For me Railroad and engineers was most important too. If I play this game again I know I should trade more and accept low revenues to get those techs earlier. And I think in this game the SoL is one of the most important members.
Is this 120ad or 120bc ? Either way, it seems you are approx as far along as MG and I were at 1AD, despite your weak capital. 3 WoWs is very nice, and defeating the Mongols early has to help.
I'm trying to decide which statistics best "tell the story". Kind of hard, since our games seem so similar. Have looked mainly at 1ad, 1000ad and 1500ad. We 3 were very similar in terms of advances, and size of army. I eventually built more cities and vans, which probably helped my science later on [unclear whether that really mattered, though it was pleasant to finally get Fundy, spies, etc].
I started racing Westwards from the beginning, and got ahead early, crossing into Spain first. I think we moved west at similar speeds after that, so I suppose we were all moving at approx the max speed in the late game. I guess the "race west" idea was good. At the time I had doubts about it - about high corruption, slowed ics growth, etc. But maybe that is a key stat for this gotm; westward progress ASAP.
On the other hand, we 3 had very similar early tech progress. So, that stat might be even more important - it's hard to say just from our 3 games. A 4th player might help us decide on this.
@CC; did you switch monarchy - republic - monarchy ? If so, did that work out well ?
Sounds very reasonable ... I don't know the best answer for govts in this game, but if I played it again, I might go with Despotism - Monarchy - Republic [briefly] - Monarchy [celebrating] - Fundy.Govt switch back to Monarchy was due to unhelpful senate. I was getting a tech every 7 turns at 70% science, not ideal for any long time but handy to finish off the persians. I changed to Demo after capturing Ergli.
Well, I don't recall doing anything clever in 1500-1800. I just built up a tidal wave of crusaders, dips, vans, settlers [and eventually more advanced units] - to destroy the Viks/Romans without slowing down. Maybe ICS/big trade made this easier for me ? Dunno. The only major event in that period was getting to Espionage. Since spies could move 3, they got ahead of my wave, and speeded up my conquest a little. I was also very concerned with govt + RRs + engineers, but in hindsight, I think Spies were the key to that phase. Anyway, I assume most peoples' late game was similar to mine, and that any major differences came earlier.You finished nearly 50 turns earlier than Magic and I, so it must either be the boost you got from your westward advance or something you did 1500-1800 that we didn't. I remember losing time building a canal path through continent 3 (to left of persians)
@Ali: Good luck [and don't forget to Go West]. Your games are always a mystery to me - even with your very detailed logs, I can never decipher your overall plans, and yet you do extremely well.
Usually, about 90% of my early strategy is straight out of DaveV's guide to ICS. It seems some other GOTM players are ICSing too, and are getting similar early growth.Ironically, I can say the exact same thing about your games. Your speed even in the early game where there should not be all that much difference amazes me.
I built Statue of Liberty a few turns ago having to rush buy the last 10 shields to beat Romans to it. Now I am debating how long I should stay in Democracy for growth and science. My trade city just maxed out (no refrigeration yet) and my eastern cities are about to.
From this point on I was bribing some and capturing a few till I discovered Combined Arms in 1865. The introduction of paratroopers to my air force extended my reach beyond that of my spies and allowed me to capture 2-3 Viking cities each turn with the last one in 1871.
At this pace I expect to be done in late 1870s or early 1880s.
You are not as rusty as you think. That is exactly the method. You attack with vet Fighters who can travel 10 tiles (in any direction including over water) per turn and empty the city. Then your paratrooper drops in and takes the city. Spies on rivers can go 9 tiles per turn but they have to follow the bend of the river and in this game the bends are so twisted that for slower units scaling the mountains is sometimes faster.Can you describe briefly how you use the paratroopers to conquer quickly ? ... IIRC you want them to start their turn in a city, so they can "jump" about 10 tiles ... and then they can attack in the same turn [or do you attack mainly with planes]? Anyway, I guess that after emptying the AI city, you move more paratoopers in, to repeat the process next turn. So, you can push forward at almost 10 tiles per turn, even faster than spies on rivers ?
It would except that given the terrain it would have been impossible to grow fast without taking out the Mongols and very difficult without taking out the Spanish.If I got your method right, it could form the basis for best strategy in GOTM 108.1) Use ICS, SSC, Big Trade, or whatever to race towards Combined Arms ASAP. 2) Make a swarm of paratroopers, [maybe suppported or followed by planes, engineers, RRs, spies, etc] to push West at almost 10 tiles per turn. 3) Bypass some AI cities, if necessary, to keep the front moving towards Rome. 4) Conquer the bypassed cities later with spies/etc. Do you think this would work ?
Again you are right with one minor exception. Planes need to park at cities (or airfields) and thus are restricted to how fast the engineers move. Paratroopers can only paradrop starting from a city and are otherwise a slow 1 tile per turn unit.One problem might be a big gap between AI civs, for example 30 tiles between the Persian and Vikings, with no cities there to support the paratroopers. I guess this would slow down the conquest quite a bit ? You'd have to wait for your engineers to catch up and build cities [or airbases?] ... or march the paratroopers along slowly ? Or am I missing some tricks with modern units that would solve this problem ?