Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Lord Parkin]

Here's some pointers on great merchants, and how in my opinion "running a trade route" is almost always much more valuable than settling the merchant.

I'll take an example from a recent game (marathon / monarch /huge)...

I pop my 1st GM and the trade run produces 3300 gold going to Rome (adjudged the best available city at that time 300AD). Now at that time I'm massively expanding, and am falling behind techwise, with half a dozen "new" cities holding back my economy. I immediately switch to running 100% science and discover alphabet, calender and code of laws before the money runs out. Now that would be worth the trade run on it's own, but the new tech allows me to trade for half a dozen other techs, I wouldn't have had, as I had no tech trade leverage. Therefore the GM trade route run, has directly resulted in 9 new techs.

The 2nd GM arrives in around 1100AD, and runs to Rome this time netting 5500 gold.Again, because I've a large expensive, expansive empire to maintain, I'm slightly lagging behind in tech, with nothing to trade. The cash is converted to science at 100% rate, and music, (amazingly I was first), then guilds, then banking are reserached, and these again traded for 4 or 5 other useful techs.

And its not just the sudden "tech splurge" that running a trade route facilitates, it's also all the possibilities resulting from the results that have to be taken into account. Faster COL, gave me courthouses much earlier, which saved money for every turn they were built of course. Calender allowed me to trade excess resources earlier. Banking allowed me, well banks quicker, which again is 50% extra cash for each turn they exist.

What I'm trying to show, is that there is a lot of "hidden" bonuses that a GM trade run can facilitate. It's not just 4000 gold vs 6 gold and 1 food per turn for ever, it's a whole lot more. Almost the only time I'd personally settle a GM is very late in the game, when money has become so plentiful, a large cash infusion is no longer that necessary. In virtually every other instance, cash is far too valuable, even if it's only used for massive troop upgrades.

I have to add that the above probably works best with a large empire, as it allows you to "unlock" the potential of your empire at a time when upkeep costs are stifling your economy, but hey thats the way I like to play

Great, thanks a heap for the excellent advice from a new and creative viewpoint. That's given me some good ideas for future games.

 

[cabert]

Here's some pointers on great merchants, and how in my opinion "running a trade route" is almost always much more valuable than settling the merchant.

(...)
What I'm trying to show, is that there is a lot of "hidden" bonuses that a GM trade run can facilitate. It's not just 4000 gold vs 6 gold and 1 food per turn for ever, it's a whole lot more. Almost the only time I'd personally settle a GM is very late in the game, when money has become so plentiful, a large cash infusion is no longer that necessary. In virtually every other instance, cash is far too valuable, even if it's only used for massive troop upgrades.

I have to add that the above probably works best with a large empire, as it allows you to "unlock" the potential of your empire at a time when upkeep costs are stifling your economy, but hey thats the way I like to play

No implying that anything you said is wrong.
But you need to look at it another way (because of the always).
could you have the same/better benefits by settling or lightbulbing?

It's very rare that I have :
- no alphabet in 300 AD
- more than a handful of cities before currency.
So it's really about playing style.

But I would settle an early (which is quite rare for me) merchant in a holy city, to prepare for a big cash machine.
Why? because often the trade mission I can set up brings no more than 1500 gold in the early game and because you need to send the guy into a mission (which can take a while!).
Sure if you can get 3000 gold in 300 AD, it's worth the trip, but for 1000 gold, it isn't.
If you settle your GM now, you have gold now + food now. The output of the GM in a city with a market is
6 gold + food for half a normal merchant = 7.5 gold +25% with the market = 9,375 gold. This is often enough to raise the slider 10% higher in science. FOR THE ENTIRE GAME! not just for the next few turns!

You don't have the market yet?

Lightbulb currency!
Why?
- because you can trade it margely (including for money, more than the trade route's output!)
- because it yelds a free trade route in every city
- because you can build markets for more gold per turn.

I think you overvalue running 100% science.
Even with a large empire, running 100% science is only worth anything if you work good commerce tiles. To work good commerce tiles, you need food. A settle GM gives you (a little) food.

Of course having some cash in the bank is good, when it's hard to get.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

No implying that anything you said is wrong.
But you need to look at it another way (because of the always).
could you have the same/better benefits by settling or lightbulbing?

It's very rare that I have :
- no alphabet in 300 AD
- more than a handful of cities before currency.
So it's really about playing style.

But I would settle an early (which is quite rare for me) merchant in a holy city, to prepare for a big cash machine.
Why? because often the trade mission I can set up brings no more than 1500 gold in the early game and because you need to send the guy into a mission (which can take a while!).
Sure if you can get 3000 gold in 300 AD, it's worth the trip, but for 1000 gold, it isn't.
If you settle your GM now, you have gold now + food now. The output of the GM in a city with a market is
6 gold + food for half a normal merchant = 7.5 gold +25% with the market = 9,375 gold. This is often enough to raise the slider 10% higher in science. FOR THE ENTIRE GAME! not just for the next few turns!

You don't have the market yet?

Lightbulb currency!
Why?
- because you can trade it margely (including for money, more than the trade route's output!)
- because it yelds a free trade route in every city
- because you can build markets for more gold per turn.

I think you overvalue running 100% science.
Even with a large empire, running 100% science is only worth anything if you work good commerce tiles. To work good commerce tiles, you need food. A settle GM gives you (a little) food.

Of course having some cash in the bank is good, when it's hard to get.

I agree your method works too, but as you said it's about playing style / size of map / game speed / no of opponents as well.

I often just keep expanding till I can't afford anymore cities early on (often 12 or so cities before currency or COL). In the game I used as an example , I was running just about 10% science before the merchant run. Around 40 turns later it was up to 30% then steadily increased.

More land (as long as its workable land almost always guarantees a win in the long run, and settling the land yourself (rather than waiting till later then fighting for it and getting it crushed by cultural pressure) is always preferrable.

I was just trying to illustrate that it's impossible to use any mathematical formula for determining the value of a GM, and whether to settle, trade run, or lightbulb, as there are more underlying factors than can possibly be taken into account.

Holy cities? I haven't had one for many, many games (always play random civ, if I get a religious civ then yes I go for religion, otherwise I wait until it finds me ).

Anyways, as you said, it's down to different playing styles, and as I said game speed and size of map. Marathon / huge / monarch is all about surviving the barbarians early on, then expanding as soon as you can , before the AI does the same, and steals "your" land.

My way is different, but believe me enjoyable. Build 6 cities research fast then expand, I've done, and find well, incredibly boring.

Each to their own

 

[a4phantom]

I'm curious as to what other people do with their Great Scientists. Personally, I tend to build Academies in my highest science cities (since they usually get quite a significant boost to science due to all the villages and towns I have around by that time). I've heard other players tend to prefer using them for lightbulbing techs, though. What's your preference?

I play Prince and not too frequently, and I depend on you and RJ for my number crunching, but I build an Academy in my top science city, then I settle Great Scientists there. If I didn't have the Great Library I might consider creating more Academies instead of settling Great Scientists, but without the Great Library I don't usually get Great Scientists

I often just keep expanding till I can't afford anymore cities early on (often 12 or so cities before currency or COL). In the game I used as an example , I was running just about 10% science before the merchant run. Around 40 turns later it was up to 30% then steadily increased.

More land (as long as its workable land almost always guarantees a win in the long run, and settling the land yourself (rather than waiting till later then fighting for it and getting it crushed by cultural pressure) is always preferrable.

Fond memories of Civ3

 

[cabert]

My way is different, but believe me enjoyable. Build 6 cities research fast then expand, I've done, and find well, incredibly boring.

Each to their own

Yep!
I don't build many settlers, usually.
1 is enough for half my games
The other half is going for cultural, where the food is too good to miss and GM are rare when running all artists .

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Fond memories of Civ3

Maybe ...I just hate to see good land going to waste, and am trying (with reasonable success) to defeat the CIV IV edict, which states....

"Thou shalt build 7 cities then cease construction. 7 cities is all thou canst afford. 7 shalt be the number of the cities, neither 8 nor 6, unless when building thoust 6th city, thou intends to build a 7th. 9 is right out, being larger than 7 which we decree."

It just leads to complete parity on a huge map, with each civ having said 7 cities until their economy can afford more. I just say screw the economy, thats some fine land over there....(hey, it's keeping me interested in civ )

 

[a4phantom]

I love that movie (brave statement there I know). Anyway I'm with Cabert, why build cities when you can take them? When I played Persia (Vanilla), there were horses within my original city's range so I never built another city. If I'm Inca, I never build a single city after my capital, although without Aggressive I suppose Capac's not quite the opening game terror he was.


How many hard-to-replace units must one lose in a row despite 85%+ odds of victory or retreat before it's manly to cry?

 

[cabert]

I love that movie (brave statement there I know). Anyway I'm with Cabert, why build cities when you can take them? When I played Persia (Vanilla), there were horses within my original city's range so I never built another city. If I'm Inca, I never build a single city after my capital, although without Aggressive I suppose Capac's not quite the opening game terror he was.


How many hard-to-replace units must one lose in a row despite 85%+ odds of victory or retreat before it's manly to cry?

I lost 2 artilleries with 98%+ odds in a row.
One of them had CR3 + barrage + drill 2
I still mourn the guy, but the next unit finished of moscow, the last russian city.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I love that movie (brave statement there I know). Anyway I'm with Cabert, why build cities when you can take them? When I played Persia (Vanilla), there were horses within my original city's range so I never built another city. If I'm Inca, I never build a single city after my capital, although without Aggressive I suppose Capac's not quite the opening game terror he was.


How many hard-to-replace units must one lose in a row despite 85%+ odds of victory or retreat before it's manly to cry?

I understand the "conquer another civ instead of building your own" method, except when you play huge maps with a dozen civs, then the nearest other civ (early on) is generally 15 to 20 tiles away. Conquering them in this case isn't really worth your while, they are too far away, but I can see how on normal maps it works well.

'Cept, anything smaller than a huge map, and faster than marathon isn't really civ to me

 

[cabert]

'Cept, anything smaller than a huge map, and faster than marathon isn't really civ to me

for me anything slower than normal is...
hum...
boring.
I guess this is where we differ

Huge maps are great for non warmonger's games. If you crowd them a bit they are good for warmongers but a real pain to play (too much to do, slowdown on the computer,...)

 

[o_owd]

this is probably a stupid question...

i downloaded a new civ for warlords.
how do i install it ? i put it in the mods folder but it does not show up.

thanks.

edit - found it. done.

 

[frankcor]

edit - found it. done.

Well, that was easy. I'm glad we could help.


heh heh heh ... I crack myself up.

 

[Welnic]

...If you want a purely mathematical analysis though... assuming a normal game of length 460 turns, and that an average Great Merchant will yield about 2000 gold from a trade mission (a very tentative and likely unreliable assumption)... well, if you compare that with the 6 gold per turn from a settled Great Merchant, he'll get you 600 gold per 100 turns he's settled. (I'm not sure, but I don't think multipliers apply to great people's revenue... do they??) So in other words, unless it's very early in the game then you'll probably get more money from conducting the trade mission than from settling the Great Merchant (and plus you'll get it all at one time, which is more useful). However... you need to consider the benefit of that extra 1 food per turn, which will allow you to grow faster and thus work new tiles (and reap more commerce) more quickly.

Multipliers do apply to settled great merchants. So if you put him in the right place, all of the money buildings plus Wall Street, then you will get 18 gold per turn.

One thing to keep in mind when talking about how much you get from trade missions is that you get 3 times as much for one in marathon as normal. Which makes sense since you will get 3 times as much if you settle him, also.

 

[Crighton]

1st up, an afternoon and one page late, thank you for the response.

And now I have another stupid question (or at least one I should know myself already by this point)

1- Why does War Weariness only increase? and not decrease with large victories like taking the others guys capital or something?

2- Is there, and where is, the best Specialist Economy thread?

3- (and lastly) has anyone found the formula for the increase in Maintence cost for accepting Vassals? I know I sure as heck haven't found it.

Any, and all, help is appreciated.

~C

 

[cabert]

1- Why does War Weariness only increase? and not decrease with large victories like taking the others guys capital or something?

the only answer to why is because
there is a very complete article on ww in the war academy.
basically it decreases by 1% every turn, but if you have battles in foreign land every turn, it can only increase.

2- Is there, and where is, the best Specialist Economy thread?

there isn't
what you can do is read the no cottages SG game.

3- (and lastly) has anyone found the formula for the increase in Maintence cost for accepting Vassals? I know I sure as heck haven't found it.

you get a number of cities hit, and that's it

 

[Ginger_Ale]

1st up, an afternoon and one page late, thank you for the response.

And now I have another stupid question (or at least one I should know myself already by this point)

1- Why does War Weariness only increase? and not decrease with large victories like taking the others guys capital or something?

I'm not quite sure, you'd have to ask Firaxis themselves! I guess you could mod it in somehow (or ask in the Creation and Customization forum to see if anyone has done it/is willing to do it), but I think the current system is fine. People who are tired of war don't really care if you take a city or not - to them, war is still war. I suppose that's the logic they use (because, after all, all they want is peace, not for you to conquer more cities).

2- Is there, and where is, the best Specialist Economy thread?

There are two very good articles on Specialists in the War Academy: they are here and here.

3- (and lastly) has anyone found the formula for the increase in Maintence cost for accepting Vassals? I know I sure as heck haven't found it.

Any, and all, help is appreciated.

~C

No, at least not according to this article on vassals, where the author states (at least according to the time it was written) that the formula isn't known.


edit: Crosspost with cabert.

 

[Crighton]

The War weariness thing, war is still war, ok I can see that to a degree, there's always going to be some peaceniks somewhere despite my best whipping. But I would think logically that at least some actions would improve or at least not add to the WW. Argh.

On my second question, reading the no cottages thread and the two from the war academy did help, short observation to make about myself, didn't think big enough.

I admit I did write a rather lengthy aritcle on Vassal's, but my hope still remains that someday, someone, will find what that formula actually is. I just regret I don't know enough about where and how to look to find that actual formula myself. I'd love to know it so I could round out that article. I tried doing it empiricly (build up a game then go to world builder and change the Vassal status in the diplomacy screen, there was no change as far as I could tell). Regretably I just don't know the answer or how exactly to get it, so I figured I'd ask around.

Once again,

I thank you all.

~Crighton

 

[a4phantom]

War weariness is not a realistic simulation of dissent, it's a game mechanic ploy to make conquest harder and punish certain actions. In real life of course your people won't hold victory against you, only defeat or stalemante. And in real life after America used nuclear weapons against Japan, Japan surrendered not America.

Does anyone know how barbarian units move whe they're not immediately next to a unit or border? I ask because I was playing the Genghis Khan scenario and building a road across Asia, so that when I finished off China and Korea my troops and camps could hurry across. Then, while my army was in the Middle East ravaging the Arabs, suddenly my camps, workers and recovering units, plus new units and escort, were hit in one turn from the East by 6-8 barbarian horsemen coming down the road I'd built from China. So I presume barbarians follow roads, which makes sense because they usually lead to cities, what else guides their movement?

 

[frankcor]

In real life of course your people won't hold victory against you, only defeat or stalemante.

That is true, of course, unless reporters like Mike Wallace declare your victory a massive defeat. Consider this:

The Wall Street Journal published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr. Tin responded "It was essential to our strategy", referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts "to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement." Visits to Hanoi made by persons such as Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses." Mr. Tin surmised, "America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Mr. Tin further advised that General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) had advised him the 1968 Tet Offensive had been a defeat.

 

[a4phantom]

America lost more than we were willing to continue paying to stay in Vietnam, while making the North Vietnamese pay less than they were willing to drive us out. That is defeat, whatever Mr Wallace (and especially Mr. Cronkite) had to say. The Germans killed more Russians than the Russians did Germans in WW2, but the Russians were willing and able to sustain the casualties and the Germans could not - did the Germans win on points?