Help me understand stability?

[Tullius]

Well, I made it to 1866 this time. Then I got a civil war. Really a shame. My economy kept going down, down, down and there was nothing I could do about it except get more cities, which would have condemned me to death by expansion instability.

 

[kravixon]

I got 2/3 UHV, ran free market for a long time,and vassalage with Inca and Aztec as vassals.

Blizard has the expansion thing right. I had Athens and Epidamnos as my cities until I finished the UHV, then built Byzantium. After 1300 I founded Knossos. Germany and turkey went to war with me, and I took Budapest, only 3-4 squares north of Epidamnos, and Sogut.

My economy was 2 stars for the longest time, then finally dropped down to 1 a little after 1300-1400. Sogut flipped to Turkey when it respawned, so I captured it again and razed it. I hung in until I had the techs to switch to Police State-Nationalism-Mercantilism. From there I lasted a little bit longer in unstable, and noting my expansion was down I foolishly attempted to conquer some of Egypt to boost it. I had a civil war a few turns later and gave up.

 

[thadian]

GNP! It is all about the GNP, every turn you don't grow it, you get penalties. if your the same GPT for 3 turns, you start getting penalties every 3 turns that it "stays the same", now imagine if a trading partner collapses, stops trading or someone elses culture spreads to your resource.

Edit: Greece is terribly affected by this, because it is "Compacted", once it has its 4 cities, everything else is in a flip zone or your trading GNP penalties for cities outside your zone penalties. for most euro-civ's they are also "compacted" but they can sustain colonization, which the greeks can not. therefore, i think it is futile.

PS, HOW did you get to 1800? Awesome work!

 

[Tullius]

thadian,

I'll post some screen shots, thanks for the compliment. Made it to the mid 1800s on Monarch.

I had four vassals: Incas, Mayas, Mali and Egypt. I basically supported my economy by importing massive amounts of their resources at dirt cheap prices.

Perhaps the key is to artificially suppress your economy and then gradually build cottages, effectively tricking the computer into not giving you economy penalties. The computer penalizes you for having a big economy that doesn't grow, but it doesn't seem to have anything against handing out a 'most improved student' award if you keep your economy down and then begin improving it.

But how will this damage your game play? Having a weak economy is a drawback, too.

OK, as promised, screen shots of my game:

 

[thadian]

wow, your in a lot of wars! could this penalty be your defeater? hmm, i suppose i will have to moderate my economy. only improve resource tiles and forts/roads. build cottages but DONT work them until about 1000 AD / 1400 AD. it takes me about 400 years of stability-juggling to fail, so this might buy me the time to launch my first greek spaceship...

perhaps Knossos should be founded LAST then? or Sparta? I think if the entire spectrum of growth is taken in moderation, the S.S. Pericles just might start construction. Thanks for this tip! i will have to learn what else i can do to grow my economy without stunting myself too hard in other areas.

 

[Tullius]

Hey thadian, the wars just began a few turns ago. I was using them to kill Russian units to get more expansion stability points. My expansion was pretty stable, too. I would just wait for the Russians to send cannons/cuirassiers/macemen my way, then my airships would weaken them and my ground units (see forth in N.E. Bulgaria) would wipe them out piecemeal. I actually ended the war a couple turns later, got a favorable peace settlement from Russia (GPT), and then collapsed-- ironically.

Yeah, I like your idea of founding Knossos or Sparta later. I would do Sparta, then Knossos, because Sparta can grow faster (it can share Athens' hills/marble to get a harbor up and running). But if you want to put Moai Statues in Knossos then you probably have to found that one earlier. Talk about gaming the system.

 

[blizzrd]

My F2 screen looks different to yours. Are you running 1.x83? I get numerical values next to each category but you don't have any.

 

[Tullius]

blizzrd, hm, I'm using the mod that came with the BTS 3.17 CD. I never downloaded anything.

 

[Panopticon]

You should download the new patch!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=6639

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

You should download the new patch!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=6639

Yeah, this could explain quite a bit...

Cheers, Luke

 

[thadian]

Tullius, what do you think about building a city 2 tiles below Kragenfurt, or one up and up-left from Epadammus? The idea is that when rome collapses, you can fort up their improvements, and reach them by road. Is this a flip zone? If not, it could be built RIGHT after rome collapses, allowing you to stall out Sparta even more. If it is, then we can sit a settler there, and wait for Germany to spawn and settle right after they do.

This would allow us to build Knossos closer to the collapse-era and maybe buy some stability. Have you sailed your gally up to Korea yet? You can usually settle before japan spawns. it can give penalties, but the city is just... so awesome! especially with astronomy, but i bet it's just another of my failed plans.

 

[star15389]

Expansion, even in another civ's spawn area, is not necessarily bad. If your cities aren't going to increase in size rapidly anymore, it's perfectly all right to settle on Rome's tile and after that begin to expand into the Middle East. Most of this area is in your historical area, which means it's not oh so very bad for your stability even if it belongs to some other civ's core area. If you're really worried, there's a space one tile north of the easternmost flood plain tile in Mesopotamia that doesn't belong to Babylon, Perisa, or Arabia, which won't help your stability but will prevent that city from flipping if you dip into Unstable for a turn or two. Keep in mind that as long as it doesn't hurt your research, expansion increases your GDP, and if done properly it will overall help your stability. As long as you do it gradually, and as long as you don't overextend yourself, you'll be fine.

 

[thadian]

Thanks for the tip! I will attempt "inward" expansion for one game, and in another, i will meddle around with expansion in my historical zone. i normally don't face collapse until these areas are long dead anyway.

 

[Tullius]

How can I find out which tiles are in Greece's historical area? Is there some kind of 'settler map' for that?

thadian, settling just S. of Klagenfurt would not be bad. Isn't that Asphalathos (Spalato/Split)? I actually conquered that city in a war w/Rome but razed it, to avoid expansion penalties. In another game I controlled it, but did NOT found Epidamnos, and it turned out to be an extremely productive city (see first screen shot, I think).

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

How can I find out which tiles are in Greece's historical area? Is there some kind of 'settler map' for that?

Yes, search for settler maps and download a zipped folder containing them for every civ; a vital tool for the serious RFCer. However, they are only accurate(?) for 1.181, and probably could do with updating.

Cheers, Luke

 

[kravixon]

The maps are on page 71-72 of the Questions and Answers thread. Nobody was exactly sure what the colors meant, but it gives a real rough estimate of your zones.

Tullius, update to the newest version. There have been several since BtS came out. Research will probably be a little slower, but you might find stability a little better for you.

 

[Tullius]

Yeah, research is significantly slower, stability is a little easier to manage, though I think that could just as well be due to the settler maps -- now I know where to put my cities!

 

[kravixon]

Then your only problems should be barbarians, which you can block off on the pass north of Byzantium.

Cheers

 

[Ekolite]

I never seem to have problems with Greece until Turkey spawns. I can usually control Greece, Turkey, Babylon and Egypt without becoming unstable. That's 4 other civs core areas, although all part of Alexander's Empire iirc. Maybe it's Rome (and Italy) that's the problem?

Actually come to think of it I was in the very stable range until France and Germany started causing problems for Rome, maybe it is best to keep them going as long as possible...

 

[Deego3]

I dont think controling other civs core areas is the problem.

Spain can control the Aztec and Incan core areas without collapsing (usally).