SGFN-05: India Stomps the World

[anaxagoras]

On catapults, I agree with Optional, cats are better for defense than offense, as they seem to miss a lot when shot at a city.

Well, cats miss a lot anytime. I still think they can add plenty on offense, as long as your expectations are reasonable. If you have at least two per defender, you basically turn a stack of vets into regulars (or regulars into conscripts). I would hate to see them scattered around strictly on defense with Munich right there.

Before I finish, I will stir the pot with another thing to think about: Government. Republic or Monarchy? When do we revolt?

I'm still not convinced Republic is a good idea in an AW variant. We have two big, productive towns that will riot if we lose MP coverage, and we're just not that interested in a high tech pace, which is the main advantage of being a Republic. We may even have already built up enough WW against Germany to have an effect, and we almost certainly will do that throwing horses up against the Great Wall. I'm willing to listen to good arguments, but being a Republic in AW for the novelty of it doesn't really interest me.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Actually, I think Republic is a red herring and Monarchy will be the go-to government. Republic is good trade bait, we might save it for our next-era tech trading, or to give to our enemies just before we declare. My bet: We will have unit support issues even with Monarchy. Any AW variant needs extra units, and this one is no exception. Actually, even the revolt is a red herring, as it will be very limited suffering, since India is Religious, 2 IBT's, and it is over

 

[Northen Wolf]

yes, but those 2 IBTs mean 2 turns loss in shields and commerce that is bad i(h)mo. Have you guys thought on using anything else besides monarchy for a government?

 

[Optional]

I've been looking into the governments a bit. Maybe Republic is not ideal. Anaxagoras not liking it would be enough for me to turn it down. There's something in our playing style that doesn't go with Republic: we're spending too much time in enemy territory without attacking, gathering war weariness points that'll haunt us in Republic.
In hindsight, we shouldn't have researched Republic if we weren't going for it. Everybody knows Republic, so it's no trade bait.
What could be very good trade bait is Feudalism, coming in in 2 turns. We're very lucky, looking at the techs other civs have drawn: Greece and Aztecs have Engineering, Germany has Monotheism. Let's pray it stays that way over the next two turns, then we can make a nice trade round. We should be able to snap up Engineering and Monarchy with ease if Feudalism still gives monopoly then.
How good are your trading skills, Northen Wolf? I remember you did quite well in your previous round. It looks like a couple of crucial decisions need to be made in two turns. If you're not sure what to do, we could always have a small team brief. If it's you who's up, that is. You or Rodent, I'm not certain.

I think it's Monarchy we want to go to. But that's me assessing the team. My own choice for government would be Feudalism. That's not a popular choice, I know, so just leave it if you don't want it, but I would still like to bring forward why I think it would be good here:
* Unit support: Feudalism is the government with the best unit support in our current situation, supporting 71 units right now, while we're having 69. We will continue to stay under our limit if we continue to pop in or conquer new towns, like we're doing just now. Reverse unit support is not a problem if you continue to expand.
* 3 MP's allowed. Feudalism has war weariness like Republic, so your war tactics should be like that in a Republic, but with the extra unit support and MP's of Feudalism war weariness should be much less of a problem.
I hardly use Feudalism myself, it sucks for a research game. It also sucks for Always War because of the war weariness, but it can work out quite well in the kind of conquest game as we're in just now. Technically it's maybe Always War what we're doing, but this is much closer to regular conquest than pure Always War. There are Conquest games in the Hall Of Fame that have used Feudalism; I always hate it when people say Feudalism is only good for 100K games.
But now that I've said that, please go Monarchy if that's what you're more comfortable with. The main thing is that we make a good trade round in two turns.

Thanks Overseer and Anaxagoras for your insights on artillery destroying wonders, and the war happiness bit.
And I appreciate it, VMXA, you following us and providing a comment every now and then. Good stuff!

 

[vmxa]

Lurker:

Optional, I would say you are correct to not dismiss Feud, but one other big issue with it is the Hurry. You use forced labor, that is a problem in new front line towns that may need a wall or a rax.

Feudalism also has the support cost of 3, rather than 1. So if you do go over support levels it is very painful. The 5/2/1 free support is nice in games where you will be pop rushing a lot or founding many towns that will never grow to cities.

OTOH, if you found lots of towns in Monarchy, you are fine regardless if they become cities or not. You tend to reach a tipping point in Monarchy, where you never have to worry about support. You just keep getting larger and larger.

You do have the consideration that Monarchy and Republic are optional techs. In the end it comes down to WW. If you will not have to deal with much of it, then Monarchy loses it attraction. If you will or do not want to worry about WW, then Monarchy wins.

 

[Optional]

Feud... You use forced labor, that is a problem in new front line towns that may need a wall or a rax.

You mean you would lose the option to cash rush a quickly needed wall or barracks? Because I wasn't thinking of using the whip much.
Maybe the whip is more applicible in those 100K games, where the culture points are so important that you'll put up with the whip unhappiness, but I have to say I never play those kind of games. I just know that whip unhappiness can last a long time, so I'm not so keen on whipping, apart perhaps from the odd case of whipping a temple in a food rich but shield poor town. But I don't see us whipping now in Despotism, so I think we would stay away from that in Feudalism as well.
If you do go over your unit support in Feudalism it is pricey, but looking at what we are doing now in this game, we are continueing to pop in new towns, pretty close together as well, and I see a tendency among the team to spawn settlers from towns when they reach city size. That is ideal for Feudalism.

I still don't think this team will want Feudalism, but I gathered some figures. We should try and work towards some sort of government, we don't want in Despotism for the rest of the game, do we?

Right now we're making 137 beakers per turn in Despotism. That's gross, before anything. Going to Monarchy or Feudalism will bring that to 148 per turn, not much more.
What we're doing now is:
Despotism:
80% science, 79 beakers to science, -4gpt.
Going for Monarchy would see us doing this:
70% science, 83 beakers to science, -20gpt.
or
60% science, 63 beakers to science, +12gpt.
Feudalism would give:
80% science, 93 beakers to science, +1gpt.

I think in these examples both Monarchy and Feudalism would work out slightly better in reality, because more food allows more citizens to work as scientists. Still, Monarchy doesn't look too good, mainly because we lose 31gpt on unit costs. We have 13 towns and 3 cities, so Monarchy supports (13 x 2) + (3 x 4) = 38 units. We have 69. That's 31 units unsupported, costing 31gpt. Despotism leaves 5 units unsupported, Feudalism supports everything.
Republic is difficult to compare, because that means a different lux slider setting, but I don't think there's much sense in seeing how Republic would work out just now, because we are doing everything we shouldn't do if we wanted to go to Republic. For Republic we should at least get most towns up to city size and get the third luxury in, then we could consider it.

Then there's the war weariness issue. You're right, VMXA, if war weariness would never be an issue, then Monarchy would never be interesting.
I think it's a legitimite question to ask how much we're expecting.
Frankly, I don't expect much from Germany or Babylon. You need to gather some 30 war weariness points for war weariness to have any effect. Germany is toothless and not able to attack us, so almost all our war weariness will come from our own units dying while attacking them. At a rate of 2pts per unit some 15 Horses will have to ride to their deaths in attacks on German towns. Maybe a few less, because we're already in German territory, gathering some points. Still, with Germany having only 5 towns, by the time we could begin to notice some war weariness, I think Germany will be all but gone. And with Feudalism saving us 31gpt compared to Monarchy, we would be able to accept some war weariness in Feudalism and still be better off than in Monarchy.
Babylon has 9 towns and Swordsmen. That could last a little longer, but again I don't expect much more than minor war weariness.
I don't know who's up after that.
I would have a very different view on things if we were up against Aztecs or Iroquois now. That would last longer, they're bigger empires, and we can expect counter attacks. The war weariness points would gather quickly then, and with no sandbagging allowed we would at some stage get stuck if we were in a government that had war weariness. But that's still a long time away. Maybe we'll have a lot more luxuries and marketplaces by then, and are in a better position to deal with war weariness.

I think it's up to the team now to form an opinion on what government we should go for and when. I've spoken already, now it's for others to put something on the table.

 

[vmxa]

Lurker:

Yup in 100K speed games, you will whip a bunch. Note they are usually played at low levels, so you can get away with many things.

I was presuming you would not want to do much whipping in the main part of the empire, but if you needed to finish a build, you have a quandary. What I was thinking is that you found a new town on the front and want a wall. How to do you rush it, no pop to use? Same in a captured town that is small.

This is the main reason I avoid governments that use forced labor. Just another factor to consider.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I am thinking Monarchy so that we can avoid war-weariness. I've never done Feudalism for a war game, so I'm a little leery there. If we were going to do a government with war-weariness, I'd just go with the known quantity in Republic. I also hate whipping and the toll it takes on an empire, so I much prefer a cash-rush government. We might try that in a different type game, a 100k attempt in a future iteration of SGFN.

 

[Optional]

I think we've got this now:
Overseer: Monarchy
Northen Wolf: ?
Rodent: ?
Anaxagoras: ?
Optional: Feudalism

Err...see this as an encouragement for the people with the ? behind their name to speak up. I hope I'm not taking over too much, Overseer.

I think we can make any of the 3 available governments work for us, but that Monarchy will win in the long run, when we're up against tougher opponents.
Right now it's only Feudalism we could switch to straight away and be better off. So interpret my vote as: go Feudalism now, and drop back to Monarchy when needed.
Not being able to cash rush a wall in Feudalism is no issue, as Berlin will give us walls everywhere. No need for whipping, I think, and using cash for unit upgrades is still possible. Cash rushing we won't have the money for for a while.

Republic is hardly a better known quantity than Feudalism. Even when you haven't played Feudalism, you can just read in the civilopedia what it does. It's Republic that gives an unknown factor when switching to it. Because of no MP's, you have to do something with the lux slider which will affect your science and income. Coming from Despotism, this is more difficult to calculate than going to Monarchy or Feudalism, where income and use of MP's is sort of similar. If in doubt between Monarchy and Republic, Feudalism actually gives a decent bridge.

Let's make the choice of government a team decision. Once we've made a decision, we'll know better how to play to make that government work for us.

 

[Northen Wolf]

I, like Overseer, have not tried feudalism so I'd like to try that.

We can't use repo(well, it is much harder to use it) and I don't think feudalism would be bad, it depends tho how big army are we going to mass.

Monarchy - it is good, but most wars (nonstop or AW) are played using this.

Optional WWeariness - you left out that this is non-stop-war (I can't write osca-thingy.) so thinking ahead is more important, eg war weariness gets worse due we declare our next opponent. And in later ages, in war, we can't hope not getting war weariness - Ai is more developed.

Sorry for bad English.
I won't be back until ~2 days and then leave in like a day for 4 days. So I spend entire 2 weeks . I'll be ok tho, if anyone is interested I'll try to give my opinion here tho.

 

[Rodent]

I am not sure, but since this is a SGFN, we should try new things, AND India is Religious so I say go Feudalism now.

 

[anaxagoras]

Like Overseer, my concern with Feudalism is with war weariness. We haven't been rushing units or improvements much, so cash-rush v. whipping isn't much of a difference-maker at this point. I very much like the better unit support in Feudalism, and I can easily see us keeping most of our towns relatively small as we progress from take-over to take-over.

But as I said, we have already amassed some WW points against Germany. I wasn't being cautious about that in my set, since I anticipated switching to Monarchy. We could get some of those back if we moved out of German territory for awhile, but we should have our attack force assembled pretty soon, and we will rack up quite a few more WW points taking on the Great Wall. (BTW, doesn't a retreat count as a "defeat" for WW purposes?)

Is it too damaging to consider staying as a despotism until Germany is dispatched, and then giving Feudalism a try? If we know up front that we will be dealing with war weariness, we can plan for it. For example, we can make sure we have bombard units on the attack, and we won't enter enemy territory until we are really ready to fight.

Actually, though, as I look back at my log: we have only been on German soil for the last 3 IBTs. We also didn't lose a combat during my set, and were only the defenders once.

Hmm, the more I think about this, the more I find myself wondering if WW will be a problem. We can pull our units back now and assemble for the attack while we revolt, and if we hit Berlin hard on about turn 5 and are able to take the Wall in one turn, we should be OK. We can always switch back if we have problems.

BTW, Optional, after Babylon is Greece. By then we should be attacking hoplites with elephants, but they will still be a tough nut - tougher than either the Aztecs or the Iroquois. Even with elephants, we will need to have plenty of trebuchets with us. WW could definitely be an issue at that point.

With some misgivings, I say we give Feudalism a try in two turns, but be prepared to switch to Monarchy if WW is a problem, and probably before we finish off Greece in any case.

 

[Optional]

Optional WWeariness - you left out that this is non-stop-war (I can't write osca-thingy.) so thinking ahead is more important, eg war weariness gets worse due we declare our next opponent.

War Weariness gets calculated per civ. So if we declare on Babylon, we start with a clean sheet. The war weariness from Germany doesn't get carried over.
Republic is not impossible for us, I think. Bigger tech lead, smaller army. It probably means we need to hold up those techs as trade bait to engineer wars between AI's, a bit like we did between Iroquois and Germany, and there it worked quite well. Can be fun, but I think most of us are ready to do a bit more of our own fighting, we are walking around with our sleeves rolled up. Republic will limit our military means.
Northen Wolf, your English isn't perfect, but I think you're making perfectly clear what you want to say. I'd say it's fine.

 

[Optional]

Like Overseer, my concern with Feudalism is with war weariness.

We all agree on this. I think it's Monarchy we will go for in the long term. Feudalism will not last us the game. Maybe we already need to switch during the Greek war - thanks for checking that. But that's probably still dozens of turns away.
I was trying to make a link to Oystein's article on war weariness, but the link maker seems broken. Oystein doesn't mention a retreat of an attacking unit as giving war weariness. Getting attacked does, even if your unit wins. But level 1 war weariness, that is 30-60 points or 25% unhappy people, I believe we can deal with that if our wars with Germany and Babylon will put us there short term. Then during those spells the advantage of Feudalism isn't there, but I don't believe it would turn it into a disadvantage either. With a higher war weariness and still a lot to do we would need to switch again, that's clear. But by then our empire should look very different, as I expect we will have absorbed what is now Germany and Babylon.

 

[TheOverseer714]

My concern with Feudalism, beyond war-weariness, is the unit support issue. We are already at a point where we could rapidly grow into very high unit support, and need to start whipping to reduce population. Whipping for the sole reason of reducing population would be stupid, and with our bounteous starting location, that will begin happening. We have an overabundance of food and luxes, which would favor large cities, not shrinky little ICS'ed support villages. Why waste our food by whipping down our population? I'm firmly against Feudalism, it will be an expensive mistake and delay our victory. Monarchy is our best bet here. I will check the economy page on Civassist 2 to take a snapshot on the governments and get back to you.

1st edit: Feudalism looks nice right now . However, our food-rich empire will soon be mostly cities, since most of our settlements are on fresh water. With growing from 6 population to 7, each city goes from supporting 5 units to 2. Right now, we only have 3 cities, but most of our towns are on fresh water and growing fast. In 30 turns our support for units will be lower by 12 because we will have gained 4 more cities. On the short term, that will be fine. Long term, unless we really start taking enemy towns, our unit support cost will be hurting us. On the other hand, Feudalism rewards conquest and expansion, and if we kick in the warmongering, we will not have unit support issues.

 

[vmxa]

Lurker:

Not to weight in on either side, but CA gives you numbers for that point in thegame. It has no way to evaluate the future. What I mean is in a huge map midway into the game CA could show commie as the best bet.

Commie may be the best at that point, but in 50 turns it may not be so good. If your empire gain lots of towns, the added corruption spreads all around.

Ca has no way to determine if you would do better letting cities grow or pop rushing. Players cannot even do that all that well.

 

[anaxagoras]

Right now, we only have 3 cities, but most of our towns are on fresh water and growing fast. In 30 turns our support for units will be lower by 12 because we will have gained 4 more cities. On the short term, that will be fine. Long term, unless we really start taking enemy towns, our unit support cost will be hurting us.

I guess I don't quite understand your reasoning, here. This is a NoW game. Our precise goal is to "really start taking enemy towns" (and found new ones in places where the AI didn't settle). Once we get rolling, we will probably found science farms all over the place, and each one of those farms will give us 5 units of support. In 30 turns, I fully expect that we will have at LEAST 5 more towns to replace any of our current towns that grow to city size.

Feudalism may be inferior to Monarchy for us, but if it is, unit support is not the reason. It is very hard for me to envision a scenario in which we end up whipping just for the sake of keeping the population down! We are already peeling off settlers and workers from the larger settlements. At worst, we can whip for units to go conquer and increase our unit support.

I'm not necessarily a whole-hearted advocate for Feudalism, but at the moment, I'm having a hard time coming up with concrete reasons why it won't work for us.

 

[Optional]

Overseer, you can sometimes be a real stubborn ass! Edit: I take this back, this came across wrong.

I think what's going on is you're speaking from experience a lot, without looking at the specifics of a situation. The CivAssist figures I had already given in post #266, you probably hadn't caught them.
But VMXA and you are right: with CivAssist you can only see what's best now. We still need to assess what is likely going to happen in at least the next couple of dozen turns or so. Anaxagoras already made a decent prediction; we won't sit back and grow into cities. Even without thinking about Feudalism and without going to war we weren't growing into cities over the last couple of dozen turns, and we won't do it while taking in German and Babylonian territory.

None of us is a fan of Feudalism. I never even consider it in my games. We just happen to be perfectly pitched for it in this one. That won't last, but Religious means a second swich isn't so painful, and right now Feudalism has 31gpt up on Monarchy. That's too much to ignore.

If we do go Feudalism, at least it would be a team decision. We've done worse in this game; starting research on Republic was not a team decision and we ended up just flushing beakers down the drain; we've done absolutely nothing with Republic. That set us back; we could have been up 1 or 2 MA techs already. Not to give a swipe at anyone, but if we start to mention what's bad then that was a bad one.
If at the moment 4 out of 5 players have a preference for Feudalism then the only right thing is to go there.

 

[anaxagoras]

Optional, please let's not let this degenerate into name-calling. If you have an issue with another player's arguments, address the arguments. Let's not attack anyone personally, OK?

Rodent is up and will play tomorrow, is that right? Unless someone has something new to offer, we aren't unanimous on government choice, so how about if we leave it up to player's discretion? If Feudalism is the choice, then we can revolt in 2 turns; if we go with Monarchy, we can do it now. Either way, the revolt should be over by the time we get enough horses down to Berlin.

"Mr. Gorbachev: Tear down this Wall!"

 

[Optional]

Sorry Overseer, if that sounded bad. There's no way I want to attack anybody. I enjoy playing this game with you, I have no problem with anybody here. I probably come from a culture where we address each other a bit 'differently' sometimes. What I said wasn't meant in any kind of malicious way. If it came across that way I'll take it back.

Monarchy... going there at the moment could cause us to play conservatively. Being 31 units over our support limit might cause us to build less units. And we might want to let our towns grow to cities for a better unit support, and that would mean building less settlers. So Monarchy could lead us to sit back a bit, not quite what we want.