Large empires tech way too fast, and Ghandi needs help.

[cephalo]

For a military or science victory, there's no such thing as overexpansion. Once you reach a certain size early enough you are unstoppable. Your only hindrance is gold at that point.

So I tried playing as Ghandi, who I think is the only leader who has an actual disadvantage as a trait, and I haven't been able to prevent some neighbor from destroying everyone else on the continent and getting a huge tech lead from all those cities.

In my current game I focused early on military stuff because I knew I would be picked on eventually. I have five huge cities like I'm supposed to have. I got the great wall and himeji castle and this did wonders for me for a long while. Catharine had most of the rest of the continent after taking out Songhai and Aztec and was throwing dozens of units at my defenses for most of history. The fact that I killed probably 100+ of her units in all seemed to have no consequence. I only had two iron which effectively stopped me from going on offense.

Now, we have now reached a point where she has artillery and infantry against my riflemen and cannons, and now it's game over. My huge front line city ended up surrounded and smashed by artillery from three squares out, and all my units are gone.

The thing I wonder is, is it really feasable to try and win with a small empire? There are really many disadvantages to this. For one thing, you will not have access to resources because your empire is small.

The lack of luxuries hurts your happiness and your gold income. If you build trading posts then your cities don't grow and in the case of Ghandi that nullifies your pitiful happiness trait. If you don't have extra income you can't make alliances with city states.

The lack of strategic resources is also a huge disadvantage. One thing I learned in my current game that devestated me is that while you can trade for strategic resources and build units from them...

If the trade agreement ends for some reason all the units you built receive a -50% combat penalty.

Trading for resources is not a recipe for military success. Don't do it unless you want to see your military melt away at exactly the wrong time.

So anyway, has anyone had success in winning with a small empire?

 

[Malecite]

Thank you for just describing in painful detail what happens to me EVERY FUC@KING TIME I play this game. 1 computer is able to devour all the USELESS others until it has such a absurd tech lead that it gets artillery. Not only is artillery a singular death sentence but the comps can INSTANTLY purchase them when you try to invade. The 1 super civ always has a good 10k sitting in their bloated bank accounts to artillery purchases are pretty easy.

From what I've been reading the only reliable way to win this game is to take advantage of the computers ******ation early game and follow a military path to victory every time. Forget diplomacy as you cant win against the mega monster that pops up from the AI being too stupid to defend themselves properly.

 

[cembandit]

Ive been wondering if the AI does the rage quit bug with other AI

There always seems to be one guy who eats them all.

 

[Giant Dwarf]

Well, isolated starts on continent maps can turn out okay if you have lots of city states to deal with. You can ally with maritime city states for food and resources. plus, you only have to worry about barbarians. But you're right: if you're surrounded by large war mongering nations, you're screwed.

Btw does the double unhappiness from # of cities count for puppets too?

 

[Jet082]

I would assume that befriending city-states would be the way to go, then. At least that way you can get a hold of luxury resources that aren't within your borders. However, there's not much you can do when you can't get access to strategic resources.

 

[aryah]

gandhi should have a substantial advantage in as long as the cities are at least larger than 4 pop, however large his empire grew. It should be only a REX disadvantage. Though I guess you choose to have a small empire, and comment on that basis, so I guess you're right.

 

[Drago Askani]

I find with 6-8 cities my science machine is unstoppable already. Sure if I get forced into a war I get more beakers, but when I have created 2 dedicated science type cities that are pumping out over 140 beakers per turn and the rest of the cities are pumpingout 20-60 each...yeah baby yeah (queues austin powers)

 

[UKScud]

For a military or science victory, there's no such thing as overexpansion. Once you reach a certain size early enough you are unstoppable. Your only hindrance is gold at that point.

So I tried playing as Ghandi, who I think is the only leader who has an actual disadvantage as a trait, and I haven't been able to prevent some neighbor from destroying everyone else on the continent and getting a huge tech lead from all those cities.

In my current game I focused early on military stuff because I knew I would be picked on eventually. I have five huge cities like I'm supposed to have. I got the great wall and himeji castle and this did wonders for me for a long while. Catharine had most of the rest of the continent after taking out Songhai and Aztec and was throwing dozens of units at my defenses for most of history. The fact that I killed probably 100+ of her units in all seemed to have no consequence. I only had two iron which effectively stopped me from going on offense.

Now, we have now reached a point where she has artillery and infantry against my riflemen and cannons, and now it's game over. My huge front line city ended up surrounded and smashed by artillery from three squares out, and all my units are gone.

The thing I wonder is, is it really feasable to try and win with a small empire? There are really many disadvantages to this. For one thing, you will not have access to resources because your empire is small.

The lack of luxuries hurts your happiness and your gold income. If you build trading posts then your cities don't grow and in the case of Ghandi that nullifies your pitiful happiness trait. If you don't have extra income you can't make alliances with city states.

The lack of strategic resources is also a huge disadvantage. One thing I learned in my current game that devestated me is that while you can trade for strategic resources and build units from them...

If the trade agreement ends for some reason all the units you built receive a -50% combat penalty.

Trading for resources is not a recipe for military success. Don't do it unless you want to see your military melt away at exactly the wrong time.

So anyway, has anyone had success in winning with a small empire?

Haven't done the science or military victory yet, but your point about size being the winning factor is unfortunately true. However, I don't think this is specific to Civ 5. You could pretty much gaurantee the win the same way in Civ 4 too, there was just a certain size when the win was all but inevitable, and all that could get in way was another Civ reaching a Cultural civtory or just pipping you to the Science victory.

As for Gandhi, I have no problem with him at all...I played him last game because i had had problems in my first game with Elizabeth and unhappiness. I wanted the bonus to see if I could alleviate some of those problems, and develop a high population, mid-sized empire, and get a few more social policies. Only went into unhappiness (and barely) for a turn or two in the entire game, which I won on a dipolomatic victory but after I kind of broke my own rules when America started getting expansionist ideas with my CS buddies...and the genocidal war and razing of the entire Aztec civilization...meh, just because I could...the AI sucked btw. I had enough of a tech lead that when it quickly threw all its units at me I blew them away and then I just waltzed down and cannoned all the cities to death. Happy days

Now, what do you call a small empire? 5 or fewer? 6-8? Remember that there will be a difference between small (as in few cities) and compact (as in spaced closely together). That small number of cities can be pretty spread out in an attempt to garner as many resources as possible, and in my Gandhi game, I never connected my capital with my empire by road, just seaports (as the excessive road network of the conquered territories in my previous game had crippled my economy...lesson learned, keep those workers around to rip up the roads, let those conquered peasants walk!). I got 4 or 5 luxury resources straight away by spreading out like that. The rest I earned by trading duplicates with other nations and doing favours for City States....mind you, that's what led to my expanding beyond small empire status. Sidon had a very nice gold resource, and Venice wanted them dead...and my future allies had 6 iron they were just busting to give me. It was too tempting.

So...I don't agree with most of what you've written..I think there is a chance for the small empire...probably not so much on the higher difficulty levels, but at lower levels I think that with care and discipline it is possible although it would be tough to acheive due to the fact that science development is now so intrinsicly linked with population, and yes, keeping those CS allies would be tough unless you somehow have the funds.

One big thing that we do agree on is your last point about trading resources...I've had that happen to me too in my first game...with coal. I found that pillaging helps as each developed city can pay for at least 250 gold worth of gifts to my CS allies who give me resources...just got to pick the right ones, and keep feeding them cash.

Have I won with a small empire? No...but its sure going to be a lot of fun trying

 

[Vatras]

You can win with a small empire, because I just did (space victory, I couldn't finish the 5th tree for a social victory in time). And with small I mean 8-10 cities on a standard map.

My first game was (in hindsight) easier to win, when I conquered with Bismarck's furor teutonicus till I hit the happiness snare. As I found out, you can get out of the trap (I was at -45), and recover after 50-60 turns. It is probably easier than that, because I didn't think of burning my great generals for golden ages to pull through. Once a large empire is rolling, you can achieve total domination, even without certain strategic resources.
I don't know (yet), if the "unhappy empire" concept I read about on this board works, but the regular approach can (requires a lot of micro-management, though).

I am not sure you can win a regular game with only five cities, unless by pure chance the terrain favors you.

 

[Drago Askani]

Anothing important concept. Forgotten Palace + the 50% less unhappy from population policy = 0 unhappy from # of cities. so op!

 

[Monadenia]

You can win with a small empire, because I just did (space victory, I couldn't finish the 5th tree for a social victory in time). And with small I mean 8-10 cities on a standard map.

8-10 was a decent-sized empire back in Civ IV. When I think small empires in Civ V, I think of ~3-4 cities. I've won Cultural with 4 cities, Diplomatic with 4 cities, and Science with 7 cities (this still seemed like a lot).

 

[King Jason]

So anyway, has anyone had success in winning with a small empire?

I've won a few OCC's so far, but haven't tried india. Give me your settings (difficulty, map type, size, etc) and I'll see how I do.

Also, I'll try and do a victory other than cultural.. because that's the shoe-in for small empires.

 

[alpaca]

Anothing important concept. Forgotten Palace + the 50% less unhappy from population policy = 0 unhappy from # of cities. so op!

Yeah it only brings Gandhi down to normal unfortunately. India is, nevertheless, very powerful. If you go for Theocracy you only get 30% of the number of population penalty, and if you also go for Legalism, none at all in Delhi. In general, his ability starts becoming an advantage once the new city you found reaches a population of 5 (other civs have 2 + 5 while Gandhi has 4 + 2) - a requirement which virtually all cities fulfill.

I'm not sure any victory besides domination by abusing combat AI is "feasible" right now, but it's possible to win the game with a small empire. I did today on a small map, emperor difficulty, to get the Bollywood achievement with only 3 cities. The key is to have a defensible position and race to artillery ASAP. I had Nappy and Augustus next to me, Nappy was at war with us most of the time but I had a good defensible position and Augustus blocking a large part of the front.

When Nappy got artillery before me (and had peace with Caesar at the time) I hit a rough spot for a while but I was already on a good way towards my own dynamites. Seriously, artillery is such a huge step up over cannons it's quite incredible.

 

[NZV]

I've mostly been playing with smaller empires on Prince. 3-4 cities. I find that gold and happiness are a lot easier to come by than they were with my giant Roman empire. It's also just a lot easier to manage and defend. Plus, having more gold means that you can rush buy way more units, and no matter where you purchase that unit, it's pretty close to all of your cities, further making defense a simple task.

 

[Grimo]

This is definitely untrue, especially for Gandhi. I played a game on prince trying to get a feel for the cultural victory while limiting myself to 3 cities. I reached modern era when the other civs haven't even reached industrial. I never started any wars, nor build much science infrastructure. All I had was like libraries at most, oracle, and porcelain tower. My city sizes when I first reached modern era was like 26 for my capital, and around 15-16 for my second and third cities. The largest AI had about 15 cities, and two others had about ~10 each, yet I was able to out tech them easily without even planning much for it. I built some Mech Inf once I was so ahead in tech and was able to pretty much wipe out anyone I wanted to. Also, I never used the Rationalism SP tree but the Scholaticism in Patronage does help a ton.

Yeah, it's on Prince, but at least it shows that without AI bonuses, a small empire shouldn't have a problem keeping tech pace with larger ones.

 

[Celevin]

India doesn't expand slow, India expands just as fast as the rest of them. Once you reach city size 4, you're at the break-even point. Don't feel the need to stop after 3 or 4 cities.

 

[Ahriman]

I've had success with India and a small Empire.

I had a game (Immortal difficulty) on a standard size continents map. I took out England early, and had London as my only coastal city (Delhi and Mumbai were river monstrosity powerhouses).

Then had sustained wars against a very aggressive Egypt. I had a great defensive line of rough terrain behind a river, where I used fortified spearmen as block guards, and then war elephant machine guns (blitz promotion) to rip their stuff apart. Got a ton of great generals, used several for golden ages to help power the economy.
Got into a pattern: Egypt declares war, I defend and destroy their army at my defensive line, then I head forward and raze a couple of cities, then make peace (including demanding their luxuries).
Did this a few times, and then Egypt was so wrecked that they were no longer a threat all game.

Razing cities, and pillaging improvements (trading posts!) gives a *lot* of gold. You can let them build and repair stuff, then go burn it all down. Eventually kept one of their cities, which had a lot of resources, which I traded all game.

Greece was on a separate island, there was another island with some city states, and then China, Rome and Iroquios on another continent. China got eaten by the other two, and then they were big powerhouses remaining, of equal size (and well ahead of me on score).
Keeping a small military, I was able to power on in my own continent without anymore threat. Greece wasn't particularly strong, and then the two superpowers kept asking me to go to war with them, which I refused. Neither would come invade me, possibly knowing that shipping their army across the ocean would leave them totally vulnerable to the other.

Eventually got a cultural victory in late 20th century. Massive happiness + Piety powers a lot of golden ages and cultural development.

So its possible.

However, its not really optimal. There are too many mechanics favoring large empire over small one.
a) Easy to get massive science from a large empire with base pop + library, and then massive gold from trade routes.
b) City growth takes ridiculous amounts of food above 14 or so, so a few big cities grow very slowly. With a few cities, your total population is always much smaller than with a large empire.
c) It *seems* like a smaller pop makes it incredibly expensive to field a large military. I wonder if military maintenance costs are linked to supply limit, which is linked to population?
d) Maritime city states don't help a small empire much.

So, possible? Sure, but not the best way. India is still better off playing with a large empire than a small one. For any city over size 4, India's UA is still a bonus.

 

[History_Buff]

gandhi should have a substantial advantage in as long as the cities are at least larger than 4 pop, however large his empire grew. It should be only a REX disadvantage. Though I guess you choose to have a small empire, and comment on that basis, so I guess you're right.

Yeah, after I played my first game as England, and was being hit pretty hard by unhappiness, I thought long and hard about that happiness factor. With large empires, you still wind up with far more unhappiness from raw pop than from a city count. Like 3-4 times more. I'm not playing as Gandhi, and am of the opinion that he might have the best trait in the game.

 

[andrewlt]

Yeah, after I played my first game as England, and was being hit pretty hard by unhappiness, I thought long and hard about that happiness factor. With large empires, you still wind up with far more unhappiness from raw pop than from a city count. Like 3-4 times more. I'm not playing as Gandhi, and am of the opinion that he might have the best trait in the game.

Completely agree. I played Catherine first and I think it's actually one of the best traits in the game. The unhappiness from number of cities is nowhere close from the unhappiness from population, especially in the late game. Not to mention each city can counter the unhappiness from number of cities easily by building a colosseum.

You can't build anything to counter unhappiness from population, since by the time you reach 15+ population, you're going to run out of buildings to counter that population with and the maintenance costs of later happiness buildings is larger.

Good thing Gandhi's UB is kinda crappy or he'll be a complete powerhouse.

 

[QuothTheRaven]

Gandhi is a complete monster with huge empires, since he actually gets *less* unhappiness per city once they're established, which means that he's really well suited to warmongering and conquering vast amounts of land (ironically).

Add in the Forbidden palace and you're good to go. Case in point: right now I'm finishing up a win as England on Immortal, and I have ~35 cities, with these unhappiness numbers:

Unhappiness from number of cities: 5 (puppets/annexed without courthouse)
Unhappiness from population: 445 (!)


As long as Gandhi's trait doesn't cripple you in the early game, his trait is insanely good. Last game I played on Continents, the Gandhi AI conquered everyone and had half of the map in his massive empire.