Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[iceage_va]

Thanks to everyone who replied. My trump card in this is that if I want to go for domination, I was able to build the Iron Works in a low corruption city (6 tiles from my capital) so I’m making 90 shields per turn there and about to go up when I complete Hoover Dam in a couple of turns. So I have a wonder building machine that can also produce an army in about 4 or 5 turns between wonders since I built the Academy there. Plenty of loose spaces in the territory I’ve conquered to add cities to keep up with the 4 cities per army requirement.

 

[justanick]

Current game is Regent level, playing as the French. I share a continent with the Incans and Iroquois (and until this turn the Mayans but just took their last city.) I should have my choice of paths to victory at this point - I’m ahead in tech, population, land area, etc and am on good terms with almost all of the other civilizations. I’m still at war with the Iroquois and have a question about how to minimize culture flips in the newly conquered cities. I know I take a big reputation hit if I raze or starve out cities. Is there a big hit if I were to instead park a big stack of artillery outside of a city and bombard them to population 5 or 6 before taking them? That seems to be the sweet spot for minimizing culture flips but it could take a turn or two longer with a big city and if it would be faster to take the city quickly and starve them down that’s fine too. I’d like to at least keep the option for a diplomatic victory open if possible though.

To that end - I have to either go through the Incans or use a sea invasion to get to the last Iroquois cities. I don’t think a right of passage is an option - in fact they’ve given ROP to the Iroquois so I’ve dealt with a stream of attacks through their territory. Am I better off sucking it up and taking out the Incans too? I’m stronger than they are by far. Question is how much of a diplo hit do I take by starting another war because with my relative strength it will be hard to get them to start it? Other civs are all polite or better except for the Aztecs at annoyed.

This is rather mixed up. Reputation and AI attitude are seperate entities. And for AI attitude you need to differ between effects for all nations and the offended nation.

Starving will give a hit with regard to the offended nation. Bombardment as you describe however does not.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-attitude.44999/

All of this however is really missing the main point. Starvation is a poor strategy as are the alternatives you have in mind.

If you go to war, then do it right. Once you take the first enemy town, make sure to take all remaining towns in rapid succession. Once the enemy is eliminated the foreign citizens no longer have a tribe they can flip to, hence the risk of flipping is eliminated. That is the safe way and the smart way.

How can you take out the Iroquois fastest? Your best bet may be to sign a military alliance with the Incans against the Iroquois and as part of that alliance a RoP is suitable as that way the RoP will expire with the military alliance and the military alliance will expire by eliminating the Iroquois.

How many wars have you declared so far? I assume you declared war once for every enemy, so that would be twice in total so far. A third one against the Incans once they Iroquois are gone would complete your conquest of your continent. That should be a proper thing to aim for.

As a rule of thumb: Never declare war against a nation more than once. End every war by eliminating the tribe. That way you avoid the attitude hit from any later DoW. Sustainabilty by elimination.

 

[Samson]

If you go to war, then do it right. Once you take the first enemy town, make sure to take all remaining towns in rapid succession. Once the enemy is eliminated the foreign citizens no longer have a tribe they can flip to, hence the risk of flipping is eliminated. That is the safe way and the smart way.

I agree that this is the optimum way, if possible, and you are the tech leader. There are some times when it may not be:

• The AI is very into putting cities in far away inaccessible places. If you cannot quickly get to the last city, esp. if it is on a one tile island, then you may not be able to take it quickly.
• If the AI is ahead of you in techs, pointy stick research is very valuable and could be well worth starving the cities.
• If the AI is big, and you are getting hammered by war weariness temporary peace could be well worth starving the cities.

 

[justanick]

The AI is very into putting cities in far away inaccessible places. If you cannot quickly get to the last city, esp. if it is on a one tile island, then you may not be able to take it quickly.

This case of a lone one tile island is possible, but luckily not that likely.

In such case a peace threaty for getting that inaccesable town seems sensible. But it means that occuring flips cannot be undone without declaring war and thus breaking the fresh peace threaty. Also signing the peace in the first place may risk breaking an alliance. So maybe the best course of action is to still keep peace off the table and continue the war till marines.

It would be a war on paper. After 20 turns 1-0.98^20=33.34% of foreign citizens are assimilated and culture flips do also become less likely as the ratio of the global culture values changes in your favour.

After 40 turns 55.43% of foreigners are assimilated and after 60 turns it is 70.24%.

Another option is to delay the end of war. The enemy should keep 1 town on continent and the 1 town on the lone one tile island. When the last military alliance can be cancelled, cancel it and sign a peacy threaty to get the lone one tile island. The former ally still at war with your enemy will then take the last town on the continent. That would be the clean solution.

If the AI is ahead of you in techs, pointy stick research is very valuable and could be well worth starving the cities.

Maybe. But is it is not that expensive to forego such a peacy treaty. There is significant room for interpretation and i prefer to end the war in the first attempt.

If the AI is big, and you are getting hammered by war weariness temporary peace could be well worth starving the cities.

Here it is similar. A few turns of war weariness are an insufficient reason to incur the cost of signing a peace treaty. If however properly ending the war is no option within say 20 turns, then i probably agree.

I do however disagree on starving. Getting slave workers and slave settlers is a better use for the population. Slave settlers donnot flip and they donnot cost any unit support. You do however need to get the needed 30 shields somehow, say by disbanding 3 MedInfs. If you are lucky enough, this may even lure AI into declaring war on you, a preferable outcome if you are ready for it.

 

[Samson]

I do however disagree on starving. Getting slave workers and slave settlers is a better use for the population. Slave settlers donnot flip and they donnot cost any unit support. You do however need to get the needed 30 shields somehow, say by disbanding 3 MedInfs. If you are lucky enough, this may even lure AI into declaring war on you, a preferable outcome if you are ready for it.

I agree with most of what you said, it is all a balance and that is one reason why this game is great. Slave workers are also great, I build them a lot, but starving is quicker so reduces the chance of flip quicker. I tend to be in republic ASAP and use gold for the shields.

I never build slave settlers though. Is that not just taking the problem to your new town? Or do you keep them until the AI is dead?

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Now that I'm thinking about, I have a few obsolete units lying around, and without Leo's (or sufficient funds - I have some, but not a lot, and most of it goes into research to maintain my tech lead) it's not worth upgrading them. What is the shield conversion rate for disbanding obsolete units?

 

[tjs282]

I never build slave settlers though. Is that not just taking the problem to your new town? Or do you keep them until the AI is dead?

If a captured town is getting 3-5 SPT, Settlers(Foreign) are a great option. They cost no unit-maintenance, so you can keep them in storage indefinitely, for use in 'peacefully' expanding your borders, combat-Settlement during future wars, or simply filling in the large CxxxxC gaps that the defeated AI has left in their (now yours!) territory, while turning it into Farm-land.

If you use Settlers(Foreign) to found towns during an ongoing war against their parent-civ, then yes, that first citizen will be unhappy ("Stop the aggression..."), but if the town is far enough from the current front, and/or you grow it up fast (so that your own citizens outnumber the foreigner, occurs at Pop3 and only gets better from there!), its flip risk should be minimal.

Now that I'm thinking about, I have a few obsolete units lying around, and without Leo's (or sufficient funds - I have some, but not a lot, and most of it goes into research to maintain my tech lead) it's not worth upgrading them. What is the shield conversion rate for disbanding obsolete units?

For every 4 shields that the unit cost, you get 1 shield returned to the town's current build, rounded down.

So you get 2 shields per Warrior, 5 per Archer, 10 per Mace, 20 per Cav, etc...

 

[CKS]

but if the town is far enough from the current front, and/or you grow it up fast (so that your own citizens outnumber the foreigner, occurs at Pop3 and only gets better from there!), its flip risk should be minimal.

I am pretty sure that having many of your own citizens does not reduce the flip risk.

As a player who is poor at military campaigns and has no desire to get better at them, learning to make peace rather than wipe out the AI was a giant step forward. When I first started playing, I never declared war on other tribes, but if they declared on me I would continue the war until they were wiped out. This was a lousy strategy.

I still rarely declare war on other tribes - I don't generally play for military victories - but I've learned to manage war and peace a lot better, and wiping the other guy out is often not the best way to meet my goals, which are not generally the same as justanick's goals. (I'm sure his way meets his goals better.)

 

[justanick]

I agree with most of what you said, it is all a balance and that is one reason why this game is great. Slave workers are also great, I build them a lot, but starving is quicker so reduces the chance of flip quicker. I tend to be in republic ASAP and use gold for the shields.

You cannot use gold while there are still resistors and not while there are riots either.

If you create slave settlers via unit disbanding, then you can reduce populaton by 2 per turn and by 4 in the first 2 turns or 6 if you combine it with starvation, if that is possible. Still starvation is a waste of human capital. Investing is more fun than destroying.

I never build slave settlers though. Is that not just taking the problem to your new town? Or do you keep them until the AI is dead?

It is situational. Keeping them till AI is dead is the safer route, but often not the better one.

A settler reduces population by 2, but founding gives only one foreign citizens. Also the newly founded town will have no foreign culture, which is factor 2 on the unmitigated revolt risk. So still this is a great deal as at precisely same global culture you reduce the need for garrisons for safe suppression by 3.

I am pretty sure that having many of your own citizens does not reduce the flip risk.

Indeed: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/d-2000-in-flip-formula.41933/

I still rarely declare war on other tribes - I don't generally play for military victories - but I've learned to manage war and peace a lot better, and wiping the other guy out is often not the best way to meet my goals, which are not generally the same as justanick's goals. (I'm sure his way meets his goals better.)

Depending on what exactly your goals are, you could also try eliminate just a few tribes and gift their settlements to weaker tribes if favour of a balance of power. I am a bit shocked by your assessment that wiping out other tribes is not ideal for meeting your goals. I donnot know what your goals are, but to me it seem that there is a decent chance that whiping out a few tribes may still suit you.

 

[iceage_va]

Thanks for the different perspective. Will turn a few extra population into workers or settlers.

Things worked out OK anyway, I’d cut off an Inca city when I took the Mayans and the couple of Iroquois I could get at. They sent a few units through my territory - I gave them the Get Out or DOW and they chose to DOW so I’m chewing them up now.

Might be as good a place to ask as any - had two reasons for wanting to fight the Inca. First they had two sources of rubber I could see but they couldn’t use yet. I wanted to keep them from trading the second to someone else when they could make use of it, plus with my two sources I had already it would give me a close to complete monopoly. Second they appeared to be trading saltpeter and horses from a couple of other AI civs - I don’t know what they were using to buy them but wanted to cut off whatever earnings to those other civs if I could. Are those reasons worth the cost of a war?

Not sure if I’m thinking clearly on that but those were the driving factors. Plus I had a big army and maybe they were getting bored. It’s going slow though because I don’t have saltpeter and all of it is locked up with other trades. So I’m being a bit careful with my remaining cavalry until I get tanks in a few turns. Then I should pick up steam.

 

[CKS]

If I want a science victory, I don't want to wipe out any scientific tribes - I want their free techs on the age changes.
If I'm significantly weaker than my opponent, I may want to get out of the war ASAP so that I can concentrate on science now and military once I learn military tradition or replaceable parts.
I might not want to fight an overseas war.
I don't like the warfare part of Civ all that much, and enjoying the game is more important than any in-game goals. I also like GOTM and HOF, though, so I don't just play no-war 20k and science games. Still, I don't optimize my games for my in-game goals too much.

 

[tjs282]

Might be as good a place to ask as any - had two reasons for wanting to fight the Inca. First they had two sources of rubber I could see but they couldn’t use yet. I wanted to keep them from trading the second to someone else when they could make use of it, plus with my two sources I had already it would give me a close to complete monopoly.

Even though the Civ3-AI 'knows' where all the resources are on any map, they can't sell resources they can't 'see', so you don't have to worry about them selling Rubber to your enemies until they learn RepParts.

But yeah, it's always better to control Strategic-resources yourself — especially if you can obtain Exclusive Posession!

Second they appeared to be trading saltpeter and horses from a couple of other AI civs - I don’t know what they were using to buy them but wanted to cut off whatever earnings to those other civs if I could. Are those reasons worth the cost of a war?

Yup!

 

[Takhisis]

Will turn a few extra population into workers or settlers.

IIRC a city started with a ‘foreign’ settler will start with a foreign pophead. Beware the flip of doom!

 

[Jivilov]

If you go to war, then do it right. Once you take the first enemy town, make sure to take all remaining towns in rapid succession. Once the enemy is eliminated the foreign citizens no longer have a tribe they can flip to, hence the risk of flipping is eliminated. That is the safe way and the smart way.

As a rule of thumb: Never declare war against a nation more than once. End every war by eliminating the tribe. That way you avoid the attitude hit from any later DoW. Sustainabilty by elimination.

Easier said than done. Generally speaking War Weariness on Republic kicks in after 15 or 20 turns--depending of course on starting Happiness--at which point you may be obliged to up the Lux slider periodically if you haven't overrun or traded for sufficient new Luxes. At higher levels your opponent may have a large enough empire to delay elimination for a considerably longer number of turns, especially if they have offshore territory. Rather than wipe them out in a single exhausting conflict which may invite intervention against you it's often possible to eliminate most or all their core, then scarf up their Techs, gold, and maybe an offshore Town or two for a peace deal. (BTW if their culture ridiculously dwarfs mine then captured core Cities are usually razed, consequences be damned--unless they've got a really neat Wonder.)

Depending on circumstances you can then attack someone else or attack them again (although not necessarily immediately). The second go will be facing much weaker resistance so it should be quick, and since the first war didn't last so long residual WW won't be too bad. It's possible even on Demigod to leave them an offshore island rump state which you or someone else can gather up at their convenience. Just try to make sure there aren't any unhappy people in captured settlements!

 

[justanick]

Easier said than done. Generally speaking War Weariness on Republic kicks in after 15 or 20 turns[...]

You seem to imply to take on an enemy all by yourself, while i imply the opposite. By committing to not end the war without elimination i gain the freedom to invite every other tribe into a war against this enemy. In the first few turns this means to take no offensive actions and let AIs wear down themselves. Once the enemy is about to collapse instead of doing approximatly nothing i change it to doing approximatly everything in order to defeat the enemy ASAP and secure as much territory as reasonably possible.

Clever diplomacy changes the ease of conquest by an order of magnitude or two.

 

[Jivilov]

Sorry didn't mean to imply fighting alone. Long as your "allies" don't pick up too much territory on their own. Which usually doesn't happen 'cuz the AI stinks at taking cities from each other, although it does happen. Biggest problem is those offshore settlements, which is why I usually get a peace deal to avoid bothering with them.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

How does one determine whether to upgrade or disband for the shield value? I have a bunch of old units that is just ridiculous to keep around, but I never got around to dealing with them. (I don't have Leo's.) Ideas?

 

[vorlon_mi]

How does one determine whether to upgrade or disband for the shield value? I have a bunch of old units that is just ridiculous to keep around, but I never got around to dealing with them. (I don't have Leo's.) Ideas?

I tend to upgrade offensive units, swords -> MedInf, knights -> cavalry. My archers usually die before I can upgrade them to longbows; I don't build so many because I build swords as soon as I can instead of archers. Formerly, I upgraded all my spears -> pikes -> muskets -> infantry. Now, I leave my pikes and muskets as token city garrisons and build my infantry fresh. Playing at Regent level, I usually have plenty of gold/cash. I am not yet in the habit of running binary research; I nearly always push the science slider so that I have a small positive cash flow and decrease it with 1 turn to go.

I keep building siege all along the way, and I do upgrade my cats and trebs to cannons.

If I had a bunch of MedInf laying around in the Industrial Age, I would consider disbanding them in newly conquered towns to help build something that those towns need.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Formerly, I upgraded all my spears -> pikes -> muskets -> infantry. Now, I leave my pikes and muskets as token city garrisons and build my infantry fresh.

That's pretty much what I've done, having upgraded very few units at all. I was not able to build Cavalry until late due to a lack of saltpeter (though I was eventually able to trade for it), so I have a bunch, but more Knights (and still a few Horsemen).

Playing at Regent level, I usually have plenty of gold/cash.

I'm playing at Monarch, and this is the first game ever that I've broken the 10K barrier on cash. I've done well at keeping the AI civs bankrupts, and am ahead on research.

I am not yet in the habit of running binary research; I nearly always push the science slider so that I have a small positive cash flow and decrease it with 1 turn to go.

What do you mean by "binary research"? I do the same with science, checking every turn for the ability to decrease without losing a turn.

This game is weird, though ... I'm pushing 80-90% research, have an income of over 100-per-turn (sometimes over 200), but cannot seem to get back down to 4 turns per tech anymore. I have only a few specialists, all scientists. I'm probably far enough ahead that it doesn't matter at this stage, but I'm curious as to why it's worked out that way.

 

[jarred!]

Use that surplus on rushing buildings. If you don't have military aspirations, then upgrading units doesn't work toward a goal. Disband units that can't be used as MPs or to lower flip risk in cities building infrastructure.

To get to 4 turn research, build all scientific buildings in any city that the maintenance cost won't make the city pay more in maintenance than it makes in post-corruption commerce. High corruption cities and cities with many buildings can become drains on your economy; in cities at near maximum corruption or above, irrigate everything and have only enough citizens working tiles to not starve (at 6 or 12 pop) and make everyone else scientists.

What VC are you going for?