Regent TICKS ME OFF!! (long)

[ticklesivory]

After completely dominating Chieftan I figured I was ready to advance. I started a Regent game this morning, 5000 BC, roaming barbarians, Standard size. I made a city right where it started me, (in the corner of a small island of course), sent my scout off looking for camps, my worker to work, and proceeded production in this order -- Warrior, then Settler, made another town with warrior, worker, then settler, made another town with spearman then settler for one more town. All during this time I am getting threatened by America and Aztecs demanding money and maps, and techs. At first I gave them what they wanted, but finally when I stood up to them and said no, they declared war on me. It was only 330 BC and already America had made the Oracle, the Pyramids, and Aztecs the Great Wall and Collosus. I had begun the Oracle and the Collosus, but they beat me to it (on my biggest town, they were both 100 turns). I was doing fine with gold (obviously - since every other CIV was demanding it from me!), but was told I was outnumbered in troops and behind in techs.

The Aztecs right next to me crowded me before I could get my 4th town built and they already had harbors and galleys, and I was just now making swordmen. No options for either of the prior.

How in the h*#! did everyone get so far ahead of me? In Chieftan, I kick butt on everything and did exactly the same thing I did in this game, but after America and Aztecs both declared war on me because I refused to give them what they demanded, and after they completely wiped out my Elite swordman and Spearman with their regular warriors....I quit.

What am I doing wrong?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

can you post a savegame? upload it on the file server (bottom right corner, link says 'upload File', then post a link here).

Mabye it is that the AIs traded heavily, maybe that they set science to 100% until the have improvements built.....

Go to the Succession Games Forum and check out a few games - you will find detailed descriptions and savegames.

If that doesn't help, play a new game and save every turn. Then, mail me the saves or post them, I`ll see what I can do

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Judging from you description, I would hazard the following guesses:

1) America's scouts popped a good number of techs out of goody huts.
2) You are doing very little diplomacy on your own initiative. As you go up levels, diplomacy becomes more and more important. If you don't trade with the other civs, they tend to become annoyed.
3) It sounds like you need to build more military than you are building. The AIs will bully you if they think you are weak. Check your military advisor and see what he says about your strength compated to the others. If he says you're weak, you can count on getting extorted by the AIs.
4) Also remember that as you go up in levels, the AI will research techs a lot faster. That makes it even more important to check with them, and see if you can buy the techs they have.

Good luck.

 

[ticklesivory]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
can you post a savegame? upload it on the file server (bottom right corner, link says 'upload File', then post a link here).

Thanks Killer. I was so hacked, I didn't save this game, but when I settle down, I'll probably try it again and do what you suggested.

 

[ticklesivory]

Originally posted by Gastric ReFlux

2) You are doing very little diplomacy on your own initiative. As you go up levels, diplomacy becomes more and more important. If you don't trade with the other civs, they tend to become annoyed.<

Obviously! I'll remember this.

3) It sounds like you need to build more military than you are building.
I did take some time off to build a temple and barracks - I suppose that weakened my military?



4) Also remember that as you go up in levels, the AI will research techs a lot faster. That makes it even more important to check with them, and see if you can buy the techs they have.
Is it a good idea to up tech% and not worry about money -- or do the opposite and set it low and buy techs from everybody else? I suppose if you don't have $$, they won't demand it from you, but America was demanding what little techs I had. I tried proposing another deal and offering them it for $$, but that didn't stop them from trying it a couple of more times. (The third time which I refused and went to war.)
Good luck.

EDIT: By gonzo, your text color change should work now. You need to use the [color=blue] [/color] I also changed the color from red to blue since bold red is associated with moderator speak

 

[ticklesivory]

Sorry about the font color change -- didn't work did it?

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by ticklesivory

How in the h*#! did everyone get so far ahead of me? In Chieftan, I kick butt on everything and did exactly the same thing I did in this game,
What am I doing wrong?

Sometimes you have to use a different stratagy at higher levels.

 

[Masquerouge]

The same thing happened to me, ticklesivory. I was finally able to succeed at regent when I changed my strategy and became more agressive (build more military, explore more, settle more...) but I still reload when another CIV is too close from me at the beginning.
Maybe you could just cut down the number of other civs in your game ? How many civs do you play with on your standard map ?

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by sabo10
Sometimes you have to use a different stratagy at higher levels.

Sometimes?!

Strategies that work on Chieftan will not work on Regent. Strategies that work on Regent will not work on Deity.

For instance, the Ancient Age Great Wonders. You can get them on Chieftan. Most Regent players (that I know of) don't even bother to try for them. At least, not as straight builds. A GL from an early war may be used to rush one.

Some useful points:

Settle. Settle, settle, settle! Population is Power. I'm not saying you need to run at full Settler Flood, but get your first few cities built ASAP. If possible, let one be a "Settler Factory", and keep it cranking settlers and workers. Let another city provide military for it.

Trade! Sometimes, you can just set your science to zero, and buy the techs from the AI. Just don't buy too soon. The price drops the more Civs that know the tech.In any case, the more you trade, the happier the AI is with you.

Micromanage your workers, and city governors. The key you have over the AI is your brain. Don't let the AI (automated workers/city managers) take that away from you!

Remember the cardinal rule in your build queues: If it can wait, it should wait.

Finally, like Killer suggested, go to the Succession Games Forum and check out some of the games. You can get a lot of good tips from following them. You might want to find and study the Training Day Games, in particular. They were run with the express purpose of making better Succession Gamers, but a side benefit is that a good SG-er is a good single-player,too!

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Micromanage your workers, and city governors. The key you have over the AI is your brain. Don't let the AI (automated workers/city managers) take that away from you!

Doing that also gives one the right to complain about AI stupidity.

It was good that Padma pointed out that settling and expansion is also very important. More cities = more units = more military = the AI is less likely to think you are a target to bully.

I disagree that one can't build Ancient Wonders at Regent level. You probably won't get all of them (though I had a game where I did, but that was thanks to a terrific start location that let me get a whole bunch of cities rapidly). But as many point out, the Wonders in Civ3 aren't all that terrific with their effects. The only Wonder I consider a must build is the UN if I have diplomatic victory enabled, because I don't want an AI to build it and steal the game from me. Hoover's is about the only wonder I consider critical is if the game is still balanced in the Industrial Age, yet I've won games without it. Wonders are gravy, they aren't the meat and potatoes. They're a heavy shield investment that could build you a bunch of horsemen/swordsmen instead.

At Monarch level, there are three wonders I aim for: Theory of Evolution, Hoover's and the United Nations. The rest I just take from the AI unless I get a GL who can build one in one turn.

 

[Padma]

I disagree that one can't build Ancient Wonders at Regent level.

I didn't say you can't get any, just that most players don't try for them.

Like you said, none of them are really that critical. I have on occasion snagged one or two, myself, when I'vs had a city with good production that wasn't needed to crank out something else, and/or I've been too isolated to trade for techs to build something else.

In my current game (Iroquois, standard, continents, 70%, 7 civs) we are in the Industrial Age, and fairly balanced. I just got Hoover, and my FP city (former Zulu capital ) is a powerhouse. In the Ancient Age, I built the Oracle (religious Civ, & I took a chance), and surprised myself by getting the Great Lighthouse, too. I took the Great Wall from the Zulu. Since the start of the Medieval Age, I have gotten every wonder I have tried for. (But I haven't tried for all. )

 

[newfangle]

I can alreay tell what you did wrong. You built a worker and then a settler from your first city. Your city needs to grow the population before you can attempt to build worker (1 pop) or a settler (2 pop). I am playing at emperor these days, and the first thing I build never uses pupulation, whether its a temple or spearman or whatever. Once you have at least one thing built (by this time you should have a population of at least 2) start building a settler. Since the settler will probably take 10 turns or so, when it is finished, you should have a population of 3 allowing it to be built. Lather rinse and repeat until you have enough cities.

Hope that helps

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Sorry for the confusion Padma, but that's what I was answering to, about the trying for them. I didn't mean to imply that you thought a person couldn't get them.

And I think Newfangled just pointed out something we all missed up to now. If the first thing being built in new city were workers and settlers, then turns were likely being lost until the population of the city had enough growth. It's critical not to build workers and settlers if the city's population isn't large enough. You never get a lost turn back.

 

[Catt]

Moving from Chieftan to Regent is a big step. Chieftan is the "learning mode" and is actually significantly easier than Warlord level. I would suggest you play a few games at Warlord level to get comfotable with your basic skillset - the move from Warlord to Regent is much less dramatic, and after you've played and won a few games at Warlord a jump to Regent shouldn't be a challenge.

 

[Padma]

No problem, GR.

And you're right, newfangle may have hit on it. I forget that someone used to Chieftan may make AI-style plays, like building a settler that is due 10-12 turns before the population necessary will be. Like you say, you never get a lost turn back.

Catt makes a good point, too. Ticklesivories should maybe try Warlord first. Then again, who are we to tell him what level to play?

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by Padma
Then again, who are we to tell him what level to play?

Deity?

In some ways, I can't comment all that well about Chieftain level. When I first started, it was at Warlord, and I only ever played Chieftain once out of curiosity.

 

[murewa]

what these experts ^ forgot to tell you is that losing elite swordsmen to regular warriors is a real pain in the *ss!

in each game I play and in every time I lose units through some stupid odds, I question myself, "What the hell am I doing playing such a stupid game?!"

Hit ESC, press cursor down once, Hit Enter. Wait a while. Then play Starcraft (or whatever you've got). That should cool your head down a lot for another round of Civ3.

Civ3 - Not for the faint of heart.

 

[Padma]

Tsk, tsk, murewa. Is it time for your medication again?

Maybe the question you should be asking is " why am I playing this like a wargame?" Civ3 is not a wargame, and was never intended to be one. If you want "realism" in your wargames, play one! Civ3 is a simulation of building/controlling a civilization. War, like trade, and diplomacy, has been abstracted for simplicity. Besides, a swordsman isn't that much stronger than a warrior. The guys who complain about losing an army of modern tanks to a "super spearman" at least have some leg to stand on.

In any case, ticklesivories didn't seem to be complaining about the RNG results. He just wanted to know why his Chieftan strategies didn't seem to work on Regent.

 

[murewa]

Originally posted by Padma
Tsk, tsk, murewa. Is it time for your medication again?

Maybe the question you should be asking is " why am I playing this like a wargame?" Civ3 is not a wargame, and was never intended to be one. If you want "realism" in your wargames, play one! Civ3 is a simulation of building/controlling a civilization. War, like trade, and diplomacy, has been abstracted for simplicity. Besides, a swordsman isn't that much stronger than a warrior. The guys who complain about losing an army of modern tanks to a "super spearman" at least have some leg to stand on.

In any case, ticklesivories didn't seem to be complaining about the RNG results. He just wanted to know why his Chieftan strategies didn't seem to work on Regent.

uhhh... not a wargame? consider SimCity- another Sid Meier creation. Now that is NOT and I say NOT a wargame. when Sid added the war feature - that is what changed this game from becoming another SimCity-version game. If you want a "not intended to be a wargame" type of game - maybe you're playing the wrong game (back at ya). hell, I can give a hundred facts that say that this is indeed also a wargame. for instance - why would they put in only military-type naval units instead of an Oil Tanker or a Passenger ship. hmmmm?

and about the swordsmen versus warrior - I play tight games. I hardly ever encounter modern tanks vs spearman combat situations. That is because - did I mention - I play tight games. And I said Swordsmen - with an 'e' not 'a'. Yes a swordsmAn isn't any much stronger than a warrior. But losing a horde of swordsmen to a couple of warriors tests my patience everytime.

we have different opinions on ticklesivory's post. I, for one, thought that losing his elite swordsmen+spearmen to warriors was the final straw and he quit. If it wasn't a factor in his frustration with playing at regent then let him decide. he's the one playing the game, mind you.

And I don't do drugs.

 

[wohmongarinf00l]

let's summarise the lesson:
ur first city should start producing a warrior then a scout if u can.
if u have a scout and don't wanna micromanage his exploration press 'E' and let him do his thing.
if by the time ur settler is built the population is not 3, u need to build something else preferably a warrior or a scout.
for a real good-feel game, don't bother building unnecessary improvements in ur cities. a ton of warriors can be upgraded to swordsmen in a barracks near the target. temples are unnecessary unless u want some border expansion to use more tiles.