How do you keep up with AI population growth-rate on Deity.

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

I presume that on deity the growth-rate of the AI civs is doubled. In that it only takes half the amont of time for their city foodboxes to be filled as compared with the player. How is it possible to compete with that?

I have mastered the aspect of being able to kill more than double the number of enemy units and force technologies from the AI civs. How then can the player make his cities grow at the same rate as the AI. I think this is important because the doubled AI growtrate must function exponentially and boost the allready doubled productive rate (units and improvements shield costs are halved for the AI) even further.

I have also noted that the AIs usually have granaries in their cities. These are simply to expensive to build for the player if he has to wage war continually which he must on Deity in order to win. This actually means that the AI growth rate is quadroubled!

Please correct me if some of my presumptions are incorrect.

 

[anarres]

Remember that the AI is stupid, and hopefully you are not. Otherwise no-one would ever win above regent.

Early growth is often held in check by the need for aqueducts, but even if there are lots of rivers you shouldn't worry. AI cities *never* have the right tile improvements or enough of them, just make sure to improve all the tiles you use and you will find that your production (the important city stat) will be comparable to the AI.

 

[Sullla]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
I have also noted that the AIs usually have granaries in their cities. These are simply to expensive to build for the player if he has to wage war continually which he must on Deity in order to win. This actually means that the AI growth rate is quadroubled!

The AI cities do grow insanely fast in Deity games, so fast that you cannot keep up with them. You are correct on the point, but saying that a player "must wage war continually" in Deity games is a lie. You can play a violent game of conquest on Deity, but the odds of pulling it off are very risky; I've also noted that few people are willing to try this strategy unless they can play a civ with an ancient age UU like Persia or Iroquois or Egypt. My perferred strategy for Deity is to play a peaceful game for the most part, while leaving open the option for either a late Middle Ages or an Industrial Age war. The fact of the matter is that the longer a Deity game goes on, the greater the advantage the player has; thus it seems silly to gamble too much in the early game.

I also would disagree with your point on granaries. The AI civs rarely if ever build them; that's one reason why the AI civ that builds the Pyramids tends to do so well. And far from being "too expensive" for the player to build, at 60 shields a granary is just about the first thing every city gets in my games. The result is actually quite the opposite of what you've said: in the industrial age after hospitals come along, much larger AI civs can have a smaller population than my territory, because the AI cities lack granaries and don't put a high priority on building hospitals everywhere. So while the AI civs tend to rush past you in the ancient age and the game seems impossible then, the longer you play the greater the advantage to you the player, even to the point where you can exceed larger empires in population.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Quote Sulla: "...saying that a player "must wage war continually" in Deity games is a lie."

Well maybe I overstated my point but as I see it early warfare on deity is neccassary to:

1: gain territory with important ressources
2: making sure you are not outcultured, making it difficult to assimilate enemy cities
3: gaining free workers
4: gaining tech advances

Later on I think warfare is neccesary in order to not allow the AI to gain all the benifits from a Democratic government (I hope the AI experience war weariness?)

I agree that as the game progresses it becomes easier. Some civs might have been destroyed by others and the population boom takes on less siginificance as growth is halted by various factors (exception is communist civs). But then again the closest I ever got to a deity victory I was beaten to it by the Iroqois who won a cultural victory. How do you prevent the AI from winning culturally except by military means? (other than simply turning that victory condition off)

By the way Sulla why do you think cities used exclusively for whipping is an exploit? It happened in real life you know. The long term penalty of sacrificing workers in terms of the nature of the regime is penalty enough I think.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Sullla
I've also noted that few people are willing to try this strategy unless they can play a civ with an ancient age UU like Persia or Iroquois or Egypt

I disagree. Almost everyone I know who plays Deity goes for early war to establish their territory, regardless of their civ. Check out the leader spoiler threads in the forum for proof.

The only way I can see not to start fighting early is to have a lot of free land around you when you start. If you can only build 5 or 6 cities before the terrain runs out or you hit another civ then you need to fight to expand. Why not hit them early when there are much fewer troops around? If you only build barracks or attacking units (with a few spearmen for good luck) then you will have a comparable army very early. Not fighting makes the game drag out so much more...

I never used to fight before knights (or even cavalry), but playing in the tournament showed me that you can gain huge advantage by early fighting. If you don't currently do it why not try?

I don't lose Deity, but now I fight in the ancient era I win alot quicker .

 

[Sullla]

My point is not that early warfare isn't effective in Deity games. It certainly can be, and particularly if using a civ with a powerful ancient age UU. But I disagree vehemently with the view that early warfare is "necessary" to compete and win at that level. I've won multiple games on Deity without resorting to ancient age warfare and can point to a number of other such games as well. I'm trying to make the point that early war is ONE way to compete and win effectively. It is not the ONLY way to play the game. Since I'm more of a builder, I am not a fan of building 2 or 3 cities and then converting everything over to military. Despite what you and the others on the Leader spoiler thread might say, this is a RISKY strategy. It can pay off bigtime, but all it takes is one string of bad RNG luck and your game can be over. That's not my preferred way of playing. Early warfare is a tradeoff: you take some risks to get some big rewards. The more you are willing to risk, the bigger the potential payoff. This is not to say I never go to war in Deity games, just that I do not do so in the ancient age. It is entirely possible to stay caught up in tech through intelligent trading unless you are extraordinarily unlucky. Not to mention the fact that several of the variant games I have been playing of late have not allowed the player to conduct offensive warfare...

I never used to fight before knights (or even cavalry), but playing in the tournament showed me that you can gain huge advantage by early fighting. If you don't currently do it why not try?

If I find myself able to win by not fighting, why should I risk it?

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Reasons why I think warfare is more effective in the ancient age.

Cities are generally smaller so the defender rarely gets any efensive bonus (the AI rarely builds walls)

The road network is often only somewhat developed which makes it easy to prevent too fast and overly massive counterattacks by the AI.

The unit roster in the ancient age has a more overall offensive profile than other ages until the tank comes along.

The AI can only build the galley which prevents it from making annoying bombardment runs at your coast. A few horsemen can defeat any seaborne invasion far from the front.

Resource denial is easier when the AIs cannot trade with each other, let alone are not nominally aware of each others existince.

No mutual protection pacts. No drafting. No cavalry surprises.

Less units. I am sure that some people are capable of keeping track of maybe hundreds of units. Personally I tend to loose focus when the number exceeds thirty or so.

Finally the AI doesn't know your world or territory map if you havent given it to him.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Sullla I'm trying to make the point that early war is ONE way to compete and win effectively. It is not the ONLY way to play the game.

I never said it was the ONLY way, just a good one. And in my opinion a better one than a long early build.

Since I'm more of a builder, I am not a fan of building 2 or 3 cities and then converting everything over to military.

Neither am I. I don't like the risk of the warrior gambit. Certainly for a game you need to win and can't restart. I build 5 or 6 cities and build an army. Remember also that this is not forever.

Despite what you and the others on the Leader spoiler thread might say, this is a RISKY strategy. It can pay off bigtime, but all it takes is one string of bad RNG luck and your game can be over. That's not my preferred way of playing. Early warfare is a tradeoff: you take some risks to get some big rewards.

Sending 8 - 10 horsemen/swordmen against an AI city in 1500BC is not risky in any way. Even if their total army is bigger, the army in the city will be one or two spearment at best.

Also, an early war makes the game easier. You control more land early, and so are never behing the AI in production or army size later on. I used to build up on 8 to 10 cities until tanks in the good old days, and tried attacking then. The AI always had *so* much more production and offensive units, and it had infantry to defend...

IMHO, you take almost no risk to get a huge gain.

Anyway, if you're enjoying your games then so what? I just think that warfare is easily overlooked by builders (and I'm one of them).

 

[Gothmog]

Another factor is the size and style of the map. My current solo game is large map, and I do other things random. My random civ was the Iroquios, I like the mounted warrior and thought to use it in an early war. I ended up with a Pangea and some large % of land (my first of this style), well I had so much land around me (and so did the other civ's) that I had no need of an early war to gain territory. Also the logistics were terrible. So by the time I had filled out my territory and started to butt up against the other civs I had plenty of cities (so did the other civs). On a small or tiny map, or on a crowded continent I think I would have taken advantage of my UU.

Also the size and style of the map affect the rate of tech advances - in this case with everyone on the same continent it was really moving - and even trade routes. The Iroquios are about to enter the middle ages (three or four others are already there) and very few civs are connected by trade routes - I am surrounded by jungle and so am not connected at all and my neighbors border cities aren't even connected to their core. I am now building my first harbor in the hope of trading lux and iron for tech.

Anyway, my point is that one must let the situation dictate the best strategy. If you are on a small continent with lots of hostile neighbors then an early war is almost inevitable. If you are on an island, by yourself - then you figure it out.