Staying Alive

[E66man]

I recently hosted a LAN where I had a nice plan in mind: have a few AI players in the game so that if someone gets taken out early, they can take over an AI player instead, otherwise it sucks being at the LAN but not being in the game. Unfortunately the game wouldn't let people switch, so we have to play the more rush-proof archipelago map type for the time being.

I wanted to comment on this without hijacking the original thread...

I'm struggling to grasp the mindset that finds it preferable to hide out on an island that is likely going to be poorly generated to foster your expansion and will inhibit your meaningful interactions with the other players, than to simply build a few units to keep yourself. Given that a 'rush' player also loses time traveling across the map to get to you, you should be very close in army size even with expanding, plus you get a small bonus from your city shots when you get attacked. If you are really worried about it, you can pick up Oligarchy or the Great General from your early Social Policies to get more defensive bonuses.

It just can't be that hard to stay alive that you have to play special map types to toss up another roadblock. I'd also point out that Archipelago might give you a false sense of security. The islands frequently all connect to each other via coastal tiles and it isn't too much of an extra hoop to tech Optics if someone is desperate to get to you. And in this case you might even be in more danger since you might have spent even less time making troops as usual because you think you are safe.

In RTS games the early attack players seldom have any penalties since as long as they can handle the rapid multitasking, it is no problem building up troops, fighting you, and keeping track of a burgeoning economy. In Civ V aggressive players are limited in what it is possible to do. The opportunity cost for making an early army is far higher than in RTS games, so if you hold off that initial assault your economic advantage should tilt things to your side. In the last game I ran through to completion, I engaged three(!) players one after the other and took them all down. The last player to be finished off still had no army to speak of by the time I got there. If they had built troops and done nothing but turtle they could have kept me from winning. If they had built troops and come after my homeland they would have found it empty and ripe for the picking since my army was on the road.

I can understand the desire to build up and expand, but why then do you not find your achievements worth safeguarding ? If you fought off that first attack instead of hiding from it you mind find the game far more satisfying. There seem to be too many Chamberlains and not enough Churchills out there .

[Edit: I would recommend 'Small Islands' as a better map type for hiding, but from what I understand we can't play those extra map types in multi-player.]

 

[Snapp]

Well the quoted post isn't really about strategy, its just about friends playing on a lan and if 1 person gets warrior rushed they are then out of the game, which could be multiple hours long. It just isnt fun for that person.

So they play the island map type to eliminate early warrior rushes. Yes you can still rush after optics, which you can tech pretty quick, but most people will probably want at least a one boat first to scout and find the opponents.

In regards to your comments, I agree, in multiplayer everyone needs to have some kind of army, or at the very least have plans to be able to produce an army quickly, while having the recon to know when to do it.

IMO scouting is huge in Civ, and doesn't seem to get talked about enough. Find where your opponents are and what they are doing, then you can plan ahead. If they aren't close to you then take some time to build up your econ. BUT do not neglect to keep an eye on them, if they show up on your borders with a bunch of units its too late.

In that game you played, the third person had NO excuse to not have an army when you got there, if you know the map type and have scouted a bit and you see other civs on your continent start to fall... Well the only logical conclusion is that someone is conquesting and you could be next.

The thing is, if he had econ'd tech'd, he should have been ahead on tech and if he had built some units then he probably could have held you off pretty easily.

 

[E66man]

In that game you played, the third person had NO excuse to not have an army when you got there, if you know the map type and have scouted a bit and you see other civs on your continent start to fall... Well the only logical conclusion is that someone is conquesting and you could be next.

I suspect that person #3 just gave up on the game after person #1 went down. Since I usually play on Pangeas though it gets even more remarkable that people aren't making troops. The first person I ran into only had an Immortal + Warrior out, maybe they had lost other troops to barbarian activity. The second guy only had an Elephant + Warrior. In both cases there was plenty of smoke from pillage all over, so I suspect they were focusing too much on early tile development which allows barbarians to be more of a problem than they inherently are.

I agree that scouting is very important, although I'm still not convinced the Scout is the best unit to produce for it . After the patch allows us to upgrade Scouts though I may change my mind. I can easily see myself switching to an Archer rush, where the terrain bonus means I don't have to keep wasting turns trying to move my Warriors around so I can hit a target with all of them in the same turn.

 

[Tabarnak]

If an opponent has a sudden raise of his # of soldiers, someone get killed very fast and you are on the same continent, you should obviously prepare yourself for a war to come.

If you want to play defensive, build 2 scouts fast and throw one aggressively close to the opponent to spot everything useful for the next war, even if hes about to die anyway. Keep the other one close to your border city.

If he attacks you and you have spare money, upgrade to archer and keep him behind city, protected by melee units in front. And don't let a unit in city core, its useless.

 

[E66man]

And don't let a unit in city core, its useless.

Well, it's debatable. It's not a terrible idea to have ranged units in there.

If it seems likely that the city will hold out, then you can get some use from having a melee unit in there to get some damage off w/o fear of retribution. But those kinds of cases are few and far between...

 

[Tabarnak]

To be more precise, i will add that letting a unit in city core should be interesting only and only if opponent have a few units around the core and is unable to take the city in a couple of turns.
Not completely useless but close.

Now the unit is free to attack with city protection, without the risk to lose it.

But its very situational, so highly debatable, as you said.