Some help on military

[wear146]

I have just started playing civ3 conquests. I was wondering if any one had some good advice on building up military. I just moved up to warlord and I quickly fell behind on military and four other civs made an alliance against me. I would really like it if some people could give me advice on getting gp and building up military. Thancks

 

[Aabraxan]

Welcome to CFC, wear146!

If you're at Warlord and falling behind on building your military, then my hunch is that you've got an underlying problem: basic empire management. At Warlord, the AI has a build penalty of 120% (IIRC). That means that it costs you 10 shields to build a warrior and costs an AI 12 shields. I believe that this penalty is also applied to the food bin, so their cities are growing slower, too. The Civ 3 War Academy is full of great articles, but I'm going to point you to a few that I think might help.

The early game is critical. Unless you're playing a variant, like a One City Challenge (where you only build one city), the early game is usually about Rapid Expansion to grab territory and resources. Check out Cracker's Opening Plays and Bamspeedy's Babylon's Deity Settlers for some tips on managing rapid expansion and using settler factories. Also, vmxa recently posted a Tutorial for Struggling Regent Players. It would be worth your time to check that out as well.

As far as what military to build: Build more attackers than defenders. You don't need many, if any spears. Don't underestimate the value of artillery units. It's good to soften up the enemy. Finally, check out Warmongering 101 - A Tactical Primer.

 

[vmxa]

Looks like Aabraxan covered it. Spread quicker and build less structures. I think it is common to build stuff asap and it often could wait a bit. An extra worker first is frequently a good thing.

 

[wear146]

Thancks for the advice. I will read those article

 

[Spoonwood]

If you don't like the AIs attacking you so much you can also turn down the agression level (if it's not already at least) so that the AI won't attack you *as often*.

 

[Kulko]

If you don't like the AIs attacking you so much you can also turn down the agression level (if it's not already at least) so that the AI won't attack you *as often*.

I strongly discourage making the game any "easier". Below Emperor the game does not offer a real challenge when played correctly, so any troubles are a sign of problem in empire management. Use these as a valuable hint and learn to play better instead of turning down the difficulty.

 

[Spoonwood]

I strongly discourage making the game any "easier". Below Emperor the game does not offer a real challenge when played correctly, so any troubles are a sign of problem in empire management. Use these as a valuable hint and learn to play better instead of turning down the difficulty.

*shakes head* What victory condition do you play for and what type of game do you want? Plenty of people on these forums DO find levels below Emperor a challenge (hence tutorials and sample games) for all sorts of reasons it seems. Changing the aggression level doesn't necessarily turn down the difficulty for say a 20k game, because they AI can still outbuild you on wonders. For a military game they'll will still have just as many units. For a diplomatic or spaceship game, the AIs might end up warring less with each other, so they'll stay in The Republic or Democracy longer and thus research faster. If they don't war as much, also, you might not find empty territory for more cities.

If your comment comes as a remark in that you think I struggle with "empire management" you should feel welcome to do a search for my name and look at some my games in the stories and tales section, as well as look at some of my saves for HoF games... including two currently 1st place finishes for Deity standard maps. Can I improve? Perhaps. But, to say that I "struggle" comes as another matter.

 

[Kulko]

I was talking to wear146 not to you.

Changing a setting because you want to find out how it plays, or you enjoy a specific play style, it's your decision. And if you enjoy games more this way absolutely go for it.

But for a newbie to struggle with one of the critical facets of the game can easily be detected by getting regurlarly beaten on lower difficulty levels. And the absolutely worst thing he can do is to switch off that facet. This will only deeper ingrain his errors and in the long run hurt his enjoyment of the game.

My definition of lower level might be arguable. But this is in my experience a level which is attainable with moderate effort if you use the plenty of ressources which you have perfectly pointed out.
So when a player wants to get better (and thats what a post for help indicates) he should foremost use that ressources play some more test games or a succession game, and he will see a whole new level of enjoyment quite soon.

 

[Peebo]

I'd suggest reading posts on the forums, especially following succession games. Early expansion is definitely critical. I'm a warlord level player, but with the advice I've gotten here recently, I've been playing a lot better and now it's gotten to be quite easy for me, so I think I'll move on to regent next. Keep at it and you'll improve tremendously as well!

 

[wear146]

Once again thanks to every one who posted help I think Aabraxan was absolutely right about empire manegment and I read the articles. I started a new game (as china) I am now in the middle of the middle ages playing for a conquest victory. I was wondering if I should switch to democracy (or even bother researching it) or if war weariness is too much of a problem. Thanks

 

[Spoonwood]

What's your government right now wear146? If you're a republic, I wouldn't switch. War weariness becomes a problem when you start losing units. If you don't lose any units you won't suffer any war weariness. What's the tech situation like... do you have military tradition yet?

 

[Bucephalus]

Someone will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always understood that the aggression settings only pertain to AI-AI agression, and has no effect on AI aggression towards the human player.

 

[Aabraxan]

Sounds like matters are improving, wear146. Glad to hear it. I agree with Spoonwood on the government issue. If you're a republic or a monarchy, I wouldn't switch. The benefits of demo, particularly in a warmongering game & compared to its drawbacks, are too small to warrant a second anarchy. If you're still in despo: (a) you should learn to get out of despo faster; and (b) if you're going for a conquest victory, there are better choices than demo for your government.

 

[vmxa]

I have not used aggression very often, because I could not see much impact. I doubt it is going to be a game changer.

 

[Bucephalus]

What's your government right now wear146? If you're a republic, I wouldn't switch. War weariness becomes a problem when you start losing units. If you don't lose any units you won't suffer any war weariness. What's the tech situation like... do you have military tradition yet?

That's far from the whole story, Spoonwood, as I'm sure a player of your stature knows - losing units is just one cause of WW; losing a city is another cause, having units in enemy territory is another............. I'm sure you could link him to a War Academy article that gives a complete list.

 

[Exwing17]

-=5 points that changed my Civ career=-

1) Use the Republic

2) Use the Luxury Slider

3) Use CXXC

4) Limit your wonders to only the really good ones.

5) You don't need ANY city improvements, just build what your empire lacks.

5a) Trade

 

[Spoonwood]

That's far from the whole story, Spoonwood, as I'm sure a player of your stature knows - losing units is just one cause of WW; losing a city is another cause, having units in enemy territory is another............. I'm sure you could link him to a War Academy article that gives a complete list.

Thanks Bucephalus. Actually, I didn't know (or maybe I didn't remember, if I read that article before) that having units in enemy territory leads to war weariness. Actually, that explains something. Last night I played a very quick histographic game (as Carthage) where I tried to revlot to Democracy and I couldn't stay there. From that information, that happened, because I had my ancient cavalry in Russian territory who I hadn't made peace with (somehow I forgot about RoPs).

Here's the war weariness study: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/war_weariness.php

There does exist much more to it than I thought before. Oystein's study indicates war weariness for losing units with a defensive value (artillery), getting an improvement pillaged or bomarded, having your units bombarded down to 1 hp, losing a unit of yours that attacks, getting attacked, losing a city... which varies a little depending on the city's size.

Somewhat related to this I previously thought that it works out as tricky (though *potentially* beneficial) to war in a fast diplomatic/spaceship game where the AIs have any military to speak of (not on Cheiftain obviously). Now, it even more seems to me that you'd better war fast and effectively if you want a fast diplomatic/spaceship game, since you'll almost surely have a representative form of government, and weariness slows down your growth or kills your productivity when not kept in check.

 

[Bucephalus]

One source of WW that I have observed in my games, that is not in the article - indeed I've never seen it mentioned anywhere - is prolonged use of bombers; maybe it counts as having units inside enemy territory, I don't know, but I've noticed that WW comes on pretty quickly if I send in a stack of bombers two or three turns in succession.

BTW, Spoonwood, congratulations on your recent additions to the HOF - there were some pretty impressive results. I wish that you would reconsider playing in SGs again, because you have a lot to offer.

 

[Spoonwood]

Thanks Bucephalus. I might just do that.

 

[wear146]

I am currently a monarchy And I do not have military tradition yet