I don't see how Republic is the right choice for government. The WW from just the war with Byzantine is killing me (and that is the war with the least amount of casualties anyone can ask for). Getting war happiness from other nations is far in between. The Sumaria finally declared on me and even so I am running 60 percent luxuries and I still have to hire entertainers. Granted I only have 2 luxuries, but still. As a result of all this my production is really hurting, and I am making minimal progress with the war. Perhaps in the future I will choose monarchy instead.
NotThat's Huge Sid attempt
- Thread starter notthat
- Start date
Republic might have more benefits later than sooner. Planning your strategies around the ideas here http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/war_weariness.php probably helps a bit.
I made very little progress for about 15 turns, then I started taking out their cities.
The reason is simply that it took me that to get about 10 armies together.
Armies make all the difference.
Their reinforcements are massive. It's amazing they can keep sending units as fast as I can kill them. The only option seems to be ignore their military and take out their cities. And for that you need some armies.
Maybe I won't finish this one after all. Each turn takes a long time and even the IBT turn seems to take forever. I think I'll search for another start to do better on this time.
The reason is simply that it took me that to get about 10 armies together.
Armies make all the difference.
Their reinforcements are massive. It's amazing they can keep sending units as fast as I can kill them. The only option seems to be ignore their military and take out their cities. And for that you need some armies.
Maybe I won't finish this one after all. Each turn takes a long time and even the IBT turn seems to take forever. I think I'll search for another start to do better on this time.
I just wanted to let you guys know I'm still at it. I've been playing some maps trying to find a fit, and I'm just done playing on a big attempt that I've played through 530 AD. I'm abandoning it because I'm not pleased with the speed, and I declared war at a time which turned out I wasn't ready at still. I have no doubt I can play it through to conquest, but I want to do better than that.
I am learning more and more about huge sid games and the best strategy for them. I hoping to get a nice game going.
nt
I am learning more and more about huge sid games and the best strategy for them. I hoping to get a nice game going.
nt
Brief info about my ditched game:
Domination limited: 4489
This is the starting position at 4000 bc:
Starting position had 2 grass wheat as food bonus, and a 3rd grass wheat 4 diagonal squares from capital. That was it for food bonuses, That resulted in a slow start sadly. However there were plenty of fresh water via rivers and lakes, and fair amount of grassland.
Here's a look at the terrain:
My modest empire at 1000bc:
10AD checkmark:
And finally some pictures of 530 AD, when I abandon the game:
The mongols are pretty much hopeless after 3 turns of fighting. I did declare war on them around 250 AD, and eventually had to get peace because they proved stronger than I expected. From this stage onward I expect the game to pretty much be cavalry / bombardment stuff, and I do not care to go into world domination when I feel the game is not as good as I'd like.
Hoping to get a better one going soon.
Domination limited: 4489
This is the starting position at 4000 bc:
Starting position had 2 grass wheat as food bonus, and a 3rd grass wheat 4 diagonal squares from capital. That was it for food bonuses, That resulted in a slow start sadly. However there were plenty of fresh water via rivers and lakes, and fair amount of grassland.
Here's a look at the terrain:
My modest empire at 1000bc:
10AD checkmark:
And finally some pictures of 530 AD, when I abandon the game:
The mongols are pretty much hopeless after 3 turns of fighting. I did declare war on them around 250 AD, and eventually had to get peace because they proved stronger than I expected. From this stage onward I expect the game to pretty much be cavalry / bombardment stuff, and I do not care to go into world domination when I feel the game is not as good as I'd like.
Hoping to get a better one going soon.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
That is a nice and fast image host that you have there. Is this free of charge?
And wrt the set up of such a game. Wouldn't it be better to place few more civs? At least you wouldn't have to deal monster civs exclusively. Anyway, I like it how you have three horses, it probalby means that on the flip side there are several civs which have none at all.
And wrt the set up of such a game. Wouldn't it be better to place few more civs? At least you wouldn't have to deal monster civs exclusively. Anyway, I like it how you have three horses, it probalby means that on the flip side there are several civs which have none at all.
More tribes implies a quicker tech pace, and more units to kill since the AI has to strip its cities for settlers and it has more corruption, the larger its empire. A bunch of smaller empires produce more units than a few larger empires overall. You probably also have less territory you can settle before you go to war. So, I think convention correct here.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
True, more smaller empires can produce more units. But they can also kill more units. The trick is to pit the AI constantly against each other, and if there are only a few monster civ, you have way less option. Worst case is a fairly large island that is inhabited by only one monster civ, as opposed to two smaller ones.
With more smaller empires you also have more potential sources of War Happyness. And you will suffer less from War Weariness if you fight two fairly quick wars against smaller, bite sized empires than one long, drawn out war against a monster civ.
The tech pace will only be a problem if the AI haven't had the drawbacks of AI-AI warfare (which is insane) kick in. Neither Monarchies nor war weary Republics are particularly good at researching.
Sid tech pace might work out as a problem. Moonsinger ended up facing mechanized infantry in her 88k game. I think you end up with more *defensive* units to kill with more AIs, even if you pit them against each other, since most defensive units stay in cities... just a guess though.
I think it was her 81k game where she ended up facing mechanized infantry.
I've been giving it a lot of thought. Moonsinger used knights in her 88k game as the first offensive units. She used them to subdue the Persians who lacked iron so spearmen was their best defender, which is good odds. Then she proceeded to whoop Germany who was huge some 15-20 turns later. Did she have cavalry by then? Perhaps.
The way I'm seeing it, in a way I want a fast tech pace. I think cavalry are much better for the human player than for the AIs, and once railroads kick in the advantage becomes enormous. So the faster the tech reaches military trad / steampower the better.
On the down side, more civs mean less room to expand, which is not to say you can't reroll starts until you find one with a large area to settle, but it will narrow down your map options for sure.
I've been giving it a lot of thought. Moonsinger used knights in her 88k game as the first offensive units. She used them to subdue the Persians who lacked iron so spearmen was their best defender, which is good odds. Then she proceeded to whoop Germany who was huge some 15-20 turns later. Did she have cavalry by then? Perhaps.
The way I'm seeing it, in a way I want a fast tech pace. I think cavalry are much better for the human player than for the AIs, and once railroads kick in the advantage becomes enormous. So the faster the tech reaches military trad / steampower the better.
On the down side, more civs mean less room to expand, which is not to say you can't reroll starts until you find one with a large area to settle, but it will narrow down your map options for sure.
In my opinion one (ideally) wants a fast tech pace until you get to military tradition, and then a slow(er) tech pace from then on out. Rails can help, but the AIs getting rifles makes things harder than facing muskets or pikes... or pillaging them all the way back to spears... especially if you use a Republic as a government (or you fight with a relatively small army) Thing is, fortified rifles in cities on flatland have
6*.5=3 (size 7 bonus)
6*.25=1.5 (fortification), which I believe rounds down to 1
6*.1=.6 (flatland bonus), which I believer rounds to 1. So, most of the rifles you'll attack effectively defend at 11. On the other hand the muskets you'll fight effectively defend at 4*.5+4*.1+4*.25+4=2+.4+1+4=2+0+1+4=7 and pikes at 3*.5+3*.1+3*.25+3=1.5+.3+.75+3=1+0+1+3=5 and spears at
2*.5+2*.1+2*.25+2=1+.2+.5+2=1+0+0+2=3.
6*.5=3 (size 7 bonus)
6*.25=1.5 (fortification), which I believe rounds down to 1
6*.1=.6 (flatland bonus), which I believer rounds to 1. So, most of the rifles you'll attack effectively defend at 11. On the other hand the muskets you'll fight effectively defend at 4*.5+4*.1+4*.25+4=2+.4+1+4=2+0+1+4=7 and pikes at 3*.5+3*.1+3*.25+3=1.5+.3+.75+3=1+0+1+3=5 and spears at
2*.5+2*.1+2*.25+2=1+.2+.5+2=1+0+0+2=3.
I've started another map, this looks promising so far.
Domination limit: 4473
Started out with 2 grass wheat as food bonus, on what turned out to be a large land mass all for myself! There were some jungles, and more plains at the north than I'd wish there were, but overall fairly sweet terrain.
I've done the usual rexing phase. Unfortunately I was unable to prevent the cheeky Babylons and Sumerians from helping me settle my land. How very generous of them. I shall make sure to return the favour.
I've started my military buildup at the core. Been building horsemen which will (eventually) be upgraded to knights. The Babylons don't have iron, (but they have horses) so clearing them off my island shouldn't be too much of a problem. Taking over their homeland would be nice except that they're going to enter their golden age as soon as we start the war. They are pretty backwards though, and have just now entered the middle ages, so a couple of techs behind the rest of us.
Alternatively, I could opt to take on the Sumerians. They, too, would probably enter their golden age as soon as we start fighting. They have iron though, but no horses (so pikemen and longbowmen, maybe muskets soon?)
This is my weak point now. Planning out the offensive properly. Do I clear the Babylons off my island with horsemen, then land their home island with knights? And when I fight them at their homeland, is it worth trying to hold their cities, or should I suck it up and bring a ton of settlers with me? Bringing settlers would be somewhat slower, and I noticed Moonsinger in her 88k managed keeping all the cities she conquered with very few revolts. She did end her wars very quickly though, and frankly I don't see how I'll be able to do anything like that. Maybe if I keep building my army until cavalry. Is that something I should do?
As for the economics, I'm considering moving my capital to tulum to get it to the center of the landmass (after I clear the Babylonian settlements and resettle my own towns). I'm not entirely sure how that would work. I should in theory gain a bigger core and remove some corruption from my empire, but I would have to build some more infrastructure in my new core area. Also ATM I'm manually building a palace (to be completed in 69 turns), however I'm hoping clearing the babylons will get me 2 leaders, 1 for army and the 2nd for palace. It only just occured to me that I could (and should've) used the palace jump trick (doh), but it's alright, it was probably too soon anyway because I want to remove the Babylons off my eastern landmass first (my horsemen shouldn't have too much problem).
What I'd really like to know how to do is the conquest part. I'm a pangaea player at heart and I like to do my wars with the very clean and tidy cavalry / bombardment / railroads. I'm thinking I should start the bloodbath before cavalries, but not entirely sure my knight force will be ready in time.
I'm using Moonsinger's great 88k game as a benchmark because she has done very well in her game. I choose monarchy instead of republic because I feel it's slightly better if for nothing else but the unit cost. Even if I could in theory get most of the luxuries and war weariness could be delt with just the expenses for the large army should remove nearly all of the advantage republic has in commerce IMO.
As for empire stats, ATM I have somewhat of production lead on her 10 AD game, however she seemed to be in a stage where a lot of her core was irrigated which I assume she replaced with mines soon after. Of course she has a big commerce lead (she's in republic, and had all 8 luxuries - nice!)
She also managed having more horsemen/knights at 24/24 each, compared to my 21/0 and some 3k gold for upgrades over me, so big military advantage. Also she had 3 nations on her landmass that could be killed, and I'll have to handle landings, though I'm hoping to manage. I have a bigger empire than she did, though once she got started with conquering she just never looked back.
She was also closer to cavalries than I am, which I suspect is key here. In my game the Mongols and the Japanese are stuck on a small landmass each and are very backwards. The germans I haven't even met, but by the surveys I suspect they are in a similar situation. Perhaps this has negative effect of slowing the tech pace unfortunately. Oh well, at least they will be easy to take out once/if I get to that stage
Your input appreciated.
Domination limit: 4473
Started out with 2 grass wheat as food bonus, on what turned out to be a large land mass all for myself! There were some jungles, and more plains at the north than I'd wish there were, but overall fairly sweet terrain.
I've done the usual rexing phase. Unfortunately I was unable to prevent the cheeky Babylons and Sumerians from helping me settle my land. How very generous of them. I shall make sure to return the favour.
I've started my military buildup at the core. Been building horsemen which will (eventually) be upgraded to knights. The Babylons don't have iron, (but they have horses) so clearing them off my island shouldn't be too much of a problem. Taking over their homeland would be nice except that they're going to enter their golden age as soon as we start the war. They are pretty backwards though, and have just now entered the middle ages, so a couple of techs behind the rest of us.
Alternatively, I could opt to take on the Sumerians. They, too, would probably enter their golden age as soon as we start fighting. They have iron though, but no horses (so pikemen and longbowmen, maybe muskets soon?)
This is my weak point now. Planning out the offensive properly. Do I clear the Babylons off my island with horsemen, then land their home island with knights? And when I fight them at their homeland, is it worth trying to hold their cities, or should I suck it up and bring a ton of settlers with me? Bringing settlers would be somewhat slower, and I noticed Moonsinger in her 88k managed keeping all the cities she conquered with very few revolts. She did end her wars very quickly though, and frankly I don't see how I'll be able to do anything like that. Maybe if I keep building my army until cavalry. Is that something I should do?
As for the economics, I'm considering moving my capital to tulum to get it to the center of the landmass (after I clear the Babylonian settlements and resettle my own towns). I'm not entirely sure how that would work. I should in theory gain a bigger core and remove some corruption from my empire, but I would have to build some more infrastructure in my new core area. Also ATM I'm manually building a palace (to be completed in 69 turns), however I'm hoping clearing the babylons will get me 2 leaders, 1 for army and the 2nd for palace. It only just occured to me that I could (and should've) used the palace jump trick (doh), but it's alright, it was probably too soon anyway because I want to remove the Babylons off my eastern landmass first (my horsemen shouldn't have too much problem).
What I'd really like to know how to do is the conquest part. I'm a pangaea player at heart and I like to do my wars with the very clean and tidy cavalry / bombardment / railroads. I'm thinking I should start the bloodbath before cavalries, but not entirely sure my knight force will be ready in time.
I'm using Moonsinger's great 88k game as a benchmark because she has done very well in her game. I choose monarchy instead of republic because I feel it's slightly better if for nothing else but the unit cost. Even if I could in theory get most of the luxuries and war weariness could be delt with just the expenses for the large army should remove nearly all of the advantage republic has in commerce IMO.
As for empire stats, ATM I have somewhat of production lead on her 10 AD game, however she seemed to be in a stage where a lot of her core was irrigated which I assume she replaced with mines soon after. Of course she has a big commerce lead (she's in republic, and had all 8 luxuries - nice!)
She also managed having more horsemen/knights at 24/24 each, compared to my 21/0 and some 3k gold for upgrades over me, so big military advantage. Also she had 3 nations on her landmass that could be killed, and I'll have to handle landings, though I'm hoping to manage. I have a bigger empire than she did, though once she got started with conquering she just never looked back.
She was also closer to cavalries than I am, which I suspect is key here. In my game the Mongols and the Japanese are stuck on a small landmass each and are very backwards. The germans I haven't even met, but by the surveys I suspect they are in a similar situation. Perhaps this has negative effect of slowing the tech pace unfortunately. Oh well, at least they will be easy to take out once/if I get to that stage
Your input appreciated.
While looking at my military advisor screen just now I had a revelation. Up until now I considered warriors acting as MP in monarchy to cost 1gold each (I assume I'll be over the allowed unit limit). Overall in the comparisement of Monarchy vs Republic I credited Monarchy with having smaller economy, but make up for it in less unit support and war weariness (which will always be a problem unless you can secure most luxuries). However what I didn't consider is their shield cost. 60 warriors for MP cost 600 shields. That's 20 horsemen that I could've had. If I had the funds to upgrade them into knights, then I would've just about matched Moonsinger army count in her 10 ad save (!). Alternatively, 600 shields translate into about 8.5 knights plain, and the rest you can make up with Republic stronger economy in commerce (IF you can handle war weariness / unit support. Could I?)
These 600 shields for warriors is something I haven't really weighted in
These 600 shields for warriors is something I haven't really weighted in
You'll have more commerce with a Republic, so 20% luxuries might yield more happy citizens in a Republic than in a Monarchy. I think the key to minimizing war weariness lies in not having any stray units that get attacked and not having workers/artillery/cities get captured.
I'd take care in comparing any game to Moonsinger's 88k. I think it's great to look at for ideas... like how she irrigated her core for growth, her use of the luxury slider, how she managed to buy/trade techs, etc. But, she had a rather high domination limit... see here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=122472 and she had all the luxuries early for at least a bit, so I wouldn't get carried away... it'll take a really good map to get a score that high again, in my opinion for *any* player. Elear has some notes of hers that might interest you... actually I could PM them to you if you like. As an aside... I've recently played some Deity Huge maps (with a fairly low domination limit for this sort of thing) where I've handbuilt the Pyramids (and pulled of the Republic slingshot). If you have no industrious tribes on Sid, does there exist any chance of hanbuilding the Pyramids if you go settler and then have one of the first two cities start on the Pyramids?
I'd take care in comparing any game to Moonsinger's 88k. I think it's great to look at for ideas... like how she irrigated her core for growth, her use of the luxury slider, how she managed to buy/trade techs, etc. But, she had a rather high domination limit... see here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=122472 and she had all the luxuries early for at least a bit, so I wouldn't get carried away... it'll take a really good map to get a score that high again, in my opinion for *any* player. Elear has some notes of hers that might interest you... actually I could PM them to you if you like. As an aside... I've recently played some Deity Huge maps (with a fairly low domination limit for this sort of thing) where I've handbuilt the Pyramids (and pulled of the Republic slingshot). If you have no industrious tribes on Sid, does there exist any chance of hanbuilding the Pyramids if you go settler and then have one of the first two cities start on the Pyramids?
I'm interested in seeing those notes if you don't mind sending them to me.
Obviously Moonsinger's 88k is a high standard. I think it's better to aim for a high goal.
I basically just wanna learn and do the best I can in my attempts.
As for hand building the pyramids: If you wanna go to start extremes, then you have a better option. Start the game as the only civilization that can research something, and research a technology first. If you can guarantee you're the first to discover it you have 1/20 of getting SGL and free pyramids that doesn't even require you to stunt your early REXing. I'm not willing to go for this tactic ATM, but it's doable.
I'm curious as to how Moonsinger got 6 AIs to have a spare resource to trade with her. Usually AIs trade away their resources to each other quickly, and once that happens it is extremely rare to see the resource available again. The only way to get them to trade the resource is to sign MP against their trade partner. If she did that I'd like to know how she went about it. Then again maybe they all just happened to have a spare resource that they didn't trade away at the beginning.
I've irrigated my core for growth too in my abandoned 530 AD game. It has advantages and disadvantages, and it's something worth considering, though it's not for any game. You have to weight in the benefits vs the drawbacks. Sometimes you'll wanna join workers from your corrupted cities into your core. Sometimes you'll just accept that they grow slower if you can't afford the work force.
As for monarchy / republic comparisement:
Yes 20% luxuries would give more happy faces in republic. However looking at military costs, I'm currently paying 15gpt, +1 for every unit I'll build. Under republic, if I remove my 60 warriors that are serving as MP I would still have 36gpt, +2 for every unit I'll build. My military is just 21 horsemen atm, I would have to easily double that and more before attempting to eliminate my first opponent. Republic can only come out on top if you can complete negate the war weariness via massive luxuries amount and marketplaces. Otherwise I think you end up losing money for being in republic.
And thanks for the link. Interesting, I'll check it out.
Obviously Moonsinger's 88k is a high standard. I think it's better to aim for a high goal.
I basically just wanna learn and do the best I can in my attempts.
As for hand building the pyramids: If you wanna go to start extremes, then you have a better option. Start the game as the only civilization that can research something, and research a technology first. If you can guarantee you're the first to discover it you have 1/20 of getting SGL and free pyramids that doesn't even require you to stunt your early REXing. I'm not willing to go for this tactic ATM, but it's doable.
I'm curious as to how Moonsinger got 6 AIs to have a spare resource to trade with her. Usually AIs trade away their resources to each other quickly, and once that happens it is extremely rare to see the resource available again. The only way to get them to trade the resource is to sign MP against their trade partner. If she did that I'd like to know how she went about it. Then again maybe they all just happened to have a spare resource that they didn't trade away at the beginning.
I've irrigated my core for growth too in my abandoned 530 AD game. It has advantages and disadvantages, and it's something worth considering, though it's not for any game. You have to weight in the benefits vs the drawbacks. Sometimes you'll wanna join workers from your corrupted cities into your core. Sometimes you'll just accept that they grow slower if you can't afford the work force.
As for monarchy / republic comparisement:
Yes 20% luxuries would give more happy faces in republic. However looking at military costs, I'm currently paying 15gpt, +1 for every unit I'll build. Under republic, if I remove my 60 warriors that are serving as MP I would still have 36gpt, +2 for every unit I'll build. My military is just 21 horsemen atm, I would have to easily double that and more before attempting to eliminate my first opponent. Republic can only come out on top if you can complete negate the war weariness via massive luxuries amount and marketplaces. Otherwise I think you end up losing money for being in republic.
And thanks for the link. Interesting, I'll check it out.
It's 340 AD now. I've cleared the Babylons and Sumerians off my island (continent?). Unfortunately the Sumerians signed both the Japanese and the Germans against me before I could negotiate, causing me to lose 2 luxuries.
I've traded for world map and the picture is clear now:
Japan, Germany and Mongols are all very backwards and stuck on a small island each.
The other 5 nations are all about the same strength. Russia share the island with Babylon. Sumeria share theirs with Egypt, and Persia is alone. Notably most of them lack a certain resource each. Perhaps I should trade them some of my 3 iron / 3 horses / saltpaper? Naaaaaaaah.
Plan is to pit Russia vs Babylon (well on the way), and Egypt vs Sumeria once I'm done with Russia-Babylon landmass. I don't want to get Egypt fighting Sumeria yet because I want the tech pace to continue fast just a little bit longer (We're almost out of the middle ages).
I will attack Babylon first, then Russia. I'm waiting for a bigger force before I invade, as I expect significant loses if I got now with what I have, eventhough they lack iron and saltpaper, so I'll be fighting spearmen, longbowmen, and horsemen.
If I can get cavalry before the invasion it will be great, as cavalry >>> knights and with them I'll completely overrun the Babylons.
The question remains: Do I keep their cities, or do I have to bring settlers? If I keep their cities, I will basically have to remove Babylons out of the game fast, because there is no way I can stop the flips. It will be difficult, but can be done. If I bring settlers with me, that also means I am going to do the same with every other nation, which means I'll be forced to repopulate the entire world with my citizens. This will take a long time even if military-wise I will win the wars fast.
While we're at it I have a question: If I sign peace with the Babylons, can I declare war on them instantly without taking a rep hit as long as I don't have any units inside their territory? If so, how do I declare war, since in the trade option the peace treaty will be locked for 20 turns? Do I have to be able to reach and attack one of their units inside my territory to declare the war?
I've traded for world map and the picture is clear now:
Japan, Germany and Mongols are all very backwards and stuck on a small island each.
The other 5 nations are all about the same strength. Russia share the island with Babylon. Sumeria share theirs with Egypt, and Persia is alone. Notably most of them lack a certain resource each. Perhaps I should trade them some of my 3 iron / 3 horses / saltpaper? Naaaaaaaah.
Plan is to pit Russia vs Babylon (well on the way), and Egypt vs Sumeria once I'm done with Russia-Babylon landmass. I don't want to get Egypt fighting Sumeria yet because I want the tech pace to continue fast just a little bit longer (We're almost out of the middle ages).
I will attack Babylon first, then Russia. I'm waiting for a bigger force before I invade, as I expect significant loses if I got now with what I have, eventhough they lack iron and saltpaper, so I'll be fighting spearmen, longbowmen, and horsemen.
If I can get cavalry before the invasion it will be great, as cavalry >>> knights and with them I'll completely overrun the Babylons.
The question remains: Do I keep their cities, or do I have to bring settlers? If I keep their cities, I will basically have to remove Babylons out of the game fast, because there is no way I can stop the flips. It will be difficult, but can be done. If I bring settlers with me, that also means I am going to do the same with every other nation, which means I'll be forced to repopulate the entire world with my citizens. This will take a long time even if military-wise I will win the wars fast.
While we're at it I have a question: If I sign peace with the Babylons, can I declare war on them instantly without taking a rep hit as long as I don't have any units inside their territory? If so, how do I declare war, since in the trade option the peace treaty will be locked for 20 turns? Do I have to be able to reach and attack one of their units inside my territory to declare the war?
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
You will not get a rep hit for having units in their territory at the time of DoW as long as you don't have a RoP agreement. You will get a rep hit for breaking the binding peace treaty though. There are several means and ways to make the AI DoW you however. The easiest option might be a failed espionage mission. You would not get any war happyness for that kind of DoW, but you would also not get rep hit for any deals or treaties that are broken.
