My opening starts - why do these stink?

[Begbie]

Hi all,

First post, so take it easy on me.

I purchased Civ 3 on November 4, after loving the first two. I am currently trying to play Regent level (seems fair for someone who isn't very good at the game but wants a challenge without handicaps).

Playing as the Americans on Huge Earth (located in Europe start), I used my normal start:

Base: Warrior, Spearman, Settler, Temple, Settler

Others: 2xdefense (either Warrior or Settler), Temple, Settler

I grew to about 8 cities right away and was decently powerful, advanced, and cultured.

Problem is, I got blown away by the Aztecs.

Is there a stock opening for cities? I'm looking to develop a peaceful, advanced society (rather than war mongering) and I generally follow the Primasoft Passive/Peaceful technology pursuit tree.

Also, as I like figuring this stuff out on my own too, is there any methodology people have found useful to test openings? What key variables to you test (people, location, etc.)?

Thanks,

Begbie

ps: Great chat program!

 

[dedmonds]

I see a couple things you could tweak to improve your start:

1. Expansionistic rocks. If playing the Americans, build a couple of scouts right off to go find lots of huts. This will give you an early tech edge, and maybe a couple of extra settlers. (I though expanstionistic would suck until I played my first expansionistic civ; now I love it).

2. Workers workers workers. I try to have at least one worker for every city, though in the early game, you can get away with fewer, as your city pops will be pretty low.

3. More settlers. Your first 2-3 cities should probably produce 2-3 settlers each, otherwise the AI empire will absolutely dwarf yours in a hurry. After that you can slow down.

4. Don't stop at 8 cities, especially on a large map. Your opponents will have 20 in no time, and you can support that many pretty easily.

That's off the top of my head....

 

[Begbie]

One of the things that messed me up, however, was expanding towards conflict. It seems sort of backwards that my newest cities (and thus, the ones with the least military support) should be at the front and the well-developed cities (NY, DC) should be shielded.

I saw a post where someone brings a spearman along with the first settler. Does that work?

Begbie

 

[shirleyrocks]

Originally posted by Begbie
One of the things that messed me up, however, was expanding towards conflict. It seems sort of backwards that my newest cities (and thus, the ones with the least military support) should be at the front and the well-developed cities (NY, DC) should be shielded.

I saw a post where someone brings a spearman along with the first settler. Does that work?

Begbie

I disagree on this one. One thing I find to be vital is that, the instant you locate another civ, you have to "rush" his borders with settlers to start walling him off. My two cents.

 

[dedmonds]

I haven't generally found the AI too eager to start wars, so I usually don't include a spearman with my settlers, and it's cost me very little in any of my games (and never to enemy civs, only to barbarians, which won't exist at the boarder of a competing nation). I sometimes decide I'd rather build temples first, though, if I'm building right on the edge of another civ (get that culture value up!), in which case I will try to send along a spearman (or build one in a hurry in a more established city and send it up a turn or two later).

A lot of civ III is counter-intuitive to a civ II player at first, I think, but the learning curve isn't bad; it's just a question of tweaking your play style for the new rules (hint: rivers and resources are even more important now than they were in civ 2).

 

[mearleycf]

My method of advancement was a combination of military, structure, and expansionism--I think I've got about 20 cities, but only 3 or 4 built from settlers..

My opening build is Spearmen/Warrior, then Granary, then spearman/warrior/scout (for ranging out), then worker, THEN settler. The most important thing early on is to find those huts! You get free money, free tech, and sometimes free settlers. If I don't get a free settler early on, I'll most likely start over...

I don't build settlers till I'm up past 4 or 5 at least, since it takes 2 population. I generally build a worker before I build a settler, as those workers are hugely important at maximizing your land.

Militarily, I'll take small towns that my neighbor has put too close to me, with a few spearmen and a catapult or something similar. Early on I took probably 5 or 6 cities from Persia, up to about 800 AD, till they finally moved off the continent to get away from me (they only have 2 cities left).

Once my cities started getting large, I took the rest of my cities (4 or 5 from Japan, 1 from France) culturally. I expect at least 2 more to fall for that reason.

 

[shirleyrocks]

Originally posted by dedmonds
I see a couple things you could tweak to improve your start:

1. Expansionistic rocks. If playing the Americans, build a couple of scouts right off to go find lots of huts. This will give you an early tech edge, and maybe a couple of extra settlers. (I though expanstionistic would suck until I played my first expansionistic civ; now I love it).

2. Workers workers workers. I try to have at least one worker for every city, though in the early game, you can get away with fewer, as your city pops will be pretty low.

3. More settlers. Your first 2-3 cities should probably produce 2-3 settlers each, otherwise the AI empire will absolutely dwarf yours in a hurry. After that you can slow down.

4. Don't stop at 8 cities, especially on a large map. Your opponents will have 20 in no time, and you can support that many pretty easily.

That's off the top of my head....

1. Agreed...no matter which characteristics your civ may have, you have to be nothing but a relentless expansionist in the beginning third of the game. Anything else and you're sunk.

3. Agreed...After a hoplite and maybe a temple, I have my capital alone produce possibly 6, 7, maybe 8 settlers in a row.

4. See number 1 above.

 

[dedmonds]

Originally posted by mearleycf
My method of advancement was a combination of military, structure, and expansionism--I think I've got about 20 cities, but only 3 or 4 built from settlers..

(...)

I don't build settlers till I'm up past 4 or 5 at least, since it takes 2 population. I generally build a worker before I build a settler, as those workers are hugely important at maximizing your land.

Please take no offense at this, but what level are you playing the game on? I'd be amazed if this worked at Regent level or higher (though pleasantly surprised, as it would be a strat other than massive settler production (not that there's much else to build early in the game, but that's neither here nor there).

 

[mearleycf]

No offense taken, I'm playing at the lowest level, I like to wean my way into the game...So the method i'm using isn't as useful later on, eh? Good to know...Like I said, still learning.

 

[dedmonds]

It sounds a lot like the strat I used to do on civ 2-- just build up a few core cities and send out settlers when I felt like it, otherwise take over from other civs.

When I tried it on my first game on civ 3 (regent level), I lost so fast it made my head spin.

 

[Sentinali]

Before all you guys go off colonizing Mars, a little work of warning. Depending on the location of you capital, you will want only 10-15 cities in early game.

I have found, at various difficulties, this is pretty much all you can support well. Beyond that the corruption becomes too much to justify the cost of the city. (ie; if a city, producing 12 gold is only bringing 2 into the treasury, but you have to station 3 units there to protect its borders (-3 more gold from treasury), Its not worth it.

Take a careful cost/benefit approach to your cities. As you change government this forula changes.

With courthouses, and strategically placed forgotten palace and palace, under a democracy this can easily be minimized so that one can later expand to about 30 cities.

Just my thoughts from experience. And, don't worry about how many cities the AI has, worry about getting the KEY wonders, Great Library and Pyramids. To go this sucessfully I find I must dedicate a city (usually from the first settler), and work its best 6 terrain producing squares ASAP.

The only thing to build in early game is defense, settlers, workers and wonders (graneries are a waste of resources).

My settler strategy is that I send out a couple of warriers (my first units) to fish for barbarians. The money I make from this gets piled into compesating for a deficit of a treasury as I hurdle myself toward Bronze Working, Iron Working, then Literacy, then Republic. For production, after my first four cities, I take two for wonders (usually GL and pyramids), and I take two and alternate between spearman and settlers with each settler going out with a spearman. The new cities then immedicately build a worker followed by a temple. Usually by the time they finish the temple the initial phase of colonization is done. The second phase begins when I acheived democracy, caraval and explore. I usually then look for novel land for future resources.


Hopefully this rant has not bored all of you. Best of Luck

Sent

 

[dedmonds]

Originally posted by Sentinali
Before all you guys go off colonizing Mars, a little work of warning. Depending on the location of you capital, you will want only 10-15 cities in early game.

I have found, at various difficulties, this is pretty much all you can support well. Beyond that the corruption becomes too much to justify the cost of the city. (ie; if a city, producing 12 gold is only bringing 2 into the treasury, but you have to station 3 units there to protect its borders (-3 more gold from treasury), Its not worth it.

Take a careful cost/benefit approach to your cities. As you change government this forula changes.

Actually, I kind of disagree. Under Monarchy and Despotism, cities support 2 units for nothing. If you can get a single gold out of a city, you can plop down the one improvement every city needs (a Temple). As the game progresses, you'll get corruption under control. I think it's better to get land now, and expand your territory, than be in a position where the only way to get territory is to go to war.

Keep in mind, in particular, that the more territory you have, the better chance you have of already owning the strategic resources you need when you make the appropriate discoveries.

I agree that the AI goes a little too crazy when it comes to land grabs, but 8 cities on a huge map (the context we're talking about) isn't nearly enough. Again, I find I can *easily* support 20 cities, and I play on a large map, not a huge one. The corruption is never so bad that the city can't support itself at at least a minimal level.

 

[shirleyrocks]

Originally posted by Sentinali
Before all you guys go off colonizing Mars, a little work of warning. Depending on the location of you capital, you will want only 10-15 cities in early game...

Sent

OK...a nice thought-out post, but I'm going to have to disagree here. I feel it is more important to stake out your claim on the planet (I've played 2 full games now with 'huge' worlds) first and to worry about getting that corruption down later. Seeing how wacko the AI is over expansion in this version, you need to nail down some real estate above all other priorities. In both games, I start bumping into the 'physical expansion wall' around 30 cities.

 

[dedmonds]

Apparently, shirleyrocks and I share a hivemind.

 

[treadwin]

Very similar to my strategy, Sent

. . . .except I don't even bother with spearmen - warriors are OK at the easy levels. I try and expand all the way though and try to pick a small fight and get a great leader. I use him to complete the Forbidden Palace ASAP and I have more or less won.

You can get about 30 good cities. In theory on a flat infinate landmass about 39 should be possible. (<15 squares from a palace)

Add another to the hive !!!!!!

 

[Dyrlac]

This thread demonstrates the biggest frustration I have with CivIII - the absolute necessity of opening with a stream of settlers until you hit a choke point you can reasonably defend against enemy AI incursions.

That's why I almost always play on 70-80% oceanic archipelagic huge maps. Of course, then there's never any iron handy ...

 

[dedmonds]

Originally posted by Dyrlac
That's why I almost always play on 70-80% oceanic archipelagic huge maps. Of course, then there's never any iron handy ...

Yeah, but isn't going to war over strategic resources the *coolest* *thing* *ever*?

 

[Dyrlac]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dedmonds
Yeah, but isn't going to war over strategic resources the *coolest* *thing* *ever*?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Indeed* *it* *is*.

Though the sparsely pop'd huge oceanic archipelagic map requiring a race-for-resources-with-galleys has its attractions as well.

Dyr

 

[shirleyrocks]

Originally posted by dedmonds


Yeah, but isn't going to war over strategic resources the *coolest* *thing* *ever*?

Apparently dedmonds and I share a hivemind...

 

[dedmonds]

Originally posted by Dyrlac
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dedmonds
Yeah, but isn't going to war over strategic resources the *coolest* *thing* *ever*?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Indeed* *it* *is*.

Though the sparsely pop'd huge oceanic archipelagic map requiring a race-for-resources-with-galleys has its attractions as well.

Dyr

Been there. Makes that old lighthouse you never built in civ 2 suddenly much much more attractive....