Newbie's First Game Post - please critique

[vmxa]

I agree with PaperBeetle on the defenders issue. If it is early in the game and it is above Emperor, I have to just hold my breath and hope they are on to other things as I cannot afford to build units for show.

Usually I can tell that they are at war with someone and have to pass through my land to get to them. Maybe I will offer an RoP to them, once it looks like the war is over.

This lets them go home quickly, before they realize they may as well smash me.

At emperor, you intend to fill the borders and have your troops up front and discourage the AI from coming into your borders. This works fine with scouting units, but if they know about some open land behind you, they will come with the settler combo, even if you are strong.

That is a trivial issue and can be dealt with in many ways, such as blocking or my favorite is to kill them and add two more slaves.

In the end, I do not want to but spears all over the place, unless they are required. They are not required for MP duty, warriors or archers do that job for less shields.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

@vmxa

Culture does improve your score, though, if that's what you're going for. Or in a cultural victory. As you say, those 60 temple shields = 2 settlers, but that will only expand your empire in 2 directions, while culture will expand it in 4. But build Libraries, not temples.

 

[agonistes]

Actually I rush temples to keep troop speed maximized. I rush barracks for the healing.

When push comes to shove, I'd rather have the spear in a town. The spear can eliminate multiple units on one turn, the offensive unit cannot.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say in your next to last post, V, but if you are suggesting that the playstyle I am advocating will prevent someone from winning on Emperor +, you are wrong. Its been awhile, but I used to play and win on Sid regularly. Once I had the right mindset, and that is what wins on Sid, once I had that, the few defeats I had were usually terrain based. A thousand miles of jungle is more dangerous than any civ.

In fact, as I recall, offensive units (non-artillery) were scarce in my Sid games. Defense and artillery won games. Spearmen upgrades keep defensive units useful. Catapult upgrades keep artillery units useful. A short stack of defenders on a tall stack of artillery is probably the biggest cost saver in the game, and what makes up for the ai build bonus more than anything else except perhaps rapid early expansion. Even conquest, which is in the other "Big 3" difference makers, is based on the short stack/ tall stack strategy and its effeciency.

The remarks being made suggesting one will not win using methods I mention are incredibly ignorant. One can win with them. I win with them. If one cannot win with them, there is something else being done wrong. Maybe mistiming a war. Maybe not expanding fast enough. I will not declare that other methods are incorrect, or even less effective. I am simply sharing with the OP what methods I developed after some trial-and-error and know to be successful. If someone does not know them to be successful, fine, do not agree that they are successful. But do not declare them to be unsuccessful. Declare: 'I am unable to win using those methods.' There is a mighty divide between the two.

 

[vmxa]

I am quite sure I never said anything suggesting you could not win with any methods as you can win with any number of methods, so long as you know what you are doing.

I am too lazy to review the thread, but mainly I was trying to say that those methods are the ones that lead new players to losses at low levels. Any perusal of the boards in the past few years will show any number of players posting games with big problems and that is what they are doing.

Cranking out structures as soon as they get the tech and making lots of spears. I any event, I have said enough on the subject.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

I am quite sure I never said anything suggesting you could not win with any methods as you can win with any number of methods, so long as you know what you are doing.

I am too lazy to review the thread, but mainly I was trying to say that those methods are the ones that lead new players to losses at low levels. Any perusal of the boards in the past few years will show any number of players posting games with big problems and that is what they are doing.

Cranking out structures as soon as they get the tech and making lots of spears. I any event, I have said enough on the subject.

I was just saying that to help the OP, of course you know that.

 

[PaperBeetle]

In fact, as I recall, offensive units (non-artillery) were scarce in my Sid games. Defense and artillery won games. Spearmen upgrades keep defensive units useful. Catapult upgrades keep artillery units useful. A short stack of defenders on a tall stack of artillery is probably the biggest cost saver in the game, and what makes up for the ai build bonus more than anything else except perhaps rapid early expansion. Even conquest, which is in the other "Big 3" difference makers, is based on the short stack/ tall stack strategy and its effeciency.

Large numbers of artillery covered by medium numbers of defenders, and supported by enough attackers to keep whittling away at the damaged AI units. I call it trench warfare. And yes, you are right that it is one of the only strategies which is shield-efficient enough to deal with a land war on sid level. And also in a couple of other situations, like Always War variant and when trying to take down a runaway AI that has monopolised a continent.
But this style of military is a specific solution to the specific problem of an AI with far too many units. It should not be recommended as a default play style to new players, because that specific problem should not exist in a normal game on a lower level.

 

[crotonmark]

OK - I have not been able to post but I finally got back to playing a game. I built alot of workers. Can you please review the game and my position and advise.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/36104/Lincoln_of_the_Americans__1375_BC.SAV

I was not able to make this change suggested in an early post because this does not appear to be one of the options that I have on the preferences screeen:

"Go to Menu>Preferences and change unit action setting to "advanced". then look for "Build Trade" on your workers...

Where is this unit action setting??

Confused,

Mark

 

[vmxa]

If you have Conquest, you will have "show advanced unit action buttons". Then you will have a selection, if a worker, to automate for build trade. Not a good plan in the main.

 

[crotonmark]

I am just playing the patched version of Civ III - the original game
Not any of the updated versions

 

[vmxa]

If you had founded NY where the worker is next to the Hoplite, then Philly by the river forest next to the mountain with the warrior, you cut off some access and both are on rivers.

Then a town on the river by the horses, would give you horses and you could be doing some damage.

Not sure how or why you have Construction and no government tech yet. How did you get into war the Alex? You do know that hoplites are going to be rough on 1 and 2 attack units, right.

At least horses have chance to retreat. You needed to push toward the river between Corinth and Pi as well. I like to expand to cut off access as much as possible.

The real question is did you get pinched in by bad luck or bad expansion? I know you do not have any food bonus, but it is Warlord, so you have an advantage over the AI.

Try not to spend worker turns on mountains, they are expensive and you have mountains and hills with roads. It is tempting to grab those Gems, but you could wait at Warlord, you do not need the lux so early.

It is a bit contrary, but I feel that once you seen you area enough, I would have not made 7 workers for 4 or 5 towns. I would have tried to get by with 2 workers as in Ind civ, until I got more settlers out and then tried to make up for the lack of workers.

This is a bit of a advance tactic and may be hard to pull off and flies in the faces of what is usually said. The thing that makes the game great is, you have to adapt and over come. Not just use a formula.

 

[vmxa]

I am just playing the patched version of Civ III - the original game
Not any of the updated versions

Then you do not have that function. The interface alone is worth the move to conquest, I always said. Many things are easier to do, such as embassy and worker task.

 

[crotonmark]

OK - real dumb point - what is a Hoplite?
Also, should I just go and buy Civ III - Conquests?

 

[crotonmark]

and also - real dumb
how do you know how many workers I have?

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

OK - real dumb point - what is a Hoplite?
Also, should I just go and buy Civ III - Conquests?

Hoplites are the Greeks' special unit. They have a supplementary defense point and replace spearmen. Conquests allows multiplayer, includes many custom maps, is the one with the most mods on CFC, has 31 civs, and has 2 more civ traits and has a host of new units and wonders.

and also - real dumb
how do you know how many workers I have?

Military Advisor. Change the viewstyle to "Units" and find workers in the list.

 

[vmxa]

F3, select units as was said and you will see how many native workers you have, not slaves.

Hoplites have the same defense as Pikes and they will be hard to kill for Horses and Swords and Warriors are not going have any chance.

IOW most will try to stay on good terms with Alex, until they have Knights or MDI's.

 

[Aabraxan]

And if you run Civ Assist II, under the "Territory" tab, it will show you how many native workers, as well as how many slaves you've got.

 

[crotonmark]

Should I just skip up to Civ IV - Warlord and learn the latest game?
Is that a much better game than Civ III and Civ III conquests?

Mark

 

[PaperBeetle]

Not much point asking that kind of question around here. If we thought Civ4 was better, then we wouldn't be on this forum. Conversely, if the people on the Civ4 forums agreed with us, then they wouldn't be on their forums.

 

[crotonmark]

Understood - I just want to learn how to play SOMETHING and I love Civ III. Altho I understand that I need to get Conquests

 

[PaperBeetle]

imho if you really love Civ3, there's a fair chance Civ4 will just annoy you, but if you just kinda like Civ3, you'll probably kinda like Civ4 even more. Well that's my personal experience anyway.
As for Conquests, most of the discussion on these boards is made on the assumption that the version under consideration is Conquests, but the difference isn't huge, so most things apply equally to both versions. In comparison, Civ4 is a completely different game, and needs to be learned anew.