The difference between large and huge!

[Rushton]

Hi folks!

I am playing on regent level and have been winning quite happily by conquest on large maps by about 1400 My stategy is normally;

Land grab, temples in the border areas and units in the rest. Ignore most wonders and put science to 0. Buy the techs and trade like crazy. Grab as many luxuries as possible and trade them for gold per turn. By the end of the ancient era I am level in tech and researching faster than the AI. I go straight for chivalry and then swamp the world with knights which I later upgrade to cavalry. Simple

But as soon as I tried this on a huge map, the whole tactic broke down completely for 2 reasons.

1) the AI has more cities and so can keep pace.
2) there are fewer luxuries and so trading isn´t so profitable.

In every game I am not in the lead in tech.
I have a lot more cities but no advantage in units and then two or three civs declare war on me at the same time and I have to fight a defensive war on several fronts, even if I have allies this is not the clinical strike to tkae out a civ that I could do on a large map :die:

So, suggestions? Perhaps I would even find it easier to win one level up than with a world one size up....

 

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by Rushton

I have a lot more cities but no advantage in units and then two or three civs declare war on me at the same time

Build more units! The civs declare war because your military is too weak. You need a LOT of units on a huge map, I recommend 1 defensive and 2 offensive units per city. Don't keep that number in every city of course, move your offensive units to the border for a quick invasion or counterstrike.

Techs are very valuable, you won't profit from buying them unless you check diplomacy every single turn to find ways to sell the new techs to other civs. Try researching to a tech lead (easy with the largest territory on regent or monarch) and watch the other civs bankrupt themselves to buy your techs.

 

[Bamspeedy]

How many civs are you playing against?

I don't think the optimal # of cities for a huge map is in proportion to other map sizes, especially when the # of opponents you are playing against is taken into consideration. The AI will usually stop expanding once they reach a certain % of the optimal # of cities and start building more infrastructure and units. Then once they get the Forbidden palace built (manually), they start expanding again.

So you out expand them and get more cities (the far ones being hopelessly corrupt), but their cities are more developed and have more military units. Granaries in your cities close to the capital and having lots of workers (don't use automating workers)improving the area around your palace and nearby cities helps alot. There aren't less luxuries, but they are spaced further apart, so it takes longer to hook them up, and getting a trade route with neighbors takes longer. After you have cities far away that won't produce much at all, have them build workers and settlers, so your low corruption cities can grow in size and build military units and infrastructure much faster.

It's hard to give any more feedback without looking at a saved game.

 

[No.Dice]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
The AI will usually stop expanding once they reach a certain % of the optimal # of cities and start building more infrastructure and units. Then once they get the Forbidden palace built (manually), they start expanding again.

Way back when, if i remember correctly, using the multi.sav bug/feature it was revealed that the AI often built their FP right next to their capitol among their most productive cities. I've been away from civ for awhile and was wondering if since the recent patches, does the AI now place the FP in a more logical place?

 

[Rushton]

Thanks folks.

I think i need to concentrate more on building up my productive cities (libraries etc) and units. It is much harder though.

One major problem I had in one game was that I just couldn´t research as fast as the AI and got stuck as I couldn´t buy literature off them. That meant that I fell even further behind in tech. Had double the score of the next best due to loads of cities but it didn´t seem to help me much So how fast can you all research in the early phase?

So when do you all:

1) Stop expanding and concentrating on infrastructure?

2) Do you stop using your capital to pump out workers and let it grow and develop?

Lately I have let the capitol pump out 2 settlers and then make a granery so that it can pump them out quicker for faster early expansion. But is this a mistake? Should I use another city for this and instead go (for example) temple, libraray, worker, wonder?

All ideas welcomed

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Rushton
Thanks folks.

I think i need to concentrate more on building up my productive cities (libraries etc) and units. It is much harder though.

One major problem I had in one game was that I just couldn´t research as fast as the AI and got stuck as I couldn´t buy literature off them. That meant that I fell even further behind in tech. Had double the score of the next best due to loads of cities but it didn´t seem to help me much So how fast can you all research in the early phase?

So when do you all:

1) Stop expanding and concentrating on infrastructure?

2) Do you stop using your capital to pump out workers and let it grow and develop?

Lately I have let the capitol pump out 2 settlers and then make a granery so that it can pump them out quicker for faster early expansion. But is this a mistake? Should I use another city for this and instead go (for example) temple, libraray, worker, wonder?

All ideas welcomed

Well, my own preference (of late), has been to only research what you need for war, i.e. research the wheel and if you can find horses research to horsemen. If not get Iron working instead. Now I put all my money in gold. Tech will come for free later.

Build 5 or 6 cities, build barracks in each, build an army, attack. Don't stop until you have almost crushed your opponent. Sue for peace and get all the tech you are missing. Rinse and repeat. IF you care about your reputation (why??) then wait 20 turns before attacking again. I like to keep their cities when I take them, so I often make peace and then finish them off straight away.

This can then be used again on anyone else stupid enough to have cities near you. Once I have my territory I build granaries in my best cities and populate the map, and build up my improvements.

This works on Deity really well, but before I had the willpower to attack in the ancient era I used to expand until I reached the optimum number of cities (1/2 the normal since no FP), building infrastructure along the way. In this case I _always_ build a granary first in my capitol. There is no reason not to, unless you have to get to a resource first or your production is so bad you need to get a 2nd city somewhere better (then build granery in that city and pump settlers from it).

This builder strategy is dangerous as you don't have a big military and you run the risk of being attacked, but once you have lots of gold you can buy the techs you need. If you are not going to research a tech yourself or buy a tech from one person and sell it on to another, then you should wait until all the other civs have it. This drops the price alot, and you can catch up quite cheaply.

Whatever you choose to do, if you are not tech lead then it is always best (IMHO) to research/buy your way to a decent unit (I like fast units), attack, and get techs in the peace negotiations.

To directly answer a point in your post: I never build libraries so early - they cost alot (unless you are scientific), and you can get much better tech kicking AI ass.

As a last point, attacking in the ancient era has one big advantage: no killer AI stacks of 100+ units like you get later on in the game

 

[Rushton]

So, I went back a few centuries and played it completely differently

After one settler from the capital I stopped and let it grow and improved it. I went for the pyramids - and got them! It made a huge difference as then all my other cities could pop out settlers quicker and so I started to expand really well:rocket2: I even got the great library as well [dance] . Now i am building lots of mounted warriors. I also cut out the unproductive fringe cities except for resource or tactical reasons.

Only weird thing is that all the AIs go for Republic whereas i go for monarchy. I experimented with this a bit and found that despotism was much better for me than Republic as in republic I lost loads of cash due to unit support (even without a big military and with quite a bit of commerce) AND I coundn´t whip my citizens to produce something quickly. Perhaps Republic gets better later but I found it was the worst possible thing to do
(and I´ve found this before). Add to all this the martial law bit and I don´t see any reason for ever going into Republic. It´s monarchy and then democracy for me!

What does everyone else think?

Paul

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Rushton
Only weird thing is that all the AIs go for Republic whereas i go for monarchy. I experimented with this a bit and found that despotism was much better for me than Republic as in republic I lost loads of cash due to unit support (even without a big military and with quite a bit of commerce) AND I coundn´t whip my citizens to produce something quickly. Perhaps Republic gets better later but I found it was the worst possible thing to do
(and I´ve found this before). Add to all this the martial law bit and I don´t see any reason for ever going into Republic. It´s monarchy and then democracy for me!

What does everyone else think?

Paul

Despotism allows 4 units per village/city/metro, whereas Monarchy gives 2/4/8 for village/city/metro and republic gives none.

This means that very early on you can support a large army for free, and if you want to keep it you should go for Monarchy. The downside is that you can only support 2 units for each village (cities under size 7), but you get up to 3 police instead of 2 under Despotism.

Republic is good for getting extra gold. Each square that gives you at least 1 already will give you +1, but with a large army this effect can be negated (and you don't get the police effect).

If you go for a builder style game (with a small army) then choose Republic as you will get more gold, but Monarchy is the government of choice for fighting as you get no war weariness, can support large armies, and can have up to 3 police in each city. I sometimes find that when I change from Despotism to Monarchy that I have a small support cost for my army - this is ok, but you should try and start another war to get more cities, and get your river based cities over size 6.

You should aim for Monarchy as soon as you can, if you have exausted the nearby civs already then you may have to research it, but I would still try and get it from war and peace if you can...

Whatever you do, Despotism is choking your good squares by giving a -1 to any shield/gold above 2. Keep it only as long as you need to. In your position I would probably not chage to Repblic but aim straight for Monarchy.

 

[Rushton]

Well, I went into republic briefly before I got monarchy (only one turn anarchy so I changed). Just managed to eliminate the Indians except for one distant city. Great thing with the Iroquois is that as soon as I attacked I got a golden age which meant I could get units quicker. It was even better as in the middle of it I discovered chivalry and so I got lots of cheap knights and by stopping research for a while (I have the Great Library) I was able to upgrade to and army of about 40 knights and 45 mounted warriors. The Babs are next

I am also so strong militarily that i can demand cities (small ones) off of my next victims.

I love this! :rocket2:

Paul

 

[Bamspeedy]

On huge maps, it is easier to get wonders, when you build them early. This is because the AI is spending a longer time in their expansion phase (building settlers, etc). Starting on a wonder after you've built only 1 settler hinders your expansion because of all that time you are spending building the wonder instead of settlers. But since the wonder was the Pyramids and you are playing on a huge map, you have time for the Pyramid's effect to get you caught back up. On smaller maps, and higher difficulty levels, though, you will find that either you still can't get the wonder, or by the time you complete the Pyramids, the AI grabbed all of 'your' territory, so the faster settler production won't do you any good.

Republic is great for money, especially if you have a smaller sized army. But the problem is keeping people happy, since you don't get any military police. If you can get a few luxuries (and marketplace in most of your good cities), then happiness shouldn't be much of a problem, so then you can switch to Republic. I prefer to go to Monarch right away. Yes, monarchy has less free unit support, but with monarchy you don't have the tile penalty of despotism and it has less corruption, and 1 more military police.

I almost never whip my citizens. When I do, it is usually in high-corrupt cities where those citizens aren't giving me much shields/commerce anyways. In your low-corrupt cities your citizens will provide more in the long run by not whipping them to death. Plus, by continuously whipping you have increased unhappiness, which makes for an even worse situation when you switch to republic. It takes 20 turns for the unhappiness to wear off, so if you are whipping people in a city more often than once every 20 turns, the unhappiness just keeps adding up and getting worse.

You are using the 1.29f patch, right? The unpatched version of Civ3 gives you 40 shields/citizen that is whipped, but this was dropped to 20 shields/citizen in one of the patches (whipping citizens for shields was too powerful @ 40 shields).