How do you deal with barbarian galleys?

[Lemon Merchant]

I figured out a solution to this whole dilemma last night:

Worldbuilder a post-industrialism naval fleet. 3 destroyers, 2 Battleships, and a Missile Cruiser, can give you a slight edge on a barb galley. Enough that one of them might survive for a Combat II or Medic I promotion.

I tried a sub with tactical nukes, but it ruined the work boat and the seafood, too. Rather counter productive, considering that we're trying to save hammers by not rebuilding work boats...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Me too. Production is ultimately the most important thing in the game. In 9 out of 10 games the civ which outproduces all others will win. Production decides Space Races as well as Domination/Conquest. It doesn't matter whether you are a little later at SS techs than the AI if you can build the parts in half the time. And you can beat an AI with superior units if your war machine churns out double the units.

None of this makes OR relevant to the discussion of forges.

Forges are a bad call in commerce cities/GP farms with some exceptions (trying to up the cap under rep...3 mineral , etc).

Several buildings (granaries, ORG courthouses, UBs like the ikhanda, possibly lighthouses) take priority over forges, although they are high priority in hammer cities.

But we're talking early game here, and going early MC reduces your production rather than increasing it.

I always build forges as soon as they become available.

Speaking in absolutes doesn't look too good...but *always* building forges as soon as available just about guarantees that you're making poor choices in a lot of your cities.

edit: Being a production superpower also speeds up Cultural wins a lot because you can build all those temples and cathedrals much faster. You also have much better chances to get the late culture wonders (Hollywood, Broadway etc).

The fastest culture wins above settler difficulty use cottages in the culture cities. You would need to build > 4 temples AFTER the forge to make it pay off (in terms of just building temples). Depending on what the ultimate role of the city is (say, the temples, a library, and a granary are all you really need there), building a forge is slower rather than faster. It's not an instant choice.

Having a production monster Capital is also decisive because such a city can accumulate many wonders which will provide Great People points will get you many Great People which will get you more hammers which will get you more wonders and so on. There are of course other strategies but this one is so effective that I'm actually becoming tired of it and try to use other, less-effective strategies

The bonus in a bur capitol is additive. The bonus is multiplicative. I wonder which one is a higher net effect? Still, the extra hammers in the capitol can be very valuable, I'll give you that.

WE/SSE is ok with some maps/leaders and has even won on deity in the hands of an elite player or two. But...

I'm actually becoming tired of it and try to use other, less-effective strategies

If you're tired of spamming wonders, why don't you try something more effective on most maps? Like winning liberalism at 500 AD (or taking steel with it around 1000 AD), unlocking all the techs that let workshops be more effective, and the ability to expand using cannons? How about early oxford? Diverting the wonder hammers into more cities? Military?

Hammers are a very important aspect of a civ's success but they are not the only aspect...and forges are not always the 1st priority in increasing the short and long term hammer yield available to your civ.

 

[IronCrown]

We are probably not so far from each other because as I said I don't beeline MC, and I agree that there are more important things in the very early game. Which means that although I usually build forges as soon as possible, that may not be very soon actually

I I build a forge it will speed up ALL buildings after that, which means dozens of buildings in the course of the game. But of course I try to maximize base hammers before building the forge: If I can build AP temples/monasteries first for example, I'll do that. In many cases I also have some excess population at that time (and even unhealthiness which wouldn't go away by getting monarchy early), so I may whip the forges.

WE/SSE is ok with some maps/leaders and has even won on deity in the hands of an elite player or two

Yeah, I know one of them

If you're tired of spamming wonders, why don't you try something more effective on most maps? Like winning liberalism at 500 AD

With the abovementioned strategy I'll usually get liberalism at 1150-1200 AND enjoy all the other benefits for the entire rest of the game (wonder benefits, massive production, massive gold bonus from hordes of settled great prophets etc).
With other strategies I can be at liberalism at 900 AD if all goes well. Others have been there at 500 AD using the same strategy, I think the difference is not in the strategy but in personal skill – timing, focus and such things which are hard to measure. But that strategy (which focuses on teching, commerce, lightbulbing) is less versatile because everything depends on a short time frame where you gain superiority and then you have to convert that into military expansion or you will fall behind. It's a good strategy, but the wonder-hogging, production-based strategy is easier to implement and more versatile.
Of course it becomes a lot easier with an industrious leader and/or marble/stone, but the same is true for other strategies and Financial/grassland rivers.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Whip 2 population to build a galley in a coastal city, then make another galley with hammers from overflow and tiles (unless the barbarian galley is close and I need both of them ASAP). Let the barbarian attack so you get the +10% coast terrain defense bonus. Pray the barbarian galley doesn't miraculously defeat both of them.

 

[civzombie]

Have you considered attaching your first warlord to a galley or trireme to protect your coasts? I thought about it a couple times but never actually tried it... other solutions to this probably are probably better.

 

[Harvin87]

I figured out a solution to this whole dilemma last night:

Worldbuilder a post-industrialism naval fleet. 3 destroyers, 2 Battleships, and a Missile Cruiser, can give you a slight edge on a barb galley. Enough that one of them might survive for a Combat II or Medic I promotion.

I tried a sub with tactical nukes, but it ruined the work boat and the seafood, too. Rather counter productive, considering that we're trying to save hammers by not rebuilding work boats...

HAHAHAHAHAHA... good one

 

[TheMeInTeam]

With the abovementioned strategy I'll usually get liberalism at 1150-1200 AND enjoy all the other benefits for the entire rest of the game (wonder benefits, massive production, massive gold bonus from hordes of settled great prophets etc).
With other strategies I can be at liberalism at 900 AD if all goes well. Others have been there at 500 AD using the same strategy, I think the difference is not in the strategy but in personal skill – timing, focus and such things which are hard to measure. But that strategy (which focuses on teching, commerce, lightbulbing) is less versatile because everything depends on a short time frame where you gain superiority and then you have to convert that into military expansion or you will fall behind. It's a good strategy, but the wonder-hogging, production-based strategy is easier to implement and more versatile.
Of course it becomes a lot easier with an industrious leader and/or marble/stone, but the same is true for other strategies and Financial/grassland rivers.

On Immortal+ you have a high chance of losing liberalism at 1150-1200 AD. Definitely on deity, but even on emperor it can go earlier.

Whether you fall behind of not is a function of difficulty. Good players wouldn't fall behind again typically unless they're playing deity or have crappy land.

You can't discount the effective BPT of bulbing (settling may never catch it), or the fact that bulbing in such a manner gives you access to better multipliers and stronger base improvements sooner. If you're not playing a difficulty where you are easily boxed in, that lead may never get caught because the effects of having the techs so much earlier can snowball.

The wonder hogging strategy is not versatile at all. You have to prioritize wonder techs, and you have to build wonders at the expense of alternatives, else you're not getting the kind of GPP you need. Earl-mid game war is barely an option doing such a thing, and many have argued that it is really diplo that carries such a game (although I'd say that diplo USUALLY carries immortal+ games but w/e).

 

[Dandenoth]

I deal with them very easily and quickly. I press Control + W, then right click on them, and *poof* they disappear.

In all seriousness though, I don't play with Barbs on my current difficulty level yet.

 

[The Snug]

@TMIT

I appreciate your angst, but I still don't buy your arguments. Civ is all about creating a large base of a particular type, and then multiplying that base to its maximum. This is why OR plus forges are relevant. To say otherwise is to get stuck on transitory details and to not look at the larger long-term picture. If you obtain these early, you will possess a significant production advantage which leads to quicker buildings, troops, settlers, etc... I have more base production bcz my cities are larger, and larger more quickly. I actually prefer to partially whip or chop forges, and then can grow back quickly because of my abundance of food. I think ppl get too stuck in short term planning and fail to see the longterm benefits of investments.

You know, nowadays I tend to play hotseat games with 50 civs on teramaps, where I control 5 civs. Even though 500 cities might be founded, my 5 civs will usually possess about 20 or so of the top 25 world prodcution cities (before bureaucracy). With the Bug mod, it's pretty easy to check for that.

On another note, I've noticed that each of my 5 civs, surprisingly to me, tend to take dramatically different paths through the tech tree. Surprising to me because I would think that my play style would be uniformly and rigidly following a particular type of strategy, requiring that I believe techs should be garnered in a particular order.

And also to my surprise, it seems that it really doesn't matter what path you take, simply that you effectively leverage whatever path you do take. Hence, I've come to believe that necessarily folloiwng certain paths doesn't matter much.

I've found that more important to the success or failure of a civ is simply it's geopolitical position. In other words, where it's at, what terrain it has, who's around it, how many potential fronts the civ has. My largest, most wealthy civs often find themselves surrounded by too many enemies on too many fronts which prevents it from running away with the game, whereas my ice/tundra civs have no enemies and simply lies in wait until the end of the game and then makes a big run once flight is discovered.

TMIT, I believe you're thinking too much about what you lose by not going in certain directions, rather than in thinking enough about what you gain in the path you do go. Bcz , really, I don't think it matters too much which path you do take, for as long as you leverage each tech, they all work out in the end.

Lately, I usually don't go the production route (that is, forge/OR) as often or as early, but whenever I do, it seems to work out just fine. It really doesn't matter. But if I have a seaside civ that is heavily dependent upon seafood (especially on an archi map, but not necessarily), then metal casting is a very attractive tech for me that I can leverage powerfully to assist my civ. I'm not going to shy away from it for fear that it's too expensive, or for fear that I missing too much by not going in other directions. Rather, I know how to use it well.

 

[The Snug]

Build a Galley. Park on Seafood resource. Let Barb galley attack our Galley (which has 10% coastal defense bonus). Hopefully, our guy wins, gets Combat I, and unleashes whoopass on the next barb to come his way. If not, whip another Galley. Repeat.

This is very inefficient. IIRC, a 10% bonus only means that a defensive galley will win only 67% of the time. Hence, if it loses, then you've wasted all those hammers on a dead ship, your seafood is all gone, and the barb galley is now c1. Now you've got to build two more ships to kill that c1 galley, and you've got to build 2-4 new workboats, and you've got to do so with less productivity bcz firstly, your cities are starving, and secondly, you have no forges . If this is your capital city, the time lost rebuilding these units, and the opportunity time lost for growth and expansion can be devastating. Solve this problem by building 2 galleys. Hence, if 1 loses, the second won't.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I appreciate your angst, but I still don't buy your arguments. Civ is all about creating a large base of a particular type, and then multiplying that base to its maximum.

Civ is about clearing a victory condition defined by it before your opponents . A hybrid approach can be just as valid as any "emphasize predominantly X"...sometimes stronger.

This is why OR plus forges are relevant. To say otherwise is to get stuck on transitory details and to not look at the larger long-term picture.

OR is still and never will be relevant to the decision to build forges. I don't know how to explain this to you if you still don't understand it. When considering information that is relevant to decision making, you ignore anything that is fixed between two alternatives, as well as sunk costs etc. The decision to use OR or not is not contingent upon the presence of forges. It is contingent upon your ability to run religion, and whether the 25% building hammers are worth more than more GPP or experience (or later 10% research), modified by diplo concerns.

Specialization early game is done at the city level. In cities that are set up for hammers, you absolutely build forges. Building them in commerce cities is stupid. If a commerce city is making 4 hammers/turn, a forge carries an up-front cost that will not be recouped for 120 turns AFTER completion (it would take 30 turns to build it)...cities founded after 1 AD may well never see the return on this investment because often games are essentially decided in the turn 200 to 300 range. But you also forgo building wealth, libraries, etc which might actually HAVE good ROI.

I have more base production bcz my cities are larger, and larger more quickly.

No. Monarchy is cheaper than metal casting, can be had sooner, and offers way more BASE production potential than metal casting could ever hope to achieve, for a lower investment in infrastructure. Growing cities larger requires only a granary and food tiles, and if you stoop to telling me you build a forge before a granary in ANY city, we have nothing more to discuss.

I actually prefer to partially whip or chop forges, and then can grow back quickly because of my abundance of food. I think ppl get too stuck in short term planning and fail to see the longterm benefits of investments.

A city designated for productive output but with insufficient hills should probably whip the forge. Other cities should not. If you are going 100% hammer cities in the BCs you're making a ridiculous mistake though (unless you're playing suboptimally on purpose for fun/challenge).

It would appear that the one who does not see long-term benefits to investments clearly is you. When a person who looks at ROI bulbs out liberalism and takes communism with it and gets assembly line by 1500 AD, their "long term" production as defined by "total hammers output across the game" (as opposed to turn 1000 in a normal speed game) is going to absolutely murder someone who goes only hammers and ignores commerce/GPP and gets AL in 1700 or 1800 AD.

On another note, I've noticed that each of my 5 civs, surprisingly to me, tend to take dramatically different paths through the tech tree. Surprising to me because I would think that my play style would be uniformly and rigidly following a particular type of strategy, requiring that I believe techs should be garnered in a particular order.

I don't see how any of this matters to the discussion of ROI on forges, but it makes sense if you have trades on to research different techs obviously.

And also to my surprise, it seems that it really doesn't matter what path you take, simply that you effectively leverage whatever path you do take. Hence, I've come to believe that necessarily folloiwng certain paths doesn't matter much.

Your traits, map layout, resources, and neighbors will make certain paths far stronger than others in a given map. Usually metal casting before alpha/aesthetics/monarchy/currency/CoL/etc is a mistake. You do NOT need triremes to beat barb galleys. You don't even need galleys usually.

TMIT, I believe you're thinking too much about what you lose by not going in certain directions, rather than in thinking enough about what you gain in the path you do go. Bcz , really, I don't think it matters too much which path you do take, for as long as you leverage each tech, they all work out in the end.

Any time you look at a choice, you have to consider the value of the next best alternative. If the value of the next best alternative is greater, you are making the wrong choice. Gaining 8 when you can gain 50 is an economic loss, and you should not focus on the fact that you gained 8 there.

But if I have a seaside civ that is heavily dependent upon seafood (especially on an archi map, but not necessarily), then metal casting is a very attractive tech for me that I can leverage powerfully to assist my civ. I'm not going to shy away from it for fear that it's too expensive, or for fear that I missing too much by not going in other directions. Rather, I know how to use it well.

No matter how close to its potential you use it, other options will still put you ahead frequently.

 

[Harvin87]

Oh man... I'm learning so much... keep it up boys...

 

[IronCrown]

The wonder hogging strategy is not versatile at all. You have to prioritize wonder techs, and you have to build wonders at the expense of alternatives, else you're not getting the kind of GPP you need. Earl-mid game war is barely an option doing such a thing, and many have argued that it is really diplo that carries such a game (although I'd say that diplo USUALLY carries immortal+ games but w/e).

Well, I disagree. I do not believe I can "prove" that I'm right though (and certainly I don't think you proved that you're right ).

I played the bulbing strategy for a long time. It was what enabled me to win on Emperor first. I kept refining it, so eventually I would win the vast majority of Emperor games as long as I stayed focused. However, I came never close to a victory on Immortal using this strategy. I know there are people who beat Deity with it; as I said I think it is because they are just better players in a way that you cannot learn by reading strategy guides.

Then I discovered the wonder-hogging strategy. I soon found it to be easier to use and more versatile, and I managed to win some Immortal games (though I still don't feel I'm an Immortal player because my win rate is well below 50%).

What's definitely wrong is that it's not versatile. By that I mean that it's suited for many different types of victory and that you can react to unexpected turns during the game.
As I explained, the strategy ensures that you have a city with massive production through many settled great people (mostly prophets and engineers). In the long term this leads you to victory by space or military. It is also valuable for diplomatic because you are almost guaranteed to get AP and/or UN if you want them. I agree that production is not the most important thing for a culture win, but it still helps, and culture is the lamest and easiest victory anyway
But the hammer-capital is also great in tactical situations. If the need arises, you can churn out a massive army in a very short time because the capital will be able to build a unit every turn.

On Immortal+ you have a high chance of losing liberalism at 1150-1200 AD. Definitely on deity, but even on emperor it can go earlier.

Yes, but it doesn't really matter. Being first to liberalism is not very important.

Whether you fall behind or not is a function of difficulty. Good players wouldn't fall behind again typically unless they're playing deity or have crappy land.

I don't think so. The danger of falling behind is inherent to the bulbing strategy. You burn your great people to get an advantage early. But from a certain point bulbing techs is not an option anymore because they become too costly to bulb them with a single GP. So you have to research them the hard way, and there you lack now the bonus of settled GPs. With the land you could peacefully settle it is usually not possible to retain your tech lead. The standard procedure now is to beeline to Rifling and to conquer a neighbor or two while they have only maces or knights. Then your land will be much bigger than anyone else's which means you can keep your tech lead and cruise to an easy victory.
But if anything goes wrong (you miss liberalism, are too late at rifling etc.), there is no way out, no plan B.

Now of course it's possible that I just wasn't good enough to use the bulbing strategy properly. But then again it's also possible that you did something wrong (or not optimal) when trying the WE

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I know there are people who beat Deity with it; as I said I think it is because they are just better players in a way that you cannot learn by reading strategy guides.

That can be (accurately) said for any strategy. Deity is hard. But bulbing is very powerful, scientists in a GP farm bulbing are worth 30-50 BPT per scientist across the first half of the game. How long until settled specialists catch up? Depending on the trade value, possibly not even before the game ends.

As I explained, the strategy ensures that you have a city with massive production through many settled great people (mostly prophets and engineers). In the long term this leads you to victory by space or military. It is also valuable for diplomatic because you are almost guaranteed to get AP and/or UN if you want them.

Most approaches allow for all victory conditions, this includes bulbing and cottage spam. Incidentally, kremlin cottage spam will also keep up with anything an empire set for production can do. All you need to do is protect yourself via diplomacy or a hammer city or two.

Yes, but it doesn't really matter. Being first to liberalism is not very important.

I don't think it's as big a deal as people make it out to be, but the lib path is chalk full of good trading techs and science multipliers. Might as well get another 3000+ beakers (normal speed) for getting there 1st. This can speed up your game at least.

I don't think so. The danger of falling behind is inherent to the bulbing strategy. You burn your great people to get an advantage early. But from a certain point bulbing techs is not an option anymore because they become too costly to bulb them with a single GP.

You run the risk of falling behind due to era bonuses no matter what. More importantly, if you go wonder spam you have fewer cities than otherwise, and less productive base outside your capitol to work with. Are those wonders worth 2-3 cities worth of hammers or drafting?

Now of course it's possible that I just wasn't good enough to use the bulbing strategy properly. But then again it's also possible that you did something wrong (or not optimal) when trying the WE

I haven't rolled an IND leader for Immortal U recently, but I've done some offline testing of WE at immortal and was neither impressed nor did I fall behind (ultimately I won the game militarily, but that's hardly a surprise).

But if anything goes wrong (you miss liberalism, are too late at rifling etc.), there is no way out, no plan B.

...

"With cannons, you can"

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=327047

Plan B is taking a backwards army, sticking it in the face of an AI with similar power, and winning anyway . Cavalry/cannon vs infantry, arty, and fighters? Sure...why not...IIRC the war lasted <15 turns .

 

[fed1943]

Well, there is MC and there is forges.

I go for MC usually after the worker techs and writing. If I get the Oracle (seldom) then
MC is my choice.

Forges for a production city,sure. But for a commercial, just for happiness, if I think the
forge is cheaper than Monarchy+HR+defender.
It looks an easy decision, but sometimes AFAIK it is not.

Map and traits surely play a big role to the decision.

Best regards,

 

[IronCrown]

scientists in a GP farm bulbing are worth 30-50 BPT per scientist across the first half of the game. How long until settled specialists catch up? Depending on the trade value, possibly not even before the game ends.

You can't only look at the BPT, it's a little more complicated than that. A settled engineer is like an additional hill in your city's BFC, only one that doesn't need to be worked and also delivers some beakers. Two settled prophets are like a plains hill plus a significant gold yield which also means beakers. The added production allows for much faster city development which also means more beakers. So you get quite a lot of beakers out of your specialists, and on top of that a huge hammer yield.

And apart from that there's of course the wonders which provide their unique bonuses. I think you underestimate the effect of wonders. The Great Lighthouse with many coastal cities can be extremely powerful, you can base a whole economy on it under the right circumstances. Other wonders can be similarly powerful.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You can't only look at the BPT, it's a little more complicated than that. A settled engineer is like an additional hill in your city's BFC, only one that doesn't need to be worked and also delivers some beakers. Two settled prophets are like a plains hill plus a significant gold yield which also means beakers. The added production allows for much faster city development which also means more beakers. So you get quite a lot of beakers out of your specialists, and on top of that a huge hammer yield.

And apart from that there's of course the wonders which provide their unique bonuses. I think you underestimate the effect of wonders. The Great Lighthouse with many coastal cities can be extremely powerful, you can base a whole economy on it under the right circumstances. Other wonders can be similarly powerful.

I'm well aware of the power of using wonders in the right context. ANY of them can be good. GLH is probably the most well-known powerhouse wonder on S&T these days. However, combing through old threads you'll see deity players arguing the merits of ToA for when bureaucracy rolls around. There are also powerful oracle gambits, situations where the pyramids is a boon w/o too many concessions...and probably the most common wonder of them all -----> marble = great library/national epic for some ridiculous base GPP by itself (add a few more scientists and pacifism in and whoa).

Great wall has fallen out of favor with me because knowing the barb spawn rules is so abusive. Same thing with stonehenge...pretty situational. Most wonders have uses and in situations where their cost isn't too great are worthwhile. However, they are never the true foundation of a civ. They are a powerful source of GPP with some good side benefits, but you still have to take care of everything else.

 

[The Snug]

OR is still and never will be relevant to the decision to build forges. I don't know how to explain this to you if you still don't understand it. When considering information that is relevant to decision making, you ignore anything that is fixed between two alternatives, as well as sunk costs etc. The decision to use OR or not is not contingent upon the presence of forges. It is contingent upon your ability to run religion, and whether the 25% building hammers are worth more than more GPP or experience (or later 10% research), modified by diplo concerns.

If OR isn't relevant to the discussion, than neither is any talk of settling GP's in a specialist economy, which, of course, is an assinine contention. If one is relying upon superior production to gain an edge, than OR is eminently relevant. If you cannot concede that, well then...

No. Monarchy is cheaper than metal casting, can be had sooner, and offers way more BASE production potential than metal casting could ever hope to achieve, for a lower investment in infrastructure. Growing cities larger requires only a granary and food tiles, and if you stoop to telling me you build a forge before a granary in ANY city, we have nothing more to discuss.

Only if you want to waste tons of inefficient hammers building large money eating garrisons. I often skip monarchy until very late. I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time building mass units that take forever to build and that I'm just going to mothball. As to forges/granaries, I have no set rule regarding these. I often do build forges first, and those forge first cities, in the long run, often do grow faster than my granary first cities. After the forge is built, the granary and work boats come much quicker. Besides, maybe I'd prefer a barracks and a couple of troops first. Or walls. It depends. Nothing irritates me more than a city that is emphasizing food so much that it cannot build anything--including the granary that is supposed to be making it grow twice as fast.

Maybe I want to go forge, monument, library, theater in a border city that is fighting for culture. Building a granary, contrary to your assertion, won't make this happen faster.

If you are going 100% hammer cities in the BCs you're making a ridiculous mistake though (unless you're playing suboptimally on purpose for fun/challenge).

lol. I couldn't disagree more. There are other ways of obtaining commerce than simple cottage spam. You're assuming hammer cities cannot have commerce.

It would appear that the one who does not see long-term benefits to investments clearly is you. When a person who looks at ROI bulbs out liberalism and takes communism with it and gets assembly line by 1500 AD, their "long term" production as defined by "total hammers output across the game" (as opposed to turn 1000 in a normal speed game) is going to absolutely murder someone who goes only hammers and ignores commerce/GPP and gets AL in 1700 or 1800 AD.

Ignoring any potential merits to this argument (which I don't see), it's fantastically inconsistent with your "Opportunity Cost" buzz phrase. Your advocating late game production as opposed to early game production and covering up the argument with total game average--so unlike you. Besides, I thought all your games were decided before AL.

We must point out the error in your base assumption: that just because a civ is hammer heavy that it is necessarily scientifically deficient. A hammer heavy civ is capable of building libraries and universities in all of its cities quickly, which means earlier Ox and WS. Besides, larger cities who grew larger more quickly obtain larger trade routes, and are able to run a good specialist economy.

I don't see how any of this matters to the discussion of ROI on forges, but it makes sense if you have trades on to research different techs obviously.

Faster troops, faster buildings, leftover hammer multiplication, all for faster total growth. MC is expensive for a reason. That reason being that it is a powerful tech with game-altering abilities. precisely because production is paramount in Civ.

Your traits, map layout, resources, and neighbors will make certain paths far stronger than others in a given map. Usually metal casting before alpha/aesthetics/monarchy/currency/CoL/etc is a mistake. You do NOT need triremes to beat barb galleys. You don't even need galleys usually.

Now this is nonsensical. How else do you defeat barb galleys then? Pray? Rename a workboat to "Mr. Rabbit" and have the barb galleys chase him to your neighbor's territory? Bribe a neighboring civ to declare war on the barbarian nation? I have many games where the protection of seafood is paramount. You really didn't address this point very well (or at all).

Since I play most of my games now with tech trading off, alphabet is a useless tech. I skip it until the industrial age. Even with tech trading on, however, alphabet gives less than aesthetics (simply bcz AI's don't emphasize it, and therefore want it). because aesthetics is better trade bait. I would prefer a mathematics, currency path myself. More hammers from my trees (which my forges and OR like) and another large trade route for my monolithic cities. But if we're talking trade value, MC has more than any other tech during that era. All of the other civs really want this one, and will trade their cottages away for it.

Any time you look at a choice, you have to consider the value of the next best alternative. If the value of the next best alternative is greater, you are making the wrong choice. Gaining 8 when you can gain 50 is an economic loss, and you should not focus on the fact that you gained 8 there.

There isn't such the wide disparity in tech value that you intimate. All of the techs pretty much cost what their value really is, so simply make use of their value following your discovery of them.

No matter how close to its potential you use it, other options will still put you ahead frequently.

What other options? Using a tech suboptimally rather? See adjacent repsonse above.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If OR isn't relevant to the discussion, than neither is any talk of settling GP's in a specialist economy, which, of course, is an assinine contention. If one is relying upon superior production to gain an edge, than OR is eminently relevant. If you cannot concede that, well then...

Going early metal casting forgoes access to caste, the great library, national epic, and monarchy, and thus has a direct impact on your ability to attain early GPP beyond 2 library scientists/city.

Going MC vs Monarchy (or any other tech) has the same requirements in terms of OR (you still have to research or trade for mono). In other words, the use of OR does not vary between alternatives. It especially has nothing to do with stopping barb galleys. Teching MC to the exclusion of those "useless techs", however, has very real implications on GPP.

Only if you want to waste tons of inefficient hammers building large money eating garrisons. I often skip monarchy until very late. I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time building mass units that take forever to build and that I'm just going to mothball. As to forges/granaries, I have no set rule regarding these. I often do build forges first, and those forge first cities, in the long run, often do grow faster than my granary first cities. After the forge is built, the granary and work boats come much quicker. Besides, maybe I'd prefer a barracks and a couple of troops first. Or walls. It depends. Nothing irritates me more than a city that is emphasizing food so much that it cannot build anything--including the granary that is supposed to be making it grow twice as fast.

Maybe I want to go forge, monument, library, theater in a border city that is fighting for culture. Building a granary, contrary to your assertion, won't make this happen faster.

Oh, wow. There's a good reason most good players (not just me, but people far better than me) go granaries and prioritize either monarchy, drama, or pyramids heavily. If you're struggling with this, I suggest very strongly that you look up why that is. Assuming you're going to ultimately work more than 1-3 tiles, the granary will overtake other options ridiculously quickly. Are you really willing to ignore the body of evidence on the forum?

Warriors hammers are a very efficient source of and can allow growth...FAST growth...like 20 pop capitols at 100 AD with some resource trades also. You're not going to get that with metal casting, usually.

Faster troops, faster buildings, leftover hammer multiplication, all for faster total growth. MC is expensive for a reason. That reason being that it is a powerful tech with game-altering abilities. precisely because production is paramount in Civ.

. You're blinded by a 25% multiplier. This paragraph I'm quoting up here is a non-argument. Here, I can do it too:

Faster troops, faster buildings, leftover hammers, all for faster total growth. pottery/monarchy is expensive for a reason. That reason being that they are powerful techs with game-altering abilities. precisely because production is paramount in Civ.

Yay. Continuing on to useful discussion:

Now this is nonsensical. How else do you defeat barb galleys then? Pray? Rename a workboat to "Mr. Rabbit" and have the barb galleys chase him to your neighbor's territory? Bribe a neighboring civ to declare war on the barbarian nation? I have many games where the protection of seafood is paramount. You really didn't address this point very well (or at all).

I guess all those immortal isolated start (LHC) games I post where I build 0-2 galleys and get 0 seafood pillaged aren't good enough.

But I'll say it in case I didn't address it in this thread directly (pretty sure I have): barb galleys can only "see" 7 tiles into your culture, and will not enter to pillage seafood further in AND

Land units and work boats can spawn bust to prevent barb galleys from spawning in areas where they'd be an issue.

Edit: No, I didn't say it in this thread because Ghpstage did so I didn't see the need:

There are 2 game rules that govern barb Galleys that can be used against them;
They can only move into your culture if they can 'see' a pillageable resource, the sight range is 7 tiles (I think ). So by selectively settling and possibly even avoiding improving one specific seafood resources, you can prevent galleys entering your borders

The other is that barbs cannot spawn in your sight area, and cannot spawn within 2 tiles of any unit (regardless of sight). This one is standard 'fogbusting' useful on any map where barbs will be an issue.

Apparently that went over a few heads though, if what I said remains "nonsense" despite being *proven*.

Combining the above, I've yet to see anything but spotty island archipelago (and only some of them) that required more than 2 galley cover from one side...and even then only until a city can be planted that blocks entry.

Since I play most of my games now with tech trading off, alphabet is a useless tech. I skip it until the industrial age. Even with tech trading on, however, alphabet gives less than aesthetics (simply bcz AI's don't emphasize it, and therefore want it). because aesthetics is better trade bait. I would prefer a mathematics, currency path myself. More hammers from my trees (which my forges and OR like) and another large trade route for my monolithic cities. But if we're talking trade value, MC has more than any other tech during that era. All of the other civs really want this one, and will trade their cottages away for it.

How am I supposed to know you play with trades off? However with them off MC for triremes hurts you even more unless you have some good early resources and can use the colossus.

Alphabet opens up building research, funny you don't mention that.

Deity players, playing deity, go alpha before aesthetics on occasion. It seems to work fine for them. Note that alpha also unlocks currency, and math is a high-priority AI tech that you can trade for if they're on.

There isn't such the wide disparity in tech value that you intimate. All of the techs pretty much cost what their value really is, so simply make use of their value following your discovery of them.

The disparity is there. Tech path choices can mean winning vs losing. The AI tends to prioritize MC and will usually have it in the BC's on emperor+ (on normal settings, anyway). You better hope you get a lot of trade or resource value for MC, because if you don't you're in cap trouble.

What other options? Using a tech suboptimally rather? See adjacent repsonse above.

Options such as choosing to research other tech over suboptimal MC just to protect seafood and build an early forge in 1-3 cities.

Look, I'm not saying MC and triremes are bad, just that going that route in the BCs to stop barb galleys is going to be a weak choice in A LOT of games.

 

[xchen08]

If OR isn't relevant to the discussion, than neither is any talk of settling GP's in a specialist economy, which, of course, is an assinine contention. If one is relying upon superior production to gain an edge, than OR is eminently relevant. If you cannot concede that, well then...

I would say OR is irrelevant in the sense that everyone would be running it in this time period unless preparing for war whether or not they choose to emphasize hammers. However, I think it is relevant in the sense that the OR bonus applies to forges but not to warriors for monarchy happy boosting. Plus forges don't cost maintainance, and will almost always give at least one , don't need more improved tiles and thus more workers, and makes for more efficient whipping than going the monarchy route.