Mac C3C SG Pregame discussion thread

[Beamup]

Let's discuss strategy for the SG here before we get started, just so we're all on the same page. (Seems to me the poll thread would get too cluttered if we did this there.) I see the following questions we should address (many of these will obviously depend on the precise circumstances, but should be discussed anyway):

1. Do we want to do some early warmongering or not?

2. In general, do we want this to be a more peaceful or more aggressive game?

3. What should our initial research path be?

4. What about early Wonders?

My take:
1. I'm inclined to not. The JT isn't really a dominant warring unit - its major benefit isn't one that will win fights for us. Since I'm not a big fan of early wars anyway, and we'd start our GA very early by doing so, I'm inclined to hold off.

2. My thought is more peaceful. Possibly secure our starting continent (depending on the situation), maybe not much more. I'd envision going for Space or Diplomatic victories.

3. I feel very strongly that our first tech should be Warrior Code. It's cheap, and will allow us to get JTs out for defense and, hopefully, slaves. After that, we should go for Horseback Riding for an early war, or a Republic slingshot if we aren't doing that.

4. If we have a good opportunity (e.g. SGL) we can maybe pick up the Pyramids (note that this triggers our GA). Going for a Republic slingshot will put us in a good position to pick up the GLib or GLit if the game situation demands it. Otherwise (with one exception) we shouldn't think about them. They're either attached to techs off my proposed research paths so the AI will get them (Oracle, Colossus, likely ToA), attached to techs we have no reason to research (Hanging Gardens) or aren't worth building (GWall, MoM).

OTOH, if we have Ivory available, that's a big deal. Going for a Republic slingshot and starting with Masonry puts Mathematics in easy reach. So if we do have Ivory, I say we build the SoZ and go to town with Ancient Cavalry and JTs!

 

[Corwin of Amber]

Hey would you mind excluding jargon/abbreviations from these discussions so I could take part. In most other forums I've been in these things are generally discouraged anyway, because not everybody knows what you mean. Obviously if you write it out once, then put it in parentheses, that would suffice. Like in your above post you really lost me.

Thanks.

 

[Beamup]

Abbreviations and jargon are standard practice here, and on virtually all game forums I've ever heard of. So asking for them to be excluded is rather unrealistic.

You may find this page helpful. Other than that, the best way to go is to ask questions, potentially by private message.

 

[dojoboy]

1. I'm inclined to not. The JT isn't really a dominant warring unit - its major benefit isn't one that will win fights for us. Since I'm not a big fan of early wars anyway, and we'd start our GA very early by doing so, I'm inclined to hold off.

I agree, mainly due to triggering the early GA that we should avoid. But, If we compartmentalize, we could wage a limited war w/ archers/swordmen and isolate our JTs for spamming workers from redlined enemy units and barbs. Either way, we should set barbs at restless. We would risk, however, the chance for one of our JTs winning a defensive battle.

2. My thought is more peaceful. Possibly secure our starting continent (depending on the situation), maybe not much more. I'd envision going for Space or Diplomatic victories.

Again, I agree. I tend to build - wage limited war - build - wage limited war if necessary. I would lean toward a space-race victory. In fact, we could require that we hold off production until a rival has built 5/10 parts, which then may require us to raze their capital so we could win by space.

3. I feel very strongly that our first tech should be Warrior Code. It's cheap, and will allow us to get JTs out for defense and, hopefully, slaves. After that, we should go for Horseback Riding for an early war, or a Republic slingshot if we aren't doing that.

Although I usually go with the Republic slingshot, we don't need to do it. I like it because I can usually get a pretty good gpt deal from one of the civs, to allow research to remain at a high investment. At monarch, there is a better than average chance of not reaching philosophy first if we branch off. Also, Republic as a government isn't really viable until a substantial roadway is built, w/ a few marketplaces up and running.

4. If we have a good opportunity (e.g. SGL) we can maybe pick up the Pyramids (note that this triggers our GA). Going for a Republic slingshot will put us in a good position to pick up the GLib or GLit if the game situation demands it. Otherwise (with one exception) we shouldn't think about them. They're either attached to techs off my proposed research paths so the AI will get them (Oracle, Colossus, likely ToA), attached to techs we have no reason to research (Hanging Gardens) or aren't worth building (GWall, MoM).

I love SGLs. If there isn't a GW on the table we want if a SGL is generated, then let's hold it. If we were to rush the Pyramids, then let's be sure to be a Republic.

OTOH, if we have Ivory available, that's a big deal. Going for a Republic slingshot and starting with Masonry puts Mathematics in easy reach. So if we do have Ivory, I say we build the SoZ and go to town with Ancient Cavalry and JTs!

Absolutely!

 

[Beamup]

I agree, mainly due to triggering the early GA that we should avoid. But, If we compartmentalize, we could wage a limited war w/ archers/swordmen and isolate our JTs for spamming workers from redlined enemy units and barbs. Either way, we should set barbs at restless. We would risk, however, the chance for one of our JTs winning a defensive battle.

We can't build archers. I suppose we could do Swords/Horse, but that seems needlessly complex to me. Why bother with the Swords when JTs are almost as good? Really, if we're going to do early war, the only practical way is JTs+Horsemen IMO (unless we get Ivory ). Which we both agree isn't a great idea.

In fact, we could require that we hold off production until a rival has built 5/10 parts, which then may require us to raze their capital so we could win by space.

I suppose we could. Personally I'm disinclined to add variant restrictions on this particular game.

Although I usually go with the Republic slingshot, we don't need to do it. I like it because I can usually get a pretty good gpt deal from one of the civs, to allow research to remain at a high investment. At monarch, there is a better than average chance of not reaching philosophy first if we branch off. Also, Republic as a government isn't really viable until a substantial roadway is built, w/ a few marketplaces up and running.

True. But if our only detour is for Warrior Code, we can probably pull it off. The AI doesn't have all that big an advantage on Monarch - and they'll be researching at least another 5-6 techs before they get to Philosophy. The wildcard will be how much they trade techs among themselves - and IMX they don't do very much of that in the Ancient era. I really think we can do it, and even if we don't, the Writing branch is excellent trade fodder. There's a great upside if we pull it off, and very little downside.

I love SGLs. If there isn't a GW on the table we want if a SGL is generated, then let's hold it. If we were to rush the Pyramids, then let's be sure to be a Republic.

Agreed - we definitely don't want to waste our GA in Despotism. And since SGLs have no other function than rushing wonders (not one that works, anyway) of course we save them for that.

 

[dojoboy]

As the Mayan, WC is the right choice for first tech. Forgot that JTs replace the archer, so an early war is not preferred. We may then decide to go for Philosophy before CoL, which we then pick a free tech anyway, but not be able to select Republic. At least that is a route to enhance our chances of getting the free tech, rather than researching CoL first before Philosophy.

I'm not married to any restrictions on the SG - just throwing out ideas.

There are a few features different in C3C than Civ3. Two of which are that maps and communications cannot be traded until much later in the tech tree - Astronomy (Maps) and Printing Press (Communications). Therefore, we need to build scouts and really investigate our landmass.

Also, how do you guys want to space cities? I generally build at a 3 tile distance for production. But, if our aim is a space victory, then we will definitely have time to grow beyond that area. I rarely settle outward and fill in.

And, do we stay w/ Republic or change to Democracy when available? Since we're not a religious trait, I would lean toward remaining in republic.

 

[Metropolis Man]

Also, how do you guys want to space cities? I generally build at a 3 tile distance for production. But, if our aim is a space victory, then we will definitely have time to grow beyond that area. I rarely settle outward and fill in.

And, do we stay w/ Republic or change to Democracy when available? Since we're not a religious trait, I would lean toward remaining in republic.

This is what I have been doing lately with my city placements — Picture the capital as the center of a clock. My second city will either be at 12, 3, 6, or 9 o'clock...4 tiles away from the capital and one more tile left or right. I try and keep that pattern throughout the whole game. I've tried closer placements, but inevitably the AI come in quick and take too much land.

As far as government...you can't deny the benefits of democracy -- lower corruption and better worker efficiency. And it couldn't come at a better time — right before all those workers will start laying railroads. We want our entire civ railroaded ASAP to get the food and shield bonuses.

 

[Beamup]

I generally favor a CxxC or CxxxC spacing. Metropolis Man seems to be describing OCP, which is really too loose IMO. Wastes way too much land. Hopefully we can grab chokepoints and backfill - but we'll have to see the terrain to make firm spacing plans.

In terms of government, I think we should stay in Republic unless we conquer enough of the world that Communism is worth the anarchy. I don't really think a switch to Democracy will pay off enough to justify the lengthy anarchy. The corruption difference is minor, and it's not that easy for the faster workers to provide enough benefit to offset 6-7 turns of lost production. Especially when you have to research an extra tech to get the government in the first place.

 

[Metropolis Man]

I generally favor a CxxC or CxxxC spacing. Metropolis Man seems to be describing OCP, which is really too loose IMO. Wastes way too much land. Hopefully we can grab chokepoints and backfill - but we'll have to see the terrain to make firm spacing plans.

In terms of government, I think we should stay in Republic unless we conquer enough of the world that Communism is worth the anarchy. I don't really think a switch to Democracy will pay off enough to justify the lengthy anarchy. The corruption difference is minor, and it's not that easy for the faster workers to provide enough benefit to offset 6-7 turns of lost production. Especially when you have to research an extra tech to get the government in the first place.

We're on the same page with city spacing. Except instead of CxxxC I go out 4 tiles and then up or down one. This way there are fewer unused tiles.

Back to government. Republic is a strong government and always worth the arnarchy. But look at the big picture with democracy. At that point in the game when it becomes available, we'll probably have 15-20 cities and a huge amount of land. The task of railroading the entire area as quickly as possible is a big undertaking and will take many, many turns. If every worker is 50% more efficient (I don't remember exactly what the democracy benefit is) and you have 2-3 workers per city ready and waiting to begin once Steam Power is discovered, I can promise you that we will rocket ahead of the AI. IMO, there aren't many more important things than quickly railroading your civ once Steam Power is discovered. And the thing about the AI is they never build enough workers.

 

[Beamup]

We're on the same page with city spacing. Except instead of CxxxC I go out 4 tiles and then up or down one. This way there are fewer unused tiles.

It seems I may be misunderstanding what you mean by "go out four tiles." When you say that, I envision

xxxxxC
Cxxxxx

i.e. a four-tile gap and put it on the fifth row. Do you mean a three tile gap and put it on the fourth row? If so, I agree and apologize for misinterpreting.

Back to government. Republic is a strong government and always worth the arnarchy. But look at the big picture with democracy. At that point in the game when it becomes available, we'll probably have 15-20 cities and a huge amount of land. The task of railroading the entire area as quickly as possible is a big undertaking and will take many, many turns. If every worker is 50% more efficient (I don't remember exactly what the democracy benefit is) and you have 2-3 workers per city ready and waiting to begin once Steam Power is discovered, I can promise you that we will rocket ahead of the AI. IMO, there aren't many more important things than quickly railroading your civ once Steam Power is discovered. And the thing about the AI is they never build enough workers.

The problem is the anarchy. Look at it this way. If we revolt to Democracy, we're going to lose 6-7 turns of production to the anarchy. Whereas, if we devoted our entire civ to Worker production for 6-7 turns, we'd easily increase our Worker population by a lot more than 50% (which is, indeed, the Democracy bonus). And we'd lose a lot less in terms of economy, too. Merge those Workers back into the cities after the RRs are complete, and we've got several turns of extra research (even after paying for the Workers), several turns of extra production, an extra tech (since we didn't bother researching Democracy) and the RRs got built just as fast. (We've probably also got more population, too.)

The bottom line is that, yes, 50% better worker efficiency is a major bonus. But losing 6-7 turns (often more!) to anarchy is a HUGE penalty. The workers just can't make up for it. Being Democratic while we're building railroads will indeed gain a good bit on the AI. But we'd have fallen behind by more than that by holding another revolution.

P.S. If I recall correctly, the Industrious and Democracy bonuses add instead of multiplying. So we end up at 200% of base speed instead of 225%, and end up only gaining one-third - i.e. it takes 3 worker turns to build a RR instead of 4. Not that impressive.

 

[Metropolis Man]

It seems I may be misunderstanding what you mean by "go out four tiles." When you say that, I envision

xxxxxC
Cxxxxx

i.e. a four-tile gap and put it on the fifth row. Do you mean a three tile gap and put it on the fourth row? If so, I agree and apologize for misinterpreting.


The problem is the anarchy. Look at it this way. If we revolt to Democracy, we're going to lose 6-7 turns of production to the anarchy. Whereas, if we devoted our entire civ to Worker production for 6-7 turns, we'd easily increase our Worker population by a lot more than 50% (which is, indeed, the Democracy bonus). And we'd lose a lot less in terms of economy, too. Merge those Workers back into the cities after the RRs are complete, and we've got several turns of extra research (even after paying for the Workers), several turns of extra production, an extra tech (since we didn't bother researching Democracy) and the RRs got built just as fast. (We've probably also got more population, too.)

The bottom line is that, yes, 50% better worker efficiency is a major bonus. But losing 6-7 turns (often more!) to anarchy is a HUGE penalty. The workers just can't make up for it. Being Democratic while we're building railroads will indeed gain a good bit on the AI. But we'd have fallen behind by more than that by holding another revolution.

P.S. If I recall correctly, the Industrious and Democracy bonuses add instead of multiplying. So we end up at 200% of base speed instead of 225%, and end up only gaining one-third - i.e. it takes 3 worker turns to build a RR instead of 4. Not that impressive.

Hey, I'm certainly not married democracy. Whatever everyone else wants to do is fine. 6-7 turns of anarchy is too long for sure. I never have 6-7 turns of anarchy. One thing I've noticed is depending on how happy your people are BEFORE you thrown your civ into anarchy can affect how many turns it will take before your civ stabilizes again. Can anyone confirm this notion?
C
Oh, and my idea of city placement is not as you have it above. It's Cxxxx or Cxxxx
C

Note: the spaces didn't work out when I edited this. Basically, you're going out four tiles and then up or down one. I'm not sure if I can make it any clearer.

 

[Beamup]

You never have 6-7 turns of anarchy to a late government? I never have less! Sometimes I've had a 10-turn anarchy.

Too bad there's no way to predict the anarchy length. (Unless we want to take the highly cheap method of revolting before we start research on Democracy, then reloading.)

 

[Metropolis Man]

You never have 6-7 turns of anarchy to a late government? I never have less! Sometimes I've had a 10-turn anarchy.

Too bad there's no way to predict the anarchy length. (Unless we want to take the highly cheap method of revolting before we start research on Democracy, then reloading.)

Well, I'm pretty sure I haven't. How happy do you keep your people? Is there any truth to my thinking about happy people won't revolt as long? Where do you keep your entertainment slider?

 

[Beamup]

Generally I keep most of my civ on the edge of revolt since anything between even happy/unhappy and WLTKD is wasted. Which is consistent with your theory. But I'm still skeptical, since I have a hard time believing that something like that wouldn't be common knowledge by now.

Edit: I've been doing a good bit of searching for this. I can find no hint that happiness has any effect on anarchy length, and I find plenty of outright statements that nothing changes it but luck, number of cities, and religious. In the course of this search, it's also become pretty clear that the concensus among the top players is "you should never, ever, use Democracy unless maybe if you're Religious."

Notable threads I've come across:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=118481
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=108556
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96167
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94975

It also seems I must have been wrong about seeing a 10 turn anarchy, the max is supposedly 9. Must have seen the 9 and thought 1 turn was already over, or something like that. My bad.

 

[Metropolis Man]

Generally I keep most of my civ on the edge of revolt since anything between even happy/unhappy and WLTKD is wasted. Which is consistent with your theory. But I'm still skeptical, since I have a hard time believing that something like that wouldn't be common knowledge by now.

Decisions, decisions. That's what makes Civ such a great game. Keeping your civ on the edge of revolt means you have far fewer happy people which is a direct impact on final score. But you probably have more money to research quicker if you're not putting into entertainment so finishing the game earlier also impacts score.

As I said, I'm game for whatever tact people want to take. This will be my first SG, so I'm still a bit unsure exactly how to proceed once it begins. Is it basically that the moderator posts a start file and all participants to a 20-turn shot at that starting position? And then, do we all make a group decision as to who's in the best shape after 20 turns?

 

[Beamup]

The usual approach is like this:

Leader/Moderator/whatever you want to call it makes the start and posts it.
Everyone takes a look and discusses initial strategy.
Leader plays 20 turns.
Rotation begins.

 

[Metropolis Man]

The usual approach is like this:

Leader/Moderator/whatever you want to call it makes the start and posts it.
Everyone takes a look and discusses initial strategy.
Leader plays 20 turns.
Rotation begins.

Ah, I see. The leader plays 20 turns, then it's someone elses turn (not everyones). More discussion. Then another person and so on.

Thanks for links. I guess I'll rethink changing to democracy in my own games in the future.

 

[frunobulax]

Re. City Placement and the Seven City RCP Plan

First of all, it is all somewhat academic depending on terrain. In an almost ideal world I always go for a "Seven City RCP" (Ring City Placement) Plan as per the illustration below - apologies for low quality, but hope it's clear enough. The advantage is that you maximize city placement with only 4 tiles being 'claimed' by any two cities - i.e. three cities a maximum potential, four losing 1 tile each. I've put arrows pointing to the 4 "dual-claim" tiles, with the arrow originating from the city that loses the tile in question.

In the illustration, the Capital, City 2 and City 5 are all at maximum tile allocation, whilst Cities 3, 4, 6 and 7 each lose 1 tile.

If we're aiming for a Spaceship Victory I would vote for this scheme to max-out our Civ's core cities production potential! Obviously, terrain type, rivers/coastal positions and the placement of the capital city is the ABSOLUTE KEY to making this work - i.e. checking where future cities in a Seven City RCP Plan would fall etc.

Also, I do often go for the odd 'outpost' city placed way beyond this projected central core, to block off rival AI expansion and/or to claim valuable resources I can see at that point in the game.

 

[Beamup]

The first problem is that almost half our land would be completely unused until Hospitals, which hugely slows us down.

The second problem is that RCP doesn't provide any benefit in C3C.

Now, I'd be open to founding those cities plus others in the same area to use the rest of the land. Then, when we get Hospitals, the fillers transfer their population to the major cities and are abandoned. I've never gotten a chance to actually try that trick, but it's really the only way to use OCP without crippling yourself early on.

 

[AlanH]

Re. City placement:

1. The RCP loophole was closed in Conquests, so there is no rank corruption advantage to putting all cities on equal-distance rings around the capital in Conquests.

2. You can only work 12 tiles per city during the first 200 turns before you research Sanitation. You'll typically have about 25 techs left to research at that point. If you are optimising your space race date you should learn those techs in 100 turns or so. So if you space your cities as far apart as your diagam shows you will:

(a) waste 8 tiles per city for 2/3 of the game
(b) have further to travel between cities when building them and roading them and defending them
(c) have to build temples in every city just to join up the edges of your territory.
(d) suffer higher distance corruption.

All of the above will slow down your economy during the critical early game when you want to maximise precious resources to build the infrastructure you will use later on for fast research.

I recommend building at approximate radius 4 for a space race game. You can even abandon cities later in the game if you *really* insist on making space for big cities. But with careful pre-building you should be able to build the space ship parts as soon as the techs required are completed regardless of the sizes of your cities.

[X-Posted with Beamup. What he said ]