How/When to switch from Despotism? Help.

[Hawkx9]

Having played Civ I & II quite extensively, I'm still having trouble with Civ III, even after a couple weeks of play. I'm beninning to nail down the initial expansion phase but am having great difficulty switching to Republic. The unhappiness is crimping my growth and I'm unable to support a respectable army. Without a respectbly sizeable army my neighbors have no respect and invade or become insolent.

I'm attempting to grasp as many luxuries as possible. I'm building marketplaces and other infrastructer before the switch. But I still can't do it smoothly.

A few concerns:
While in Despotism, in which cities do you refrain from using the whip? How long does the resulting unhappiness last if you do? If I use the whip to construct infrastructure in preparation for Republic, my cities are wholely unhappy. Do you whip in infrastructure before the switch or attempt to buy it after the switch?

How do you maintain an adequate army without breaking the bank? Maintaining a "superior" army allows more "effective" diplomacy, but too large and I'm broke.


Thanks for the advice.

 

[BillChin]

I'm sure you will receive a variety of answers, but my answers seem to very similar these days. I play on Emperor difficulty, random civ, standard size map. My answer is to build cities very close together, like double or triple what the AI builds in the same space. The benefits are reduced corruption, an easy to defend position, tremendous early production leverage (culture, tech, units). The negatives are micromanagement for overlapping squares and the need to trim some cities so the others have room for pop 12 after the first age.

Using a dense build lets me put away the whip. I rarely if ever use the whip anymore. A dense build is more productive and has fewer long term negatives. If you do use the whip, keep in mind that any city that you use as a slave camp is basically useless later in the game. Best to milk it for all it is worth and then limit it to pop 2 or 3. Build a parallel city next to the slave camp that will use all the land there.

As for maintaining an army with Republic, a lot of cities close to the capital means low corruption and high $$$. I usually make the switch to Republic after my Army has claimed all the enemy land that it can. Republic is not good for war because of war weariness. I find that Monarchy is not a useful government, especially if it costs 5 turns of anarchy.

Most people that read about my method do not like it. My suggestion to the doubters is to try it and see. Start a new game on Monarch or Emperor difficulty. Build the first two cities one square away from the capital on a diagonal square that the capital can not access. Give it 15 minutes and see how it goes.

 

[Grotius]

I agree that spacing cities closer together can help, but it may not be the best way to master the easier levels of the game -- Chieftan or Warlord. At those lower levels, I'm able to win with cities spaced the standard distance apart -- spaced enough so that there's not much overlap once the cities are using all 24 squares around them. The standard spacing may be easier for one still learning the game. It permits you to develop your cities without micromanaging overlapping squares. Just try to maximize the number of cities within 9 (or is it 10?) squares of your capital city, to minimize corruption.

The original poster has put his finger on the essential dilemma: if you try to build up your culture and economy, the AI will get you militarily; if you build up militarily, your economy and culture suffer. The good news is that you can have it both ways, to some extent. Crank out those settlers to start new cities, but also crank out spearmen to defend your new cities. Yes, build your temples, but maybe hold off on granaries/libraries/etc until you've got two good defenders in each city, and more in border cities. Any city with just one defender seems to beckon the AI.

Once you've bumped into another civ, keep telling yourself: that civ is not my friend. Sooner or later you'll have to fight it. To deter this civ, your border cities with it have to be well garrisoned: I like at least 3 units in border cities, preferably more. And to really be prepared for war, you should have a big stack of offensive and defensive units at the border, ready to pounce on his closest city (or at least to pillage its terrain improvements) if he declares war. War is waged with big stacks in this game. You want your stack to be bigger than the AI's.

If your military is strong, you may play for thousands of years in peace. Deterrence does work. Invest in your military early, and keep adding to it as the game progresses. Above all keep those border cities well defended. Give the AI one gold once in a while to keep relations cheerful. It really is possible to play peacefully; most of my games at Warlord have been peaceful, and many at Regent have been. Good luck!

 

[Hawkx9]

I've been reading that many use a dense build these days, especially since Despotism is all the rage. I've been trying my best to avoid city spamming since I'm a builder at heart but it's going to be hard (read: impossible) to avoid in anything over Regent.

I think I've come to a satisfactory compromise. Since I love to build nice, large cities, placing each 2 spaces apart is rather taxing and inefficient. Before tonight I had been trying to keep each city's radii from overlapping, but that's not dense enough. Spacing that far apart is inefficient as well since you won't be able to use all of the decent land available to you. Also, spacing 4 steps away will not allow adequate city numbers in the Ancient Era to support an adequate military.
Three spaces, depending on the terrain and available rivers, seems to be just about right for me. Sometimes two spaces apart if adequate food specials are available. This places cities close enough together to maintain a dense build, allowing a higher city count, yet not so close that they are impeeding on each other's land too extensively. This also allows a cohesive cultural border.

Tonights game (now in 10AD) is probably about the best start I've had yet in Civ III. Yes, I had a nice draw for land, but spacing seems to make all the difference.

Now, if I could just figure out why the damn Romans are attacking me, I'd be sitting pretty. The AI is better than ever, yet that doesn't stop it from occasionally throwing a few archers to the slaughter for no reason. I mean seriously, they didn't need to attack me two turns after signing a Right of Passage agreement. And at least put together a valiant effort if you're going to break treaty. Geez.

 

[Grotius]

Heh, the AI does do some nutty things, but wow it's a big improvement over Civ 2. Its tactics -- as opposed to strategy -- are pretty good. It will amass a huge stack and focus on one target, as it should. Its units always look for the high ground, as they should. (Would that I were always so careful.) It plays aggressively, as it should. (Would that I were so aggressive.) It bullies me with threats, throwing me off my guard. It always presses for good deals in diplomacy. OK, it gets some advantages and apparently does a bit of cheating, but this stuff is cloaked pretty well. I like the AI.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by BillChin

As for maintaining an army with Republic, a lot of cities close to the capital means low corruption and high $$$. I usually make the switch to Republic after my Army has claimed all the enemy land that it can. Republic is not good for war because of war weariness. I find that Monarchy is not a useful government, especially if it costs 5 turns of anarchy.

I may attempt your strategy in general, but I completely disagree about monarchy being a useless government. One way in which monarchy is useful, is the situation many people find themselves in where their people hate them for cracking the whip too much. The ability to use three units as military police should not be underestimated. Once your cities begin to grow, which is just as fast in monarchy as in any of the other 'advanced' governments, you can support a large military without digging into your coffers. Although you do not get the huge commerce bonus present in republic or democracy, you do not have to spend very much on your army. You can set a very high science rate, and not fall too far behind if you trade with the AI. You can also stay at war for as long as your military can handle it, many times forcing the AI civs to change their government to monarchy or communism as well. In my opinion, monarchy is an excellent government to use during the middle ages after you switch from despotism, as it allows you to build and support your military while keeping your economy reasonably strong. Once your military is sufficiently large, if you find the world to be relatively peaceful, by all means switch to democracy.

There are many problems with switching from despotism to republic. You cannot use military police to quell the unhappiness of those who you made slaves of under despotism, and if you do not have access to a lot of luxuries, you may find your government far less productive than your like. Also, your military suddenly becomes very expensive. Under despotism, you can support 4 units per city, and if you were anywhere close to this, you are going to spend a good chunk of that extra commerce paying for these units.

 

[Psychlone]

Personally, I'll stay in despotism forever rather than go to republic. I only use the whip in emergencies, to crank out a defender if an invasion incoming is stronger than I think the city can fight off. In my games, republic appears just when I'm feeling saucy enough to start devouring my neighbors. Generally by the time I'm no longer fighting, democracy is available. I will take the despotism-monarchy-democracy route every time. Sometimes I'll go to communism if I know a big long-term war is coming.

What I tend to do as a democracy is fight a series of mini wars- fight for 20 turns or so, or until I achieve a specific objective, declare peace, kick back for about 20 turns to reset war weariness and rebuild, and then (usually) goad them into declaring war on me, and ding ding, round two is on.

 

[levasseur227]

What is the best method for trimming cities? I keep hearing about starving them out, how. What are other methods?

 

[DB_Terror]

It probably depends on the difficulty level - I usually play warlord and hardly ever go to monarchy. Unhappiness is not much of an issue, it's just that I have to cut science to 40 to 60% in order to keep growing. But those 40 to 60% in republic still give me quicker science advances than 90% in despotism.
Obviously, luxuries, marketplaces and temples are the key to happiness. To save money, I usually go for a light military and disband all old warriors and other crappy units that I don't need anymore. I also keep only one or even no units in cities far away from the enemy.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by DB_Terror
It probably depends on the difficulty level - I usually play warlord and hardly ever go to monarchy. Unhappiness is not much of an issue, it's just that I have to cut science to 40 to 60% in order to keep growing. But those 40 to 60% in republic still give me quicker science advances than 90% in despotism.
Obviously, luxuries, marketplaces and temples are the key to happiness. To save money, I usually go for a light military and disband all old warriors and other crappy units that I don't need anymore. I also keep only one or even no units in cities far away from the enemy.

It does depend on the difficulty level. Also, the only reason you can get by with a small military is because you are playing a lower difficulty level. One hint: I would replace those warriors when I disband them because the AI judges your military strength purely on numbers, not the quality of your troops. Those warriors deter the AI as much as modern armor do.

 

[Hawkx9]

Originally posted by eyrei


It does depend on the difficulty level. Also, the only reason you can get by with a small military is because you are playing a lower difficulty level. One hint: I would replace those warriors when I disband them because the AI judges your military strength purely on numbers, not the quality of your troops. Those warriors deter the AI as much as modern armor do.

Yup. The AI will demand tribute, become insolent, and eventually attack you if your numbers are smaller than theirs. That's why chipping down your military to switch to Republic is a catch-22. A small military is supportable under Republic, but a small military will cause the AI to attack you, forcing you to increase your military, making Republic hard to run.

 

[BillChin]

Best way to trim cities is to build settlers if there is still open land, or build workers. Workers are especially good after you get railroads, because really big cities are possible and lots of workers are needed to lay rails. Limit food production in the cities you plan to trim and the pop will all be converted to workers in a short time. I find it hard to give up productive cities so close to the capital so it takes some discipline to choose what cities to trim. However, that is all part of managing a flourishing empire.

Monarchy seems to have its advocates, but I have never found it be useful playing on Emperor difficulty. I have tried Monarchy a couple of times, and I have less gold than under Despotism because of reduced unit support, and production and research are only marginally higher. These small benefits are not worth five turns of Anarchy. Under Republic, I almost always have a lot more gold, a lot more research, and a lot more production. The downside is the happiness issue due to lack of military police.

I find that Civilization III is a very different game depending on the difficulty level, and people are often talking about apples and oranges. On lower difficulty levels there are many more options that are viable, such as Monarchy, and four by four city spacing. I play on Emperor difficulty and neither Monarchy or nicely spaced cities works for me.

What does work for me is a dense build of cities, an early army of Horsemen and attacking with overwhelming force. It works so well, that I am trying out some new strategies like the "Pope" strategy of always being at peace, minimal research and buying all techs. So far I can keep the peace, but fall way, way behind on the power and culture scores because my empire is small and the opponents have big bonuses on everything.

Originally posted by levasseur227
What is the best method for trimming cities? I keep hearing about starving them out, how. What are other methods?

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by BillChin
Monarchy seems to have its advocates, but I have never found it be useful playing on Emperor difficulty. I have tried Monarchy a couple of times, and I have less gold than under Despotism because of reduced unit support, and production and research are only marginally higher. These small benefits are not worth five turns of Anarchy. Under Republic, I almost always have a lot more gold, a lot more research, and a lot more production. The downside is the happiness issue due to lack of military police.

I find that Civilization III is a very different game depending on the difficulty level, and people are often talking about apples and oranges. On lower difficulty levels there are many more options that are viable, such as Monarchy, and four by four city spacing. I play on Emperor difficulty and neither Monarchy or nicely spaced cities works for me.

I have had the opposite experience on Emperor level. Every game I have played on this level, I have switched to monarchy at the end of the ancient era, and remained that way until the early modern era. My strategy is pretty simple. I pick one of the stronger civs bordering my empire as an ally, and then make sure we fight just about everybody else. This effectively forces the ai civs to remain in monarchy as well. While it is very difficult to build any wonders, I make up for it by slowly taking over more and more land. Eventually, I have more land than anybody, a huge military, and a couple loyal (as the ai goes) allies. Also, the tech progression slows down considerably, causing the wars to be fought on a level field. Eventually, my military power is strong enough, that the ai civs are very wary of declaring war on me for anything but a grave insult. At this point, which usually comes about the time I get tanks, it is often feasible to switch to democracy. With such a large empire, I catch up and surpass the ai civs very quickly, and from then on it is free sailing.

Also, monarchy is a very effective government in the industrial age, as once you build hospitals, your military upkeep essentially doubles.

 

[BillChin]

Maybe I will give Monarchy a go. At least there is no war weariness. How do you convince the AIs to ally with you before the shooting starts? The only method I have found is to bribe them before the war starts, win a couple of battles and then they will ally with me for a huge price. Only the French and Iroquois seem to have an interest in peace. Many other AI civs are girding for war from day one and it is sometimes a kill or be killed situation.

Another question: How do you deal with big empires on another continent? On a couple of games, I conquer my entire hemisphere, but an AI player on another continent does the same. Using the ally techique you outline would prohibit me from wiping my continent clean. (I have tried allies before and sticking with them.) Even with a switch to Republic and controlling my entire hemisphere, by the time I get Caravels, the other AI player is often ahead of me on research and production. With Monarchy, I see myself even further behind at that point.

Maybe the map size and number of opponents makes a big difference as well. I play on a standard size map, random map settings, random civ, eight players. Thinking out loud, it seems your strategy is better suited for a large or huge world with 16 players.

 

[eyrei]

Usually, an AI who just declared war on me, will not find more than one ally that turn. On my next turn, I find an ally or two and all hell breaks loose.

You are right. I developed this strategy on large maps on monarch level, but I have used it successfully on emperor with 8 civs on a standard map.

As far as the guy on the other continent getting too strong, I would suggest declaring war on him, and convincing the other civs on that continent to declare war also. Expensive, but only the most powerful civs I have ever seen (mine obviously) have been able to hold off more than 2 opponents at once. If several civs are all at war with one stronger one, in all likelihood, none of them will take all the territory by itself, so you end up with several evenly matched civs. If you notice the strong civ is still winning, send a small force over to help shore up your allies defence. You basically have to foment a great deal of discord worldwide for this strategy to work. But when it works, it is a great deal of fun.

I actually find it very useful to keep another civ on my continent, as long as they are friendly. Since on high levels the AI gets research bonuses, you can allow your ally to do some of your research for you and then buy it. They are also useful for fighting off an invasion if you give them right of passage. I guessing you have the same "manifest destiny" syndrome I am trying to break out of, wanting to control your entire continent from ocean to ocean. My point is that the AI civ on emperor level will make much more use out of a small number of cities than you can when you add them to your large empire.

 

[BillChin]

Thanks for the good tip about keeping a viable civ alive on my continent. I often leave them with one token city and they are useless to me. You are right that taking their land adds very little production to my empire.
As for dealing with a strong AI player, um, by the time I get ocean crossing techs and meet the other civ, the other continent is wiped clean. Happened twice, once with Zulus, once with Russians. There is no opposition on the other continent, nada, nothing. The Zulus and Aztecs almost always go for the early war because their unique units are warrior variants. Often times they win, and dominate very early in the game. Every expansionist tries the same, but the early unique units are often too much to overcome.

I have little chance of crossing the ocean and attacking until I get aircraft carriers and even then it is incredibly hard, because they have a tech and numbers advantage. I guess this is bad luck, but it has already happened twice, and it makes me very wary of Monarchy because of its low research rate. Maybe having a friendly civ on my continent can help make up for that.

 

[eyrei]

Yeah. Probably just bad luck. To some extent you can support your 'friends' on the other continent from afar by providing them with money (which you can actually accumulate a good amount of in monarchy) and technologies with military applications. If you remain at war with the other big civ, they will eventually be forced to switch to monarchy or communism as well. Once, by paying very close attention, I noticed a civ I was at war with was in anarchy. Probably switchin from democracy to communism because of war weariness. I promptly signed alliances with all of its neighbors (I was on another island), and it lost one city to each neighboring civ before anarchy ended.

The different island problem definately hinders this strategy though. I will have to experiment and see if I can come up with a viable solution.

 

[Zachriel]

Set luxuries to 20% or so. This will compensate for military garrison's no longer affecting unhappiness. Then the switch to Republic should be much easier.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Set luxuries to 20% or so. This will compensate for military garrison's no longer affecting unhappiness. Then the switch to Republic should be much easier.

In some cases, though, that 20% plus the cost of having to pay for every unit, will be significantly more than the extra commerce gained in republic.

 

[Moo]

I don't find much use in keeping a computer around on your continent on Emperor level. In the Emperor games I have played, you can still do pretty everything like going for tech, military, wonders, and military at the same time without too many problems. I usually raze all the computer cities and build my own unless there is a useable wonder in the captured. I trade a few techs in the Ancient Age, and by the end of the Middle Ages, I am usually 1 or 2 techs ahead of the computers, all the while never setting the research rate over 60%. I never trade techs with the computer after the Ancient Age to always keep my military more advanced that theirs. I either buy them or trade luxuries. I save the massive D-Day style invasion until I get transports. By then I should be 4 to 5 techs ahead of the computer (should be only 1 major AI left at this point) and have been pumping out armies every 7 or 8 turns. I would land armies of Infantry on the computer as defense and use cavalry to take the cities. 3 Infantry armies should hold off anything the computer throws at you, and your cavalry will finish off the retreating fast units without suffering much damage. Since Infantry moves so slow in enemy territory, it's much better to load them onto the transport again and unload at the next enemy coastal city. Now, Deity is another story. I had to adapt to a very different playing style just to stay afloat like utilizing slave camps which I did not have to do on Emperor.