religeon, ibut you get the tech anyway...if you go for a wonder all you get is gold. gold is great, but gold doesn't equal production in most cases.

lets start with with the early wonders...stonehenge, oracle and pyramids

stonehenge is a "minicreative" tech...it's cheap and can be completed quickly...its actually a nice wonder to have...so why not rush it?...

mysticism is a tier one tech half of the civs have it after the first few turns, between those that have it as a starting tech, those that pop it from a hut, or those that research it. at this point in time, would you rather have stonehenge in a city with one warrior guarding it, or the civ with 3 chariots that is in a position to take a capitol?...

this amplifies as the wonders get more expensive...

want pyramids? or 8 upgraded axemen?...pyramids are great...but worthless if you lose them.

The exceptions...oracle is a 3-4 turn build for egypt played right...pyramids can be rushed by england or egypt by 2000bc, but even these are gambles...the only wonder I try for every time in the ancient age is oracle as egypt...the rest I go take...grin

as the game progesses I try for more wonders...pentagon, three gorge dam, UN, etc are great wondes to have.

now I should take some time to discuss great engineers since this is the next logical question. Engineers suck at researching techs, they're great for free wonders...

so I see people all the time pop and engineer and hold it for the next available wonder...200 turns later imhotep is still sitting in someones capitol.

now as a great specialist...they give 3 hammers and 3 beakers base. over 100 turns that's 300 hammers and 300 beakers,...long story short...don't feel it to be a waste of an engineer to install them in a city.

Joe

 

[Betafor]

Ok... I give up... I've been trying for the past couple days now to get a good strategy for inca, but none of them work... colonizinng argentina, attking north america, even tried colonizing australia! It's really fustrating because i've develouped a good strat for every civ EXCEPT inca... main thing is, clearing the SA jungle takes forever...

 

[JoeHollywood]

I thought I'd put a pretty detailed strat for inca up...and just a quickie...but don't forget about serfdom

Joe

 

[Eqqman]

What you posted for the Incas isn't too different than what I've already tried a bunch of times. The only thing I see is your emphasis on getting a Panama city very early, so I expect you like to try and settle the SA coast from both north and south instead of coming up from Argentina only.

 

[wkndwrrr]

Ok... I give up... I've been trying for the past couple days now to get a good strategy for inca, but none of them work... colonizinng argentina, attking north america, even tried colonizing australia! It's really fustrating because i've develouped a good strat for every civ EXCEPT inca... main thing is, clearing the SA jungle takes forever...

Argentina has alot less jungle in it, just forests to chop rush. In fact, most of the southern coast of SA ( as in probably south of modern day Sao Paulo) has forests and not jungles on it.

 

[JoeHollywood]

The key focus is whether or not tech trading is on...if it's on, you need to emphasize navy and make lots of friends for trading, if it's off you need to cottage spam and workshop spam effectively...to keep up with techs.

if it's off, you can somewhat keep pace...

one thing that will make it a LOT easier is fogbusting...get quechas all over the map in south america...don't let those barbs spawn..they're tough as hell with inca...

Joe

 

[I play 4 fun]

Joe when you're writing about how powerful Rome is (and they are) are u taking into account that the civs around Rome are AI or human cause if the civs are human people what should Rome do?

Also I agree with your list of best civs to be cause I did play against you when you were France in that 16 hour long game (around there) and you did have all of Europe while i was Japan

 

[I play 4 fun]

I also assume that you're talking about me being the backstabber of our Earth map group, since I think i've betrayed everyone at least once.

I guess i am a crazy canadian

 

[EmmEnnEff]

Sorry to bring up a 'covered' Civ again, but in regards to England...

Does anyone else feel it's worth it to pop-rush early game, but post-Libraries?

Its arguably less micro-intesive to just slap in two scientists, stop growing at the happiness cap, and work coastal tiles, instead of the wheat.

I've calculated out that the difference between whipping 30 hammers every 10 turns, as opposed to the whip-less approach to be...

At size 5 base happyness limit, the whip approach gains 25 shields, but loses 41 commerce.

At size 6 base happyness limit (Furs), the whip approach gains 28 shields, but loses 50 commerce.

Those numbers are just for the capital, but they would be identical with your second city, and similar with your third... The fourth would be better off with the whip.

Now... At what point in time will that 50 commerce probably be more useful then the 28 shields? I'd wager it'd be a bit after you sack Paris, and are making your way into Germany/Spain...

 

[JoeHollywood]

i like your post on england...and the background research you've done with it. In fact it may just cause me to fine tune my game. A general rule of thumb I use is an algebraic equation I saw on here...remember this is a GENERAL rule, and changes much during the game...

1food=1.5hammers=3 commerce

by your model I like the slave popping...you can always use an extra galley/axeman for england and techs come very fast...the only thing that would make me lean to the the other side is the GPP's from the scientists post library...I think either option is viable post library it would be more determinite on how the military campaign is going...

also I tend not to pop civics so early, slavery is great, but a turn early is a HUGE turn to use that anarchy...not saying I'm right on this one, just personal preference, but I promise I'll be trying your ideas out once the pc comes back

Joe

 

[JoeHollywood]

hey crazy, as to your post...yes the backstabbing referred to you...but don't get me wrong, still love having you in my games, you're one of the better players I play with on a regular basis...and I think you're actually 2 and 0 vs me in the past two games...grin...in fact those two games proved my earlier points about the power of production...

anyway...honestly I pretty much run my rome game the same vs AI's or humans...with a mostly AI europe I sometimes go settler or work boat first with rome, and I actually tend to have an easier time vs good human players than I do vs AI's...a good human plays to win, an AI plays for the best possible result.

the only humans I have to worry about are the ones that know to rush rome en masse...and the occasional german axeman rush...in those cases it's just hold on to the seat of your pants...play your best...hold on to the seat of your pants...if you survive till praes you have a much easier time taking out the 1 or 2 defenders of a city rather than the ai's 5 chariots and 10 archers they's squirreled away in their cap

Joe