Massive Despot Rush strategy

[BillChin]

Yes, Expansionist is good for early rushing as you get a scout to find your enemies. Granaries are a must for slave camps. As for the other post about cumulative effects, yes, this is true and any city that is used as a slave camp is limited in usefulness. After the Despot/slavery era, limit the slave camps to pop two or three and build cultural improvements: Temple, Library, Cathedral.

For those that find slave camps and whipping citizens to death distasteful, there is another way. I posted my method under the thread Fast Build out. Basically, it involves building cities very close together. This gives you almost as much early production as slave camps without using the whip. I use the term "magic square" to describe my method as ideal placement for first cities is two squares diagonal from the capital.

There is another way, and it is very effective. I just tried out the "magic square" on Emperor difficulty and the dense pack build works, even with mediocre land. I will probably never go back to using slave camps.

Originally posted by mavraam
I was wondering whether it would make sense to use an Expansionist Civ for this strat since they start out with Pottery which is a pre-requisite for building the Granary?

If so, what would be the second most important attribute for the Civ?

I like Militaristic so that implies Zulu as the logical choice. Anyone else have a better idea?

 

[AceSteveC]

Well Eliezar, unlike yourself (unless you actually slept through the classes) I've actually been educated in statistics. You are countering my logic with vague "statistics" that clearly aren't even being counted in a statistical manner. Instead of tossing 100 coins and then counting the sets of 7 consecutive heads etc. try just flipping a coin 7 times, then flip a coin another 7 times etc. Do this 100 times and then tell me how many of those 100 sets of 7 were either all heads or all tails. That would be a correctly done statistical test. It would however not nearly be enough to make a representative sample and would be quite pointless, except to suggest to yourself that you are indeed wrong, as the actual odds are a mathematical certainty as I described before, even if the results themselves are not.

 

[macaskil]

Re: unlikely combat outcomes

There are cases in history of technologically inferior units beating superior ones

9AD - Varus defeated by Germans under Arminius

1879 Isandlhwana - Zulu impis armed with spears overwhelmed a British force armed with modern rifles

Korea - Chinese forces chased the UN all the way from the Yalu to beyond Seoul

also in a celebrated case a British piston engined fighter (a Seafire - Navy version of a Spitfire) shot down a MIG.

Vietnam - US bombed the hell out of North Vietnam but still lost to poorly equipped forces

The Bismark was sunk by inferior forces due to a torpedo dropped from a Swordfish aircraft (an old-fashioned biplane) damaging its rudder

Mujaheddin with World War II armaments saw off the Soviets

And people armed with letter openers destroyed part of the Pentagon without the US forces firing a shot!

It does happen - though perhaps the civ3 algorithms could be adjusted so that, say "Industrial" units have an extra advantage over "Medieval". However with civ3edit we can do this ourselves by upping the attack values!

It seems odd to me, for example, that a tank is no faster than cavalry.

 

[Mesopotamia]

Originally posted by macaskil
Re: unlikely combat outcomes

There are cases in history of technologically inferior units beating superior ones

[...]

Vietnam - US bombed the hell out of North Vietnam but still lost to poorly equipped forces

[...]

Mujaheddin with World War II armaments saw off the Soviets


[...]

Uh, let's get rid of the revisionism here.

The American-Vietnam war was a military victory, but a political defeat. There was practically nothing left of NVA/VC after Tet, but the Tet Offensive made such a huge impression that it stirred up huge political feeling.

As for the Soviet-Afghan war, remember that the insurgents were empowered by the US. It's not as if they did it by themselves. (The same could be said for Vietnam, for that matter.)

If you want to play this game, how about:

Various centuries, AD: Vandals, Goths, others defeat Rome

1588: Gravelines -- British fleet defeats Spanish Armada commanded by Duke of Sedonia

1776: American Revolution -- Continental forces defeat massively stronger British forces.

1805: Trafalgar -- Adm. Horatio Nelson's British fleet defeats superior, combined, French/Spanish fleet.

1942: WWII/Battle of Midway -- US Navy Task Forces 16 and 17 defeat Japanese fleet using smaller forces (with aid of codebreaking and luck)

1944: WWII/D-Day -- Allied forces land 8 divisions on "Fortress Europe."

 

[mavraam]

Originally posted by Mesopotamia


Uh, let's get rid of the revisionism here.

As for the Soviet-Afghan war, remember that the insurgents were empowered by the US. It's not as if they did it by themselves. (The same could be said for Vietnam, for that matter.)

I couldn't agree with you more!

I'd also like to point out in reference to the Soviet-Afghan war the following:
1) The Soviets took control of all Afghan cities in approximately 30 days.
2) The Afghans put up partisan resistance with training and equipment from the US for 10 years but were never able to drive the invaders out of a SINGLE city.
3) Over those 10 years, the Soviets lost 20,000 men, the Afghans lost 1,000,000. (Some victory)
4) After 10 pointless years, the Soviets because of a collapsing economy and massive internal resistance, withdrew from Afghanistan.

Of course, you don't hear it that way on CNN. Not when they are too busy trying to sensationalize the conflict and paint our enemy as a viable threat ("They beat the mighty Soviet Army, will we be next?!!! Tune in tonight on CNN...") to our military as apposed to a band of ruthless, dishonorable cowards with no hope or prayer of standing up to our technology and training.

Also in Vietnam the final casualty count was:
US - 65,000
Vietname 3,500,000

Funny how the press and some historians likes to leave out these minor details when declaring the results of a war!

Back to the point of all of this, in the real world, in the vast majority of conflicts, even a small technological edge gave that side an overwhelming advantage. This is not correctly reflected in Civ 3. No old tech land unit should be able to even dent the armor of a tank. But then again, this is just a game !

 

[mavraam]

I started a game (mini-map, 1 land mass, Americans) last night. Right away it was clear there would be no easy place to build a despot rush city right away. Since I have been creamed a few times because I delayed my first city too long waiting for the perfect spot, I decided to drop anchor right away and start building the old fashioed way.

As I explored, I found 3 'dream sites' (flood plain with wheat). I plopped down a warior on each one to guard it and cranked out a settler.

Eventually, I had 1 main city that was fairly well developed and 3 'slave camps'. I used the slave camps to crank out military, settlers, or workers when I needed them and built all of my other cities the normal way but without the burden of cranking out those kinds of units. I used the slave camps to populate the new cites with workers when needed and shields via horsemen when needed.

I've caught back up to the other civs by doing this and I've conquered France (made the mistake of popping up a settlement next to MY iron supply!) and am on the way to England. I'm also first in culture because of my ability to use extra shields to build quickly and am the only civ to complete a wonder. And since I confined my despot rush to just 3 cities, the rest of my kingdom is happy and well developed for the long term war. I still lag in science but when my war is over and I cash in some of my military for shields and to free up money, I think I can catch up quickly.

This seems to work pretty well when a good slave location doesn't lend itself early.

 

[Hobbes]

I have not tried the magic square yet, and I will give it a try. I have found great success with the whip though, and the only drawback seems to be the mood of the citizens in the towns were the whip was used extensively.

 

[Hobbes]

Originally posted by AceSteveC
... Instead of tossing 100 coins and then counting the sets of 7 consecutive heads etc. try just flipping a coin 7 times, then flip a coin another 7 times etc. Do this 100 times and then tell me how many of those 100 sets of 7 were either all heads or all tails. That would be a correctly done statistical test. ...

I have to disagree with AceSteveC, 100 trials would be monotonous, 30 trials would be more than sufficient.

 

[Gosemys]

i dont get this. ofcourse crappy units can beat really good units, but thats not the issue.

IT HAPPENS TOO OFTEN IN CIV3!

 

[Tejoe]

Just remember that statistics is not an absolute predictor of the future.

Flip a coin and get 7 heads in a row...

What is your chance of getting a head on the next flip?

50%

 

[Gosemys]

Originally posted by Tejoe
Just remember that statistics is not an absolute predictor of the future.

Flip a coin and get 7 heads in a row...

What is your chance of getting a head on the next flip?

50%

this applies only on the paper. try this in reality and youll see that your chances of getting those 7 in a row diminishes quite fast as you throw the coin?

ok, its 50%. but what are the chances to do it again?

(this will prolly get every math lover out there to whoop my ass, but this is what i believe...)

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Eliezar
Its hard to fall far behind in tech in a despot rush game. You should continually be getting tech for peace and have a cultural advantage.

I guess I must not be doing something right then....

I'm using Marla's World Map with the correct civ placements (My civ is the Aztec). I'm on Chieftain mode, and 2670 BC, and I'm still 14 turns away from discovering Bronze Working!!!

(I selected no rival civs, since I'm practicing...).
Atleast I have Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana explored!

I also have 2 workers trying to make the land workable (and two warriors). Plus, my city takes 10 turns to grow one pop., not 1-2...

...11 years, and I'm *STILL* doing pathetic on Chieftain mode... pathetic, isn't it?

 

[Chieftess]

Well, I haven't gotten any responses... (I know the patch is out tomorrow, but I still have v1.16f).

So, at which turn (in Cheftain mode, atleast), should you have your first settler using the pop-rush strategy? (or what year atleast). I'm in 2390BC (Marla's map v1.17, Chinese), and I just have a settler ready the "next turn", city size of 3 now, and it's not coming out!

 

[Bamspeedy]

So, at which turn (in Cheftain mode, atleast), should you have your first settler using the pop-rush strategy? (or what year atleast). I'm in 2390BC (Marla's map v1.17, Chinese), and I just have a settler ready the "next turn", city size of 3 now, and it's not coming out!

I may be mistaken, but I thought on Marla's latest map, she changed one of the rules involving the settler. It uses 3 citizens (instead of two), so you have to be up to a size 4 town before being able to complete the settler. The reason for this was to slow down the AI expansion (since they like to settle EVERWHERE!), and to make cities much more valuable, since it takes longer to build them. You'll have to read the read-me file you got with that download, or check that thread again to make sure this is the case.

 

[spire]

I have tried this stratedgy a couple of times on Emperor level and I just cannot get it to work properly. I find that I wind up with so much unhappiness in my cities that do it that I wind up with all (usually 2) citizen as entertainors so that the city does not go into civil disorder. I have a temple and a luxury coming into it as well as 40% luxuries. Is there something else that I should try also? Am I miissing something? What is the tactic on the harder skill levels?

 

[kingdarius]

1. Stay in Despotism
2. Always keep a military garrison.

I don't know if you caught this trick elsewhere on this thread, but to erase the memory effect of past ill treatment simply give your city to an enemy, attack and raze it, then build a new city. Presto, happy city again.

 

[DaveMcW]

Can this thread be locked? Pop rushing has been greatly changed in recent patches, making the old strategies obsolete.