Strategy discussion

[AnotherPacifist]

Anyone try causing a rival civ to collapse by espionage? It's something I've always wondered about, especially for civs you mistakenly allow to become too big, like Mongolia in my game, and since the AI loves to turtle their troops defeating them militarily can be difficult. I've always wondered though whether it would be possible with a large buildup of spies to make their cities unhappy and unhealthy and that especially large empires would be vulnerable to this since they're probably on shaky stability ground anyway.

Sure, I've done that before as the Dutch and Japanese (against Germany and China). You spread your culture, make them riot (no gold for that turn), unhappy, unhealthy, and destroy their improvements, and that's sure to collapse an already unstable Germany. With usually stable civs like Mongolia, France and Spain, it's not worth the espionage.

 

[fearuin]

Anyone try causing a rival civ to collapse by espionage? It's something I've always wondered about, especially for civs you mistakenly allow to become too big, like Mongolia in my game, and since the AI loves to turtle their troops defeating them militarily can be difficult. I've always wondered though whether it would be possible with a large buildup of spies to make their cities unhappy and unhealthy and that especially large empires would be vulnerable to this since they're probably on shaky stability ground anyway.

I think this could be a very nice strategy for a civ like the Netherlands or Portugal to bring down their larger Euro rivals.

Maybe, but I guess you'll need TONS of money to do this, so you'll better have a good profit, or it will be impossible. Also, you will need to dedicate a significant percentage of your earnings to espionage, so forget the tech race. On the good point, you can use your advantage in espionage to steal technology. And, for money purpouses, you can also steal your enemies gold reserves, and thus, reducing their stability. If you can turn this into a cycle, it would be possible to make an enemy to collapse.

 

[blizzrd]

What are everyone's preferred sites within the English home territory for your core cities?

I prefer Southhampton over London, with Newcastle, Inverness and Dublin. But are there are other configurations that might be preferred by others?

 

[kairob]

I have it the same as yours except London 1 tile east, so it still steals the Dye and the English Channel but I get to have London, which is important to me god knows why... and then Plymouth on the end of Cornwall.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I get to have London, which is important to me god knows why...

Just rename whatever your capital is to London...

 

[kairob]

But then its in the wrong place!

 

[blizzrd]

and then Plymouth on the end of Cornwall.

I send that extra settler around to South Africa to found Durban on the gold.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I agree with you blizzrd, Southampton is a much better site to send settlers off. (In fact I did that with my conquest game) If you want another city you can build Plymouth, but why would you want another city for domination or conquest?

 

[kairob]

Southampton is 'better' but that's not how I play, I would rather enjoy myself than do incredibly well and a British Empire without London for me is just wrong.

 

[onedreamer]

What are everyone's preferred sites within the English home territory for your core cities?

I prefer Southhampton over London, with Newcastle, Inverness and Dublin. But are there are other configurations that might be preferred by others?

I use the same config as the AI, I think that England is actually the only case
The exception is Plymouth, that I often don't build, when I conquer Brittany.

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

But the AI configuration is different every game. London and Inverness are the only constants; Manchester is preferred over Newcastle, and Plymouth over Exeter, but they aren't set in stone, and it's a complete lottery whether there are 1 or 2 Irish cities, and where they will be.

Cheers, Luke

 

[onedreamer]

I've never seen Newcastle or Exeter in 2 years of Rhye's O_O

 

[AnotherPacifist]

You haven't played enough then...I see Exeter in about 15% of the time, Newcastle in maybe 5% of the time. I've even seen a Bath (which I didn't build) on the stone(?) which is really suboptimal if London is built.

Just like Cherbourg which is too close to Paris, Rennes is favored but not built automatically by the AI.

 

[onedreamer]

Rennes was favored by the AI over Cherbourg before BTS IIRC, while I don't recall ever seeing Newcastle (first time in Blizzard's screenshot), and surely never seen Exeter. I have played RFC at least 100 times, so it can't be 15%.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Must be the random generator and a different computer then...Exeter is such an annoying city that I raze it every time I see it (and it's been really often with my conquest games), same for Cherbourg (not as often).
Back to blizzrd's original post: I would actually build 1SW of Dublin (?Limerick) so that it doesn't overlap with Newcastle's fish, and still get 1 of the fish. You do lose the hill but if you build a levee that should compensate a little. (The sheep is actually a good spot because it gets both fishes, but you lose the pasture; if only the sheep ,could be moved to northern Ireland instead I would build 1W of Dublin)

 

[blizzrd]

Sure, the sheep tile in Ireland is the best spot to utilise the most water tiles without overlapping with cities on Britain. But this only comes into play with a really large-sized city. For all turns before this, working the sheep is better than founding on it.

I'm happy with Dublin being the more obvious choice, as it currently is. What I'm not so happy about is that the independent (Celtic) city that spawns in Ireland is one tile south of Dublin. This is just a bad location as it can't work the coastal resources properly and I auto-raze this city when I see it and found my own at Dublin instead. I'd much prefer to be able to conquer a city at Dublin.

As I understand Irish history, Dublin was the base of the Norse pirates/raiders who operated out of Ireland for many centuries. But was Dublin not previously the site of a large Celtic settlement that could be used as the independent city site?

 

[blizzrd]

You haven't played enough then...I see Exeter in about 15% of the time, Newcastle in maybe 5% of the time. I've even seen a Bath (which I didn't build) on the stone(?) which is really suboptimal if London is built.

I've seen Bath just once and Manchester more than once, but never Exeter or Newcastle (unless I built it). The Romans founded Bath that time IIRC.

I have no idea how many games of RFC I've played, but I suspect it is far more than 100.

 

[blizzrd]

Rennes was favored by the AI over Cherbourg before BTS IIRC, while I don't recall ever seeing Newcastle (first time in Blizzard's screenshot), and surely never seen Exeter. I have played RFC at least 100 times, so it can't be 15%.

As long as I don't need the UHV for France (such as in my current attempts at French Conquest victory) I prefer Rennes over Paris. But then in this case as France I also prefer to build Constance on the stone and capital-squat my palace in the Dutch home area, one tile NE of Amsterdam.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

As long as I don't need the UHV for France (such as in my current attempts at French Conquest victory) I prefer Rennes over Paris. But then in this case as France I also prefer to build Constance on the stone and capital-squat my palace in the Dutch home area, one tile NE of Amsterdam.

Paris is such a bad location (at least 2 water tiles wasted) unless you build no other cities. If you don't go for the UHV and build Constance, I would found 1 NW of Paris so that it's on a river and the coast, and doesn't overlap with Bordeaux as much (which Rennes does).

 

[blizzrd]

I would found 1 NW of Paris so that it's on a river and the coast, and doesn't overlap with Bordeaux as much (which Rennes does).

I thought 1NW of Paris was Rennes. I will have to check this out again tonight now.