gpt deal problems and stalling unwelcome wars

[Pentium]

If you are equal in production with your enemy, and you build part defenders and part attackers while your opponent has only attackers:
-You cannot invade him because he has twice as many units than you can bring.
-He can invade you because you both have an equal number of units, but not all your units can be in battle. Part of your units have low mobility and are too far away to be usefull.
-He is in control of the game.

But if you build half defenders and half infrastructure (libraries, market, unis), you're going to research faster than him and get knocking on his doors with Tanks sooner. I've seen a single Spearman take out several Archers in one turn, but never the other way around. Of course, the defenders heal faster too, so he can fight on the next turn, while a winning Archer takes 2 turn to heal.

Anyway, if you have a military stronger than your neighbours, you should attack them, and on Emperor attackers are still better for that. Otherwise, a couple (litterally a couple, maybe 3 or 4 of them) of Spearmen can stop a Deity civ with tons of archers, because they don't stack them very well.

@AT:Giving gpt to someone who is about to attack you is a very good idea. Say you buy a tech for 100gpt instead of 2000g (same amount). Then he attack you two turns later, and you get the tech for 10% of its price.

And please, stop saying that peaceful players never come to Sid level...

 

[WackenOpenAir]

But if you build half defenders and half infrastructure (libraries, market, unis), you're going to research faster than him and get knocking on his doors with Tanks sooner.

If you do that, you give your opponent the opportunity to take you down before you have that technology because your defences are weak.

That is lesson 2 in strategy.

There are 3 things to spend your resources:
-Units
-Technology
-expansion

You must make the right choise between these depending on your opponents actions. It is primarily decided by the travel time between you and your enemy. The longer the travel time, the more you can invest in technology or expansion. If it is short, you have to invest in units.
This is also the delicate part in strategy game design, creating a balance where each of these 3 are viable.
If you are close to eachother, you have to build units. If you are far from eachother, you can lower these investments and go for more technology.
Only the fact that the AI is stupid enough to let you live allows you to go for technology.

So while it is indeed possible to play defensive because of the AI's stupidity, as said many times, agressive campaining is much more efficient, even for researching to modern age due to scientists. This has been said enough, if maximum efficiency is not his goal, i proposed the guy a peacefull variant.
And if you do build peacefully, and build half the number of units, offensive units are still the better defence than attacking units because of their mobility you will need fewer of them. Added advantage is that they bring more fear into the AI to deter them from attacking you.

Who are the builder type of players who are SID level players?

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

That disadvantage does not outweigh the disadvantage of building defenders.

If you are equal in production with your enemy, and you build part defenders and part attackers while your opponent has only attackers:
-You cannot invade him because he has twice as many units than you can bring.
-He can invade you because you both have an equal number of units, but not all your units can be in battle. Part of your units have low mobility and are too far away to be usefull.
-He is in control of the game.

This is lesson number one for strategy games. Defensive units are only usefull if their cost efficiency is a multitude higher than that of attacking units or if you only have 1 point to defend. In civ3, defenders do not have enough of an advantage to be worthy.

The best solution to the problem you mention is to be the one declaring and attacking. If you decide to be peacefull and you don't attack, just retake the lost town in the rare situation where the AI may take it on the first turn of war.

Sir Lancelot, we are talking about games at Emperor or lower for the most part. In those games the AI is not strong enough to be much of a concern.

Once you get to the knights, you should be making them whimper, not attack. You will have some defenders or even armies in places that are potential targets from some rogue civ.

You can have a few pikes, if you like, as long as they were build from scratch, but you don't need them as knights have the same defense. The main value of pikes here is they are cheaper.

Really at knight stage, the neighors are the ones that have to worry about defense, not me.

The problem with your advices is you presuppose the player is playing aggressively. Some of us do not see Civilization as a war game. We see it as a strategy game with lots of possibilities, war one of them. War and conquest may very well be the most effective way to win. But do not underestimate the fun of other ways.

I do not prefer to win by destroying others, I prefer to build the greatest civilization. I also conquer land but it is not my primary goal. The basic idea with Civilization is to build an empire to stand the test of time. I believe conquering came second when the game idea was initially developed.
War is almost guaranteed anyway. But in my relatively peaceful play style I usually do some conquering after I am being attacked. The defensive units are cheap and building some cheap units give me other advantages.

Map size is also a factor. If you play on small maps you may be forced to early aggression or lose. I usually play the huge maps and I never start with a neighbor very close.

When I want to play a strategy game and destroy someone, I play Dune. But that is me.

Conquering can be a great way to play and win Civ, I just want to remind of the other ways that often seems ignored.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

I repeat, i did not say peacefull gaming is not an option.
I said it is not optimal.
And i said if you play peacefull, you still better build attackers for active defence rather than spearmen.

I also say that a peacefull builder mindset is not the way to reach SID level.

Now this is my last post about in this thread. If you want to build spearmen, go build spearmen all you want.

 

[vmxa]

Huge maps are just to give the human a bigger advantage. Why do you suppose most players moving up to Sid do it on huge maps? So all I say is geared to std maps, all others are non std and do not count. By that I mean you have to address them differently.

I am pretty sure I said you could play any number of ways at emperor or lower. Beyond that it can be much harder to accomplish (on std maps, with full count of civs).

To the degree you do less aggression, you must do even better at empire building. Now the players that come to the board and ask for help are not typically those that have a death grip on how to manage an empire, now are they?

So my advice is to stop making cath/colloseums and many other structure in most towns. I do not tell them to go warmonggering as that is not for everyone and I do not even do it all the time.

I do not care if you are a builder, making useless structures and telling others to do so, it is well useless.

If they come and ask about playing tiny maps, I do not even respond. If they ask about huge maps, especially with smaller number of civs, I tell them to play on a real map or at least use 15/16 civs. Learning how to play a given level on a huge map is not the way to do it. Play the huge map after you already understand std.

 

[Pentium]

If you do that, you give your opponent the opportunity to take you down before you have that technology because your defences are weak.

A couple (litterally a couple, maybe 3 or 4 of them) of Spearmen can stop a Deity civ with tons of archers, because they don't stack them very well.

That's my experience from 20k games, both on Deity and Sid (which were mostly lost due to Domination, not Conquest, defeats).

Who are the builder type of players who are SID level players?

This is the most obvious example: Sid without military. Also, check the HoF for Diplomatic victories, you'll find them.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I appreciate the different opinions, and although I do not always fully agree I often pick up something.

 

[Pentium]

I appreciate the different opinions, and although I do not always fully agree I often pick up something.

Hm... applies to me as well. As much as I disagree with vmxa and Wacken, I learned a lot from them, especially about waging war. I remember having the same discussion with the same two posters some time ago...

 

[goodsmell]

Wacken , your post was for me ? if it was , than I don't understand what's wrong . can you please explain

 

[Obormot]

A peacefull victory is possible at sid level, but it requires either being alone on an island or lots of luck, because if you play on continents/pangaea and an AI attacks you, you are dead. That's why i don't like such an approach.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

Wacken , your post was for me ? if it was , than I don't understand what's wrong . can you please explain

No goodsmell, nothing directed at you, what makes you think it might be ?
------------------------------
Ye, thats the point as obormot sais. Everything is possible if you fit the map perfectly for it.

 

[goodsmell]

hehe , I saw your post just below my one . so I'd a wrong thought nevermind .

 

[Pentium]

Now this is my last post about in this thread.

What Obormot said is correct, and that's the main challenge: sitting next to a AI that could overrun you in a turn, shuddering before it, but still building that UN

 

[vmxa]

Hm... applies to me as well. As much as I disagree with vmxa and Wacken, I learned a lot from them, especially about waging war. I remember having the same discussion with the same two posters some time ago...

Just wondering what exactly we disagree about. It was said by some they like to build and play peaceful and can win. I agree that could be done.

I said you do not need cath or colloseums any place. I said you do not need temples all over the place and if you make a few it should be at the point that you can do it quickly. IOW not at turn 20 or as soon as you get the tech and not in more than a few top places.

Exception is for a wonder town.

I said you do not need spears in std games at low to mid levels.

So did I miss some points or are those the point that are in disagreement? I learned to not make spears from Aeson and I know he knows what he is talking about.

What you can see over and over on this site and you use to see on poly was players posting saves, saying I have no money or I am in trouble in the mid to late IA.

What do they all have in common? Lack of workers, too many defenders and too many structures. Lack of aggression. That does not have to mean make nothing but attackers and stay at war all the time. That is not what I have been saying, I hope.

I do not advocate that for those players. I do advocate, stop building colloseums and cath. Be careful about making temples. Be sure that lib/uni or bank is worth having at this time, in this town. Not do not build them ever, just stop making that lib in a 1 or 2 beaker town.

A bank when you are never running any taxes or that town has next to no gold.

So if you disagree with that, I wonder why? I love to learn, but I have seen no case for this being wrong.

Edit spelling (again)

 

[Pentium]

Everything you said in your last post is correct, and I usually play by it in my games. Although I'm a builder, I don't build unnecessary structures. I know you give good advice, and that's the main point if this forum.

I disagree, however, with your way of playing the game, and the aggression part. I simply find it too predictable and less interesting, mostly because it's more popular and said to be easier. It's actually a difference of interests, not that you have said or done something wrong. Sorry for a wrong impression.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

The difference is probably how you view "playing styles" vs "optimal play"

In poker, you can also play either agressive or passive. If you play passive, you are gonna lose money, if you play agressive, you might win money.
In civ you could also make it your style to build few workers, but it won't be as succesfull as many workers.
In the same way, agressive is more succesfull in civ than a builder style.

Thats why i advocate agression, because it is more succesfull, more efficient. Yes, that makes it easier. Just like it is more difficult to win with few workers or more difficult (impossible actually) to win in poker when playing passive.

My goal is not to have a style, but to play as efficient as possible. If tomorrow they make a game where defence works better than offence (that would require defenders to be drastically stronger, and it would require the reward for conquest to be reduced, like all wonders are burned down and luxuries are removed when conquered for example) i will be a peacefull builder in that game.

Oh yeah, i am not so good in making my last post, i keep trying again and again

 

[vmxa]

Sounds fair, btw by aggression I mainly am talking to those with very large standing armies that they no longer can afford. I tell them to use them or sell. What was the point in making them, if you do not use.

I think it is fine to get by with minimal units in some victory types. I do like AW, because nothing is more tedious to me than constantly trying to make a trade and staying on good terms.

Well one thing and that is culture, it is very boring. Anyway it is nice to just ignore the AI and kill them as you find them.

I just was looking for clarity, not agreement. It could have been some other point was being missed by me and did not want that. Preference on how to play is not part of my concern. That is individualized and not subject to debate. ;D

 

[cyberminger]

The problem with your advices is you presuppose the player is playing aggressively. Some of us do not see Civilization as a war game. We see it as a strategy game with lots of possibilities, war one of them. War and conquest may very well be the most effective way to win. But do not underestimate the fun of other ways.

I do not prefer to win by destroying others, I prefer to build the greatest civilization. I also conquer land but it is not my primary goal. The basic idea with Civilization is to build an empire to stand the test of time. I believe conquering came second when the game idea was initially developed.
War is almost guaranteed anyway. But in my relatively peaceful play style I usually do some conquering after I am being attacked. The defensive units are cheap and building some cheap units give me other advantages.

I agree with this, and I think that's why I got all confused and asked for help. In other games, I have done the early warmongering that has been advised and have been pleasantly surprised at how well it works but i only do it if the situation allows me to. If there's no horses and no iron but i've got access to 4 luxuries (like my current game - iron took a while to hook up), then i'm less likely to go all out attacking with longbowmen or archers or whatever, sounds like too much hard work. I am aware that the best way to win is what has been advised, to hit em early and hit em hard and keep on hitting em till you've won, but i kind of like adapting my game to the conditions, at the moment. Once i move up to the higher levels, the room for manoeuvre will doubtless be reduced and so maybe my game will become more efficient.

Using offensive units as defense seems now to make sense, though - I didn't realise that the AI were only worried about offensive rating when deciding on your strength and whether to attack you. And of course horses inside your border are way faster than whatever else. This will definitely change the way I play.

One thing that i STILL don't get, is how the no defensive units works out when attacking another civ. Until you get units with 3 move points, any attacking unit will be stranded in enemy territory either before it attacks the city (if the cultural border is 2 squares) or after attacking all but the last defensive unit (for one square) - making them vulnerable to attack by the ai. Surely sticking a couple of def units in with these makes sense. Again referencing my current game - I attack a Hittite town (1 square from the border) with gallic swords - 2 move points, so i can hit the town straight away but there's NINE spears in the city, so that leaves like 15 of my offensive units in the open (after i attack) with no move points left. He's got 3-man chariots so he can hit this stack as much as he wants after i end my go, regardless of whether I take the town on that go or not. Admittedly, if I had like 200 offensive units or 200 catapults, this shouldn't be a problem but i didn't so it was. A couple of unused pikemen in there would help blunt his attacking forces and protect mine, surely. Please explain the flaw in my logic...

Oh, and I do hope I've not pissed anyone off by being so dim. I did spend a fair bit of time reading the war academy articles (work can be so boring) but i thought maybe my specific questions could be answered by one of you good people instead. Which of course you have.

Ta

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

Please explain the flaw in my logic...

Well, I can't see any flaw in your logic. Someone have said building only offensive units suits the defensive player. And that defensive units are more valuable to the conquerer, because they travel with the attackers and defend them.

Sure it makes sense to send some defenders with your attackers. I think what have been said here earlier is, do not park your defenders in your cities.

I used to build too much defenders and the people here (plus my own experience) learned me to not do that. But I do believe a cheap pikeman here or there can be a good choice. And they can be upgraded several times.
Just a slight difference in point of view.

And surely you didn't piss anyone off.

 

[cyberminger]

And surely you didn't piss anyone off.

Some of them sound a bit cross. I'm guessing the war/peace issue is an old one...