rush build of military units, settlers and caravans (take a look - it is interesting)

Foma2

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
48
I've found an interesting suggestion in one of Civilization 2 guidelines (as I've already said before I read them as they are really useful for Civilization 1 as well, not completely but at least 70% and with some interpretation they can work for you very well).
One of the things I found is a rush build of military units (including settlers).
There are two major points there.
First of all we all know that it's just ridiculous to buy anything without any shields in the city screen (except under some really desperate circumstances but I'm not going to talk about them here). so, let's say you've got some shields.

First point is not to buy units as this way you would waste the shields produced at that turn. One suggestion if you still want (or have to) buy a unit, relocate your people to squares with less production but with more food or trade arrows, and once the unit is built, return them back.

Second one is instead of buying units, buy shields. Certainly you can't buy let's say 20 shields directly but there is a work around for that. Let's say you are building a settler (I would rather talk about settlers cause it is critical to build as many as possible within a shortest possible timeframe in the beginning of the game, so that you could found enough cities, connecting them with roads, and then start improving productive squares).
There is another reason to buy shields not units is the more shields you are buying the more expensive they are per shield.
As an example, you want to buy a diplomat (cost - 30 shields) and here is how much you would pay (1st column - how many shields you have in a city screen, 2nd - how many shields you are actually buying, 3rd - how much you would pay, 4th - price per shield) :
7 23 72 3.13
13 17 48 2.82
25 5 11 2.20
28 2 4 2.00

So, you can easily see that the less shields you are buying the better deal you get. If you buy from 1 to 4 shields you are paying the lowest possible rate - 2 coins per shield. So, for example you are building a settler (cost 40) and you have 26 shields in the city screen and your current city production is 2 shields per turn. Instead of buying a settler, switch to a diplomat (cost 30), buy it for 8 coins, switch back to a settler, and now you have 30 shields in the city screen. Next turn you will have 30+2=32, and then you'll build a settler in a few turns.

Let's have a look at other options.
Option 2 : buy it - it would cost you (as per my estimation) 39 coins and you would get a settler next turn.
Option 3 : just build it - seven turns, no money spent.
Option 4 : build it till it is cheap to buy it (i.e. till you have 36 shields in the city screen) , three turns and 8 coins.

So let's see what we have (1st column - how many turns it took to build a settler, 2nd - how much money spent) :
Option 1 : 5/8
Option 2 : 1/39
Option 3 : 7/0
Option 4 : 7/8

so, you can see that you can get a settler two turns earlier than via its normal production. And it is for a very reasonable price of 8 coins. Option 2 and especially option 4 is just a waste of money. Moreover if you do a switch-buy-switch back thing three times during production of the settler (when you have 16 coins in the city screen switch to a phalanx buy it and switch back to a settler, and before, when you have 6 - use a militia), you would save 6 turns. If you build 5 settlers this way, your total gain is 30 turns. Awesome.

All I said before was applicable to both Civilization 1 and 2. Now, something that can be done in Civilization 1 only. As you are not loosing shields when you switch between production of city improvements and military units you can buy units really cheap. Let's say you have 2 shields in the city screen, switch from the settler to a city improvement of the same price - a barracks or a temple. Buy it. It would cost you 72 coins, then switch back to your settler or e.g. chariot (I would also suggest moving people off the shield producing squares to food or trade arrow producing ones for this turn to minimize loss of produced shields). You'll get a unit next turn. If you bought it as a unit, you would have spent 152 coins (it is just my estimation - check it in the game but should be pretty close). So, the first option would save you 80 coins. Awesome.
Another use of this approach is to rush build caravans and then help to build wonders. Briefly : set a Caravan in production, wait one turn, switch to temple or barracks, buy it, switch back to a Caravan, your city have to produce 10 shields to complete it. If your city production is 5 shields, it would take 3 turns and 70 coins to build a Caravan. Normal production would take 10 turns. You bought 35 shields for 70 coins, if you did it for the wonder, you would spent 140 coins. In other words, you saved 70 coins per caravan, or from 420 to 840 coins per a wonder. Awesome.

The only drawback of the latest approach is that to be able to do it, you should have a temple or barracks still to be built. For settlers and wonders it works fine (normally you build those units in cities without barracks). Veteran units unfortunately can't produced this way (I build temples in each city so it's not an option for me) as you already should have barracks there. Anyway you can do iterations using cheaper units as I described in the first half of my post.
 
You can win the game on Emperor level against 7 civs without ever having to worry about minutiae like this.
 
I have never tried suggestion 1, and I do something similar to sugg. 2 all the time.

It's a great idea and effective when you're on a tight budget. I do the buy 1 line of shields at a time trick all the time when I'm low on cash. It can be time consuming sometimes though.

However, I don't understand how a wonder can only cost 140 coins? The gap between a wonder and a lower cost improvement is big, and is atleast 3 to 6 lines of shields.
 
Foma2 said:
You bought 35 shields for 70 coins, if you did it for the wonder, you would spent 140 coins. In other words, you saved 70 coins per caravan, or from 420 to 840 coins per a wonder. Awesome.

However, I don't understand how a wonder can only cost 140 coins? The gap between a wonder and a lower cost improvement is big, and is atleast 3 to 6 lines of shields.

I think what he meant was you get 140 coins worth of shields towards the wonder for 70 coins. You would still have to pay a total of more than 140 coins if you were actually buying the wonder.
 
I meant building a wonder via rush building caravans in other cities and then forwarding them to the city which builds the wonder.
 
Oh yeah, I do that all the time, but I can't be bothered buying the caravans line by line.
 
I consider using such tricks (often called "micro management" by Civ 3 players) as a kind of cheating. It's much more practical to use one of the available save-editing programs to add yourself the corresponding amount of money (by this you'll save a plenty of time and effort). Anyway, thx for discovering this trick, never thought smth like this exists in Civ 1.
 
You can use the palace as an intermediate step to buying many wonders as well.
 
Never tried this but when buying wonders, buy the least expensive buildings until the wonder is the only thing left you can get, cause it'll cost less overall. Also sometimes things which will take the same amount of turns to build can cost diff amounts.
 
This isn't cheating; it is a tactic entirely consistent with the rules of the game. I find the invention of tactics like this to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of Civilization. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Unfortunately, the AI is so primitive in the original game that you can indeed win at Emperor without doing anything like this, although it could come in handy if you're trying to run up the score or meet a self-imposed spaceship deadline.
 
I've heard people trumpet this method around the Civ3 forum. To me, like Ifrit, it is cheating. Yes, the game lets you do it. The game also lets you build any terrain improvement in one turn, or put railroads on top of ocean. The game is (to most of us) a little simulation of building a nation and/or fighting wars. Taking advantage of tricks in the system emphasizes the game aspect and eliminates the simulation aspect.

All that, not to mention it requires a huge amount of time to manipulate the system in such ways that it really isn't worth it in typical play. Only if you are competing against another human and you haven't set any rules and all you care about is beating him as completely as possible in score or time or population.
 
I've heard people trumpet this method around the Civ3 forum. To me, like Ifrit, it is cheating. Yes, the game lets you do it. The game also lets you build any terrain improvement in one turn, or put railroads on top of ocean. The game is (to most of us) a little simulation of building a nation and/or fighting wars. Taking advantage of tricks in the system emphasizes the game aspect and eliminates the simulation aspect.

All that, not to mention it requires a huge amount of time to manipulate the system in such ways that it really isn't worth it in typical play. Only if you are competing against another human and you haven't set any rules and all you care about is beating him as completely as possible in score or time or population.

Why would reassign of settlers to something else (so you don't build extra shields) or the way to buy part of shields (if needed) to rush production is called cheating??

Some people really should check their reasoning.

Nice strategy Foma2, I was using some of it already. :goodjob:
 
Yes, the game lets you do it. The game also lets you build any terrain improvement in one turn, or put railroads on top of ocean. The game is (to most of us) a little simulation of building a nation and/or fighting wars. Taking advantage of tricks in the system emphasizes the game aspect and eliminates the simulation aspect.

What version of the game are you playing that let's you railroad oceans? That's not the game, that's a hack, achieved by manipulating code. There's a difference.

More to the point, I agree with you in seeing Civilization as a sim system to play with rather than a game to beat. I guess I just see innovations like queue swapping as part of the simulation. In real life, careful attention to the details of economic and manufacturing activity can yield dividends, so why should it be any different in the Civilization?
 
What version of the game are you playing that let's you railroad oceans? That's not the game, that's a hack, achieved by manipulating code. There's a difference.

More to the point, I agree with you in seeing Civilization as a sim system to play with rather than a game to beat. I guess I just see innovations like queue swapping as part of the simulation. In real life, careful attention to the details of economic and manufacturing activity can yield dividends, so why should it be any different in the Civilization?

No, it's not a hack. The plain amiga version at least lets you railroad oceans if you put a settler on a transport.
 
I think all versions let you do it. I play Civ DOS v 1. Put a settler on a boat of any kind. Click the boat and select the settler, then you can tell it (R)oad and it builds a road. Tell it (R)oad again and you get a railroad. Railroads on fish increase their food. It is a feature of the game and people use it, like you use buying shields then changing what you are building. It is a perfectly legal part of the game, but a lot of people view it as taking unfair advantage of the system, just like many people view your system as taking unfair advantage of the system.
 
Back
Top Bottom