Newbie's First Game Post - please critique

[D0NIMATRIX]

I mean things like military units. Under non-communal corruption it takes too long to make anything, so I like communism for each city being able to fend for itself right after capture. Plus veteran spies.

 

[Headbanger]

Farming is fun.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Farming is fun.

Huh?

 

[Headbanger]

Setting up specialists farms under communism is near pointless since corruption is shared.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

The point of communism is to make a bunch of units and to be able to support them too. It excels here. This is a warmonger's government. I like it.

 

[Tasslehoff]

About communism: Eventually, the amount of cities you have is simply going to outweigh the resources needed from the core to support them. Then communism makes all of the cities share the burden, and that gives a bunch of cash, which can be used for various ends. Like you said, the anarchy sucks, so why not switch asap when it's less essential to stay "archic" then wait until you really have to?

vmxa's completely right. You never need resources to support far-away cities. Turn them into settler farms and DONT BUILD ANY IMPROVEMENTS in them. You pay nothing to have them, and gain much. Also, I noticed you mentioned having 2 spears per city. Generally, you don't need defenders in every city. Just a few on the border cities, and a few small garrisons scattered throughout the rest of the empire. Defenders in the core aren't going to be used throughout most or all of the game, so why keep them?

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

For MP they're useful. But I guess that if you're using republic and I'm using communism, then it's going to be different. What I mean by resources is troops to deter enemies (it is the way of the conqueror to have an array of enemies). Communism helps spread out the production, which REALLY helps in 256x204 Earth maps. I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree, though.

 

[Headbanger]

I use monarchy. I hate republic.

 

[vmxa]

By the time I could go communism, I am not interested in deterring anyone, they are on a death watch and I cannot be deterred. Communal corruption means cities with some corruption and eventually even the core has it.

Now I may get enough to not be able to make 1 turn cavs or what ever unit and that I do not want. There is a size where it is useful, but smaller or larger empires suffer.

In any event it is the switch and the research that makes it unacceptable in most games. At lower levels I am just starting to roll over people at highest levels, I cannot afford the anarchy at that point. In fact it is often tough to even take the one revolt to get out of despotism.

Why do I care about corruption in non core cities anyway? Slap down irrigation and rails and make scientist. No structures, unless I use CE's to make an aqua.

Troop support is not an issue as I have so many towns I have plenty of unit support and my core can handle the building of them.

 

[Ringo Kid]

By the time I could go communism, I am not interested in deterring anyone, they are on a death watch and I cannot be deterred. ....


Why do I care about corruption in non core cities anyway? Slap down irrigation and rails and make scientist. No structures, unless I use CE's to make an aqua.

Because the structures make happy faces that lead to larger population and higher score?



At least I think average happiness adds to the score. Am I wrong?

 

[PaperBeetle]

Yes, but in a specialist farm, you would expect all your non-specialist citizens to be happy anyway, just from luxuries and war happiness. In any case, I think vmxa is concerned more with winning efficiently (i.e. quickly) than milking the game for score.

 

[vmxa]

True I do not even look at the score, but if you want to increase your score win as fast as you can by conquest. Lib and Uni do not make happy faces anyway.

Now temples and cath do, but cath are very expensive and maint is 2 gold iirc. You get happiness boost from 2 gold into lux and the 160 shields makes 2 cavs.

You will get more score by annexing more land sooner. I cannot be concerned about happiness, it is hard enough to just get content faces. You just cannot make cath in every town in any event as you get 1 point for a content and 2 for happy.

You get the 1 point for a specialist, so I am not going to pay 160 shields for the small boost. Besides, you get that tech at a point where you are likely able to start closing the game out an dthe happy faces will not be around in time to add to the score.

True you could get the WLTKD boost, but that is very expensive.

 

[Ringo Kid]

Well I usually keep around thirty horse/knight/cavs around, really dont need anymore than that. But I am talking about monarch/regent level games- not the harder levels.

I think its underestimating the value of the buildings, to just compare the upkeep and shields. So often they develop a synergy, they work together.

Libraries do not, in and of themselves, have any military value for example. But they do help out a bit with defense by bumping out the culture border a bit, and by getting you the military tech you want a bit faster.
Neither does a market, but maybe you can cash rush a needed military unit a turn or two sooner.

All depends on your game and where you want to go with it. I often end up with all happy faces, everywhere.

(That may be overkill, I know. )

 

[vmxa]

The main thing to understand is that doing it that way is fine for regent/Monarch or Emperor as you can do anything you want at those levels. But even at Emperor you start to pay a price and that price is going to be stiffer above those levels.

There is little value ion having units around, if they are just going to collect dust.

 

[agonistes]

I favor building in 'far-away' cities.

You get the 1 point for a specialist, so I am not going to pay 160 shields for the small boost. Besides, you get that tech at a point where you are likely able to start closing the game out an dthe happy faces will not be around in time to add to the score.

Buy the improvements. Particularly in the later game turns, I buy everything I can outside of the core. Never on the first turn, but usually turn 2-4 depending on the location of the city and the importance of the improvement (airport vs. bank, for example). But I also just love seeing my borders expand, so libraries and unis are worth every penny to me. I suppose if you are just playing to win, and win quickly, I suppose, maybe, there might not be much point to building up corrupt cities... but where is the fun in that?

Actually, considering this for a moment... if you have the game won, but the game is not over, why *not* buy them? Every game has a solid-line turning point. Once you are past it, you are just waiting for the finish line to arrive. You might consider buying things for the corrupt cities a waste, but why hang onto the gold? Isn't that a bigger waste? Unless you are trying to collect as much gold as you can, I guess...

As for units in cities... its been awhile since I've played Sid regularly, but I know that I used 2 units per city on Sid too, and never noticed a negative impact. They make citizens content, without having to create a specialist. They protect from wandering units, and I hate losing a vacant city to some sod warrior. They fit into the production cycle nicely early in the game. Best of all spearmen upgrade to Mobile Infantry. To me, its sloppy and inefficient to *not* leave units in every city. Perhaps I'm seeing the game from a different angle. After over 10 years of playing Civ (and Call to Power ), keeping the two units in each city has been beaten into me. But I make no claims to being a champion Civ player! That's for guys like the great Lord Emsworth or Bamspeedy. So it is very possible that my methods are inefficient.

winning efficiently (i.e. quickly)

These are interchangeable terms?

 

[PaperBeetle]

These are interchangeable terms?

I think they are to my mind, but I am open to different interpretations. Conquest victory with the minimum number of lost units, for instance? When I play "tactics" games like FF Tactics, Disgaea etc, I am more concerned with clearing the map without losing any units than with winning in the smallest number of turns.

But back to the much-discussed two spears per town strategy. I think what you have to ask yourself is: do those spears ever get attacked? If not, why did you build them? If so, why are you allowing enemy units to wander around your empire?

 

[vmxa]

I favor building in 'far-away' cities.

Buy the improvements. Particularly in the later game turns, I buy everything I can outside of the core. Never on the first turn, but usually turn 2-4 depending on the location of the city and the importance of the improvement (airport vs. bank, for example). But I also just love seeing my borders expand, so libraries and unis are worth every penny to me. I suppose if you are just playing to win, and win quickly, I suppose, maybe, there might not be much point to building up corrupt cities... but where is the fun in that?

Actually, considering this for a moment... if you have the game won, but the game is not over, why *not* buy them? Every game has a solid-line turning point. Once you are past it, you are just waiting for the finish line to arrive. You might consider buying things for the corrupt cities a waste, but why hang onto the gold? Isn't that a bigger waste? Unless you are trying to collect as much gold as you can, I guess...

As for units in cities... its been awhile since I've played Sid regularly, but I know that I used 2 units per city on Sid too, and never noticed a negative impact. They make citizens content, without having to create a specialist. They protect from wandering units, and I hate losing a vacant city to some sod warrior. They fit into the production cycle nicely early in the game. Best of all spearmen upgrade to Mobile Infantry. To me, its sloppy and inefficient to *not* leave units in every city. Perhaps I'm seeing the game from a different angle. After over 10 years of playing Civ (and Call to Power ), keeping the two units in each city has been beaten into me. But I make no claims to being a champion Civ player! That's for guys like the great Lord Emsworth or Bamspeedy. So it is very possible that my methods are inefficient.

Yes I would say those methods are very inefficient. First you do not get MP effects from all forms of governments, be careful on that one. Second, do I need to spend shields for MP's in all towns, no I do not.

Buying structures requires money, that I should not have, at least not to waste on structures in places that have no need of them.

No need to build airports, airfields are free and work just fine. Yeah they do not allow connecting the trade net, but harbors work. Banks, depends on the game, but I won't make them in most games and not many in the ones I will do it in.

Much of the time, you can win before you can build them anyway. I have no interest in looking at borders, just slap down another town to fill gaps.

Not sure what a Mobile Infantry is, but if it is a Mech, not going to let many games last that long.

Money should be spent to get either more beakers or more troops. I do not hold on to it.

Basically I do not agree with anything you are saying and I have no clue if you are an expert or not as I do not know your name. I do not know anyone's game that I respect that plays like you are talking about.

You can certainly play as you describe and win, that is fine. My objection is when players tell new players that they should play this laid back style.

They do not know how to win doing that and you can see their games posted on the boards for the last several years. They are better off learning to be lean and mean.

 

[agonistes]

Not sure what a Mobile Infantry is, but if it is a Mech

Right.

You can certainly play as you describe and win, that is fine. My objection is when players tell new players that they should play this laid back style.

Hold on. I never said anyone should play like this. I was furthering the discusion, and offered advice counter to your advice. I suggested a way a player *could* play, not a way a player *should* play. If my prose suggested otherwise, my apologies.

I do not know anyone's game that I respect that plays like you are talking about.

I just included the above quote because I like it so much.

Buying structures requires money, that I should not have, at least not to waste on structures in places that have no need of them. ... Money should be spent to get either more beakers or more troops. I do not hold on to it.

I suggest that money spent on improvements in core cities is likely more efficient than money spent on troops under most circumstances.

Culture is tactical for a number of reasons. Gold rushing a temple a couple of turns after you take a city is a good idea, imo.

If you don't have money to burn, you don't have money to burn. That shouldn't even have to be said. Why turn the topic onto a discussion of what to buy when you don't have the money to buy it? I wouldn't do that here. What I would do, and did do, is suggest that it is not wrong per se to build improvements in cities high in corruption. Following through on that idea, if you are going to build improvements in such cities, due to the high corruption, it is far more effecient to buy them.

Are improvements in such cities useless? Of course not.

I think what you have to ask yourself is: do those spears ever get attacked? If not, why did you build them? If so, why are you allowing enemy units to wander around your empire?

It's entirely possible I bring it upon myself, but hasn't anyone else found themselves, however temporarily, at the mercy of a much stronger nation that is sending troops through your young kindgom, and if you demand they leave, the situation suggests the demand will incite a war that you do not at that time want? Sometimes you have no choice but to let other troops walk about your lands. During those times, if you have a city undefended, you are asking for trouble. The loss of a core city is a massive blow.

Beetles questions are good ones. Really you might want to ask yourself these kinds of questions regarding all aspects of the game. Analysis is important.

Its my understanding that the ai looks at the defensive value of troops, not the offensive value, when deciding whether or not to attack a city.

If you arrive at desperate times, you can always move the troops out of the cities... they aren't stuck there.

Back to the point, @ the OP, as I said before, my advice to you would be to be more careful when choosing city locations, and more efficient on your build rotations: define your goals and what you need to build to attain them. Most importantly, have fun. No sense winning if you aren't enjoying the game.

 

[PaperBeetle]

It's entirely possible I bring it upon myself, but hasn't anyone else found themselves, however temporarily, at the mercy of a much stronger nation that is sending troops through your young kindgom, and if you demand they leave, the situation suggests the demand will incite a war that you do not at that time want? Sometimes you have no choice but to let other troops walk about your lands. During those times, if you have a city undefended, you are asking for trouble. The loss of a core city is a massive blow.

Haha, yes that's the correct answer! I was hoping you wouldn't think of it.
Nevertheless, I don't think that building a lot of defenders is the correct defense against the "deity ROP". The most basic defense is simply trust. When the AI is much stronger than me, and sending its units across my land to fight some war with another civ, I must trust that they will not dow me, because if we do go to war at this point, I am going to get heavily damaged whatever kind of military I built.
But it seems to me there are two kinds of dow that apply here:
(1) The AI is sending troops through my land, and one of their units happens to start its turn within striking distance of and undefended town. The AI thinks "Aha! A town for free, I'll take it." To protect against this eventuality, I do shadow the AI units, keeping my towns occupied, but not with defensive units. As long as the AI can see (with its no-fog vision) some easier target in the war it is currently fighting, like an exposed worker, or a stranded attacker, it should judge that target easier than my fortified-horses-in-a-town, and continue focusing on its original plan.
(2) The AI is not at war, but feels like attacking someone. It looks around for the weakest target, and picks me, the undermilitarised human. In this instance, offensive units are a better deterant to the AI's F3 advisor in the first place. And they are a better response if the dow still goes ahead; the AI will not have already been walking across my land, but will start arriving just inside my borders. If I have offensive units then I can strike them: my high ATT versus their low DEF = good odds for me. If I have defensive units then I can watch in dismay as they either attack me (my high DEF versus their high ATT = even odds), or if my DEF is too good and the odds would be in my favour, then many units won't want to attack, but instead wander around my empire obstructing and pillaging the tiles, disconnecting my resources, and threatening my workers.

 

[vmxa]

agonistes

"I suggest that money spent on improvements in core cities is likely more efficient than money spent on troops under most circumstances."

Some, but not all. Cath is not money well spent. Barrack in a place that is going to make settlers and workers is not well spent and so on. Structures that you have a NEED for is money well spent, not items you WANT.

Don't forget that time is money as well, so while one is making structures they do not need they are wasting time as well as money.

"Culture is tactical for a number of reasons. Gold rushing a temple a couple of turns after you take a city is a good idea, imo."

Culture is rarely tactical, because you should be expanding not via culture, but by might. I do not agree that rushing temples in capture towns is a good idea.

It may be a good idea at times, but usually it is not money well spent. Again I should not have bags of gold to spend anyway, if I am at that point then what ever I do is fine.

"If you don't have money to burn, you don't have money to burn. That shouldn't even have to be said. Why turn the topic onto a discussion of what to buy when you don't have the money to buy it? I wouldn't do that here. What I would do, and did do, is suggest that it is not wrong per se to build improvements in cities high in corruption. Following through on that idea, if you are going to build improvements in such cities, due to the high corruption, it is far more effecient to buy them."

It makes very little sense to put in structures in far flung captured or built towns. They have no need of structures. You may make a case for an aqua, that is for massive AW games, where support is the key.

"Are improvements in such cities useless? Of course not."

Maybe not useless, but close to it and not justified. Here is why:

It is later in the game or you would not have far flung towns, so you do not have much of a pay back as time is short. It cost money that you probably have better uses for, such as research or stealing.

If you make a temple, what do you get? A border pop and a content pop? What is the value of that to me, zero. I do not need a border pop as I am planting a town CxxC anyway.

I do not need a content or happy citizen as I will be making them specialist anyway.

I do not need any commerce or research boosting structures as I am 100% corrupt. I would need another expensive structure to gain any net value and hence I have just added even more maint cost to the empire.

Maint cost for structures is a big drain and you mostly just adding to it in these towns. Run a deficit on research if you have lots of cash.

My point in responding is those bad ideas are what most players use and then post here saying they are struggling with this level or that game condition.

I don't care if player A or B elects to play that way, only when they want to tell others it is a good idea, it is not.