yes i played this in c3c, i thought c3c would do for ptw since it includes ptw. ?
I just found moderator mail that playing it with c3c is not good.
I only have original and c3c disks, what should i do?
In answer to some questions:
I did writing because all the first level techs are usually tradable anyway. i always try to research as much in a horizontal line in the tech tree as possible since that gives you the best chances to get monopoly on a tech by having it first. Also is republic something to aim for.
I cut the forest because yes food is everything, growth is everything in the beginning. The extra growth will more than make up some loss of shields.
Also does the cut give 10 shields.
irrigated it will give 4 food instead of 2 shield+2 food. At this early stage of the game, i consider food to be twice as valuable as shields. It will make growth in 3 and thus a 6 turn settler factory. without irrigating this field, you'd have a 10 turn settler factory (which is not a settler factory, but a city that occasionaly makes a settler)
In early game there is only 1 thing that really counts, and that is growth.
Basic philosoph for strategy games:
You can always spend your resources on 3 things:
-technology
-millitairy power
-empire growth.
Usually empire growth is the best thing to do as long as it does not mean the lack of spendings on the other 2 causes you to be defeated. Militairy power is a short term investment and only should be done if needed for survival or if you expect to get more of a profit from it than the cost (victory in the game of course being the greatest profit possible) Technology is kinda in between being a short term spending and a long term investment, but this is not even a subject here since it is about food vs shields.
In all strategy games i have played this far, the nr1 issue is to balance militairy production vs growth where militairy strength is what forces your opponent to spend less on growth.
Therefore, in strategy games it is good to make your opponent think you are stronger than you actually are since it will make him build more army instead of investments in the future. If you manage to survive while investing in the future, you will beat him when you reap the rewards of your investment.
In this case, the opponent wont attack us if we are a little weaker than them, so we should invest in growth.
Well, that was a long story to explain what everyone knows already, food rules in early game
. But i just came home after going to the bar, so excuse me for long stories (it can get much worse, people write books about such topics
)
A good artillery army in early game for example would be 16 catapults, 4 spearmen and 4 archers/swordsmen. This stack takes cities defended by a maximum of 4 units without losing any units. Also do i usually add 1 or 2 horses in the stack (instead of archer, not in addition). This way, if you meet a stack of opposing units, after bombarding them red, you first attack with archers until 1 is left, then attack that one with the horse so the horse still has a movement point to retreat back in the stack and you dont have to split the stack.
ankka, i think i agree about starting bombardment later in the game, but am in doubt about the legions attack. I really dislike despotic golden ages. Also, a war needs a reason, you don't just attack a country because the CIA sais it could have bio weapons.... ehm oh well, what i mean is: We should only attack in despotism if somehow the rewards are worth the cost (cost being the bad GA)
I agree about the wines.
