Handy 25 AWP Persian Oppressors

I’m sure Lee doesn’t need any instruction . In hindsight, I’m not sure it was such a wise move keeping all those cities. I think they are costing us some $$$ that we really don’t have.

This is a hard call. On smaller maps where the game will soon end it seems best to raze them. Larger maps (longer games) they seem to pay off a bit more. One quirk of C4 is that 5cc or perhaps even 1cc may be easier in certain cases (depends on levels & maps I guess) than domination.

An interesting game to play is AW with the "No Raze" button selected. "City State" is also fun (12 or so civs on a duel map).

Roster
1. Handy -
2. Greebley -
3. ThERat -
4. Sir Bugsy -
5. LKendter - up
 
I got it.

Hopefully I can figure out my ongoing wi-fi problems and post back today. Wi-fi has been horrid since 12/26.
 
I just looked at the save. I think keeping all those cities is economic suicide. even with 0% science we run a huge deficit.
I suggest to work now all commerce tiles, build cottages whereever possible. No more workers as they increase unit cost. infrastructure yes, but only military.
And please, do not keep any more towns, raze is all we can afford.
 
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/H25AWPAD-0001.zip


200 BC
We have completely shot ourselves in the foot. This isn't a 9MM, but an 88 mm flak shell. At 0% science we bleed $9/turn. I have completed turned off science trying to desperate save some money.
At $0 and negative gold means our troops go on strike. At that point we are completely out of control of the game. If I can't fix things the game collapses on Handy's turn. The situation gets worse as Tenochtitlan isn't costing us any maintenance in resistance.

I have to make a desperate move and leave to size one Aztec cities open. Unless we loss some cities, this game is frelled.
(IT) A jag kills an immortal in Bombay.


180 BC
(IT) That same jag dies trying to kill the other immortal in Bombay.


160 BC
We are now bleeding an obscene $12 a turn after reviewing our cities again and taking commerce at any cost.
If workers are including with striking units, then we have no way to fix this game.
(IT) An AI archer is dead.


80 BC
Scratch an AI archer.


40 BC
(IT) The sacrifice of Tenochtitlan just saved us. We now break even at 0% science. At least our troops won't go on strike.

==========================

Summary:
This game is a total mess. Workers need to concentrate on roads to create trade routes and cottages. Nothing else really matters.
I don't even know what to do with our cities, and we really can't afford the unit cost of more immortals.

Despite my attempts to fix the economy we are back at -2 a turn with just $19 in the bank.
We are going to have to win this game with immortals - period. Our tech pace is non-existent despite my pushing commerce and connecting cities for trade routes.


Roster
1. Handy - (currently playing)
2. Greebley - (on deck)
3. ThERat -
4. Sir Bugsy -
5. LKendter -
 
exactly what I expected after opening the last save. what I would do is cottage spam anywhere we can and then maybe take the combined force to raze that Incan city on flat with immortals. This will give us money.

I would also leave the ex Aztec capital empty so the barbs can take that city. The Japanese capital is alos unnecessary and should be given up to barbs and then later razed.
Luckily the AI is almost gassed except for Incans.

So, pull some units together and raze towns, nothing else matters. And I think swords are better than immortals
 
I got it.

Immortals & zero research is the usual pattern in solo games. Unless I find a big surprise when I open this we should be okay....I think... I hope.

Wait until we play an AW no raze game. :D

And I think swords are better than immortals
Yes, but not too much better and they cost more. Remember, immortals are 4 attack with a 50% bonus versus archers. And swords are slow.
 
If we are spending cash for unit costs, we can throw troops at cities and try to take them at longer odds. We lose units which lowers costs, but also don't need as many units to suppress cities.

I have used this technique in Civ3 when we have had too many units. However, in that case more cities is good rather than bad.

It seems better than disbanding units to get costs down at least.

Edit: I looked at the game. There is an archer we can take out with a 98+ chance of success in the preturn. I would go ahead and do so.
There is also an attack on The Aztecs. I checked and we only have a 3.2% chance. At that odds, I don't think we will take out the sole Jaguar even with all 3 units. We need a swordsman or something down there as well IMO. I would send the swordman south while covering the town with immortals that we already have.

I never realized you needed a tech (fishing) to work water tiles. Makes sense though. Too bad as we could get more gold that way.

Mostly though, I think the game will be "paused" until we get more commerce. We won't be able to build more units to take out cities right away and gathering an attack force will be hard. We may want to disband workers after they finish.
 
Well it seems I have learned something in hindsight. I should have raze those cities instead of capturing them. My bad gents. Chalk that up to Bugsy learning through the school of hard knocks. Sorry.
 
Commentary:
It’s not too bad. :D This is just how it goes in C4 AW because of the game setup. Our economy just crashes, which is why we must make sure the AI economy also crashes.

The only real “errors” were not hooking up ivory sooner, building granaries we did not need, keeping (not razing) a couple of cities we did not need so much, and not founding a city to get luxury #2 and 3 which would have allowed for growth and perhaps helped the economy a little bit. But we will win and learn, which is good thing. :goodjob:

Pre-turn
I noticed we still need to hook up the ivory. This will allow us to grow with a happy face in each city which can produce more gold.
Cottages on dyes & flood plains are a good income source if we have workers near Bombay.
I still have yet to figure out how trade routes work. All out cities are connected, but no clear routes to all cities.
AI is locked down pretty well, so we look in great shape for a pretty quick win.
All cities can be razed from here on.
Also – remember when you chop a library you can then hire a scientist in cities with extra food. I am not sure if we built granaries or if we captured them, but we don’t need the granaries points on a small map. That’s C3 thinking.

Turn 1 20 ad
Start to assemble an attack squad for Manchu Picchu and begin work on the Ivory. We can take cities for cash. It is a good way to win at AWP and AWM.

Turn 2 40 ad
Kill archer. Notice Lee had begun a camp on one of the ivory. :thumbsup:
It is done so I begin a road.

Turn 3 60ad
Delhi has loads of food. If the game would last longer I’d chop a library so we can hire a scientist and place cottages on the plains to slow growth.
The Ivory camp makes the people happy. :D

Turn 4 80
Ugh. Barb axe-men. They are a PITA and we have no defense in our rear where they have appeared. :hmm: How do they build axe-men with no copper?
It’s 4 on 2 at Manchu Picchu so we attack and raze the city losing one immortal and gaining 114 gold. We burn it.
Kill a stray archer at Cuzco.
Sometimes I try to plan ahead & build cottages on the plains when you know you will not grow beyond size 5 or 6 (Delhi). Grow fast with grass then switch to plains. If you overbuild on grass and grow too big you wind up unhappy and lose the ability to work the cottage anyway. Fast growth was always good in C3, in C4 it’s a different game.
Hope to avoid using our new bank to upgrade a warrior to kill the axe-man.

Turn 5 100
A second axe-man appears in the north – where of course there is no copper that we do not control. I reset the capital to max production for some quick immortal axe-man killers.

Turn 6 120
Lose 1 immortal killing an axe-man.

Turn 7 140
Healing in preparation for an assault on Tiakanaku

Turn 8 160
Dumb Axe-man attacks fortified city in lieu of pillaging and he is toast.
We could get 2 more luxuries (fur and silver) with a city N of Kyoto after border expansion. I don’t think we will need it, but it would let us grow & boost the number of cottages we could work. Bigger map we would do it.

Turn 9 180
Archers at Tiwanaku sense our plans and suicide against an immortal fortified in the trees.

Turn 10
We build a granary in Bombay. I don’t see much use for granaries in a game like this one. Am I missing something?

Future.
I think we can end this pretty fast. Heal a couple more turns, then raze Tiwanaku, Teotihuacan and the mystery yellow borders for cash. Attack with two times the number of garrison units in secondary cities.

Next attack the capitals with three times the number of units garrisoned and they will fall easily.

I think our ability to steal cash will keep the economy afloat, but I started some cottages anyway. ;)


81851266_0acc0d864c_o.jpg


81851270_3728fae891_o.jpg


81851269_f3dd340b92_o.jpg
 
I would just build immortals, but if you prefer swords that's okay. Immortals move twice as fast and are great versus archers, which is just about all we will face. Suicide immortals on the first wave & raze cities with the second wave (it may well take a third wave for a capital city).

Roster
1. Handy -
2. Greebley - up
3. ThERat -
4. Sir Bugsy -
5. LKendter
 
handy900 said:
The only real “errors” were not hooking up ivory sooner, building granaries we did not need, keeping (not razing) a couple of cities we did not need so much, and not founding a city to get luxury #2 and 3 which would have allowed for growth and perhaps helped the economy a little bit.

The granaries were to avoid building more immortals. We are one the verge on economic collapse during my turns. Libraries weren't any better at zero science. We were already suffering from unit cost problems.
Given a choice of granaries or troops on strike, I chose granaries.
 
LKendter said:
The granaries were to avoid building more immortals. We are one the verge on economic collapse during my turns. Libraries weren't any better at zero science. We were already suffering from unit cost problems.
Given a choice of granaries or troops on strike, I chose granaries.
Ok. That makes sense.
 
I finished this one off. It took a bit more than 10 turns, but most of those turns was shifting our units south to take out the final Aztec city. I wasn't even caring what we built or how bad our gold was.

We won by conquest in 390 AD.

Turn 150 (200 AD)

Turn 151 (210 AD)

Turn 152 (220 AD)
Immortal defeats (1.44/4): Barbarian Archer
Immortal loses to: Incan Archer (0.72/3)
Immortal loses to: Incan Quechua (0.24/2)
Immortal defeats (4.00/4): Incan Archer
Immortal defeats (3.04/4): Incan Archer
Immortal defeats (1.12/4): Incan Archer
Immortal loses to: Incan Archer (0.12/3)
Immortal loses to: Aztec Jaguar (0.60/5)

Turn 153 (230 AD)
Immortal defeats (4.00/4): Incan Archer
Immortal defeats (1.28/4): Incan Quechua
Razed Tiwanaku

User comment: Turn on some resarch we have 195 gold

Turn 154 (240 AD)

Turn 155 (250 AD)
Immortal defeats (3.28/4): Barbarian Axeman

Turn 156 (260 AD)

Turn 157 (270 AD)
Decide research is pointless.

Turn 158 (280 AD)


Turn 159 (290 AD)
Immortal defeats (3.44/4): Barbarian Archer
Swordsman defeats (2.40/6): Aztec Jaguar
Immortal defeats (3.16/4): Aztec Archer
Razed Tenochtitlan

User comment: Aztecs have 1 city left.

Turn 160 (300 AD)
Immortal loses to: Barbarian Swordsman (0.30/6)
Immortal defeats (3.84/4): Barbarian Swordsman

Immortal defeats (1.28/4): Incan Archer
Immortal loses to: Incan Archer (3.00/3)

Turn 161 (310 AD)
Immortal defeats (1.72/4): Incan Archer
Immortal defeats (2.48/4): Incan Archer
Captured Ollantaytambo (Huayna Capac)
User comment: Stupidly hit the wrong button. Fortunately, it won't matter.

Turn 162 (320 AD)
Immortal defeats (2.48/4): Incan Quechua
Immortal defeats (3.08/4): Incan Archer
Razed Cuzco

User comment: Interesting. The autologger didn't seem to have a message that Mali is eliminated. This was their last city. I am on turn 12 but it is simply a matter of moving troops to the last AI city. We totally outnumber them.

Turn 163 (330 AD)
Swordsman loses to: Aztec Jaguar (4.00/5)
Immortal loses to: Aztec Archer (3.00/3)

Turn 164 (340 AD)

Turn 165 (350 AD)
Immortal defeats (3.28/4): Aztec Jaguar
Immortal defeats (0.08/4): Aztec Jaguar
Immortal defeats (4.00/4): Barbarian Archer

Turn 166 (360 AD)
Swordsman defeats (0.90/6): Barbarian Archer
Archer defeats (1.92/3): Aztec Jaguar
Ollantaytambo lost

User comment: I let the barbarians have the city so I can raze it next turn.

Turn 167 (370 AD)
Immortal defeats (2.32/4): Barbarian Warrior
Captured Ollantaytambo (Barbarian)

User comment: Doh! There was no option to raze. Once you capture you automatically capture the next time. Glad I learned that on this map where it totally doesnt matter. Note that we are running around -20 gold or so but have plenty from taking out cities.

Turn 168 (380 AD)
Swordsman loses to: Aztec Archer (1.68/3)
Immortal defeats (0.96/4): Aztec Archer
Immortal defeats (2.32/4): Aztec Archer
Razed Teotihuacan

User comment: Aztecs are destroyed. Saved game before and after taking the city.

Turn 169 (390 AD)

The score was pretty nice. 38k or so. I attached the game after the last city falls in case anyone wanted to see the replay.

Couldn't think of a picture that would be in any way meaningful.
 
though we played this badly with lots of learning it was still a cakewalk. How about monarch difficulty and a larger map to get some real challenge here.

I read Moonsingers exploitive strategy to beat deity. Using chopping and Rome but without barbs. And using anarchy to avoid deficit.

But honestly, I don't think such a game is very nice. I rather have to work harder for the victory.

Anyway, congrats to the Grumpy Team :goodjob:
 
Well done team. We really need to avoid the exploits. Even this strategy seemed exploitive. Sort of like pillaging with armies in Civ III.

So what's next?
 
I think the immortal itself is part of the unbalance - having attack 4 and speed 2 and +50% vs archers at the cost of an archer? That is very potent. It might be interesting to try these ideas but with a civ that isn't Persia. Or on a standard map.

The suppression idea though probably works in all games. At least one can suppress a neighbor or two using normal units. That way the neighbor can be taken out more easily.

If we do play Monarchy of this game (even with persia), I would like to play a standard map with two continents. Then the supression works for the first continent, but we can't totally ignore the long term because of the second one. We also have to balance growth.
 
we could try Persia again but as suggested on continents. That would mean that we need to think about our own empire as well in stead of just chopping everything. That would make the game more of a challenge IMHO.

Also, we can up the difficulty to monarch. Immortals are very good at the start and this should give us a chance to compete with a monarch AI overseas later on.
 
Back
Top Bottom