The gathering of the generals

[Defiant47]

Through various games, I've come up with a few strategy-related dilemmas and wondering. I'd like to address five issues, and any input is appreciated.

Number one: I pity the foo that builds settlers. (meant only for humour, not insult) I've noticed that unless you have insane bad luck so as to have NO unit-relevant strategic resources, it's better to just invade others when you need another city. I usually build one or two settlers until I have to switch to conquering others' cities. This has quite a bit to do with the fact that at higher levels the AI settles faster and encounters less economic drawback from doing so. All of a sudden most of the good spots are already taken and I have to switch to warmongering. Am I in the right or in the wrong?

Number two: war strategies lacking in the AI. Early game: axemen, archers, JUST got catapults (but did an initial rush without them). I'm American, my opponent is Incan. I'm second in score and he's first by 1.5 times my score. He's soaring so I have little choice but to attack. I send my first group of 4 or 5 axemen to one of his cities. The city is defended by archer, spearman, chariot. I advance, but he never attacks with the chariot. If he did, I was done for. Instead, he let the chariot defend, and it was easily defeated since it only has 4 strength, and the bonus comes only from attacking the axemen. Does the AI's war strategies intelligence increase at higher levels or am I left with this hopelessly imbecile (but heavily anti-handicapped) AI?

Number three: attacking easier than defending? Same situation as depicted previously. Thing is, he nearly has the same power as I do in the power graph. However, it is very easy to destroy him. Why? His forces are spread thin throughout his empire. I steamrolled him (took half his cities so far). Then I realized, it is much much easier to attack in war than it is to defend. This is because you can concentrate your assault of many troops on one specific city (or two, if you're attacking from two flanks). Comments? Agree, disagree?

Number four: who to attack first? This relates somewhat to number one. When I've got my stacks of axemen building up getting ready to invade someone's capital (the capitals are always the nicest cities), I usually have two options (up to four if I start inland). My question is, how do I decide who to eliminate first? Should I make sure to take out the financial guys quickly? Should I leave the industrious guys to later so I can take their wonders? (assume equally good capital locations)

Number five: Terra. I keep playing Terra and I'm finding the same recurring problem. The game is pretty much decided by the time colonization is possible. Especially since there's less space available on the starting continent, warmongering is much more frequent and you end up taking over two civilizations, putting you in great position. Has anyone tried this? If so, what do you think?

 

[AnitaGaribaldi]

Number one: I pity the foo that builds settlers. (meant only for humour, not insult) I've noticed that unless you have insane bad luck so as to have NO unit-relevant strategic resources, it's better to just invade others when you need another city. I usually build one or two settlers until I have to switch to conquering others' cities. This has quite a bit to do with the fact that at higher levels the AI settles faster and encounters less economic drawback from doing so. All of a sudden most of the good spots are already taken and I have to switch to warmongering. Am I in the right or in the wrong?

This is a good strategy. I'm happy it's not the only one. Even on Deity it's possible to win the game without war (with some settings, picking up opponents, etc.)

Number two: war strategies lacking in the AI. Early game: axemen, archers, JUST got catapults (but did an initial rush without them). I'm American, my opponent is Incan. I'm second in score and he's first by 1.5 times my score. He's soaring so I have little choice but to attack. I send my first group of 4 or 5 axemen to one of his cities. The city is defended by archer, spearman, chariot. I advance, but he never attacks with the chariot. If he did, I was done for. Instead, he let the chariot defend, and it was easily defeated since it only has 4 strength, and the bonus comes only from attacking the axemen. Does the AI's war strategies intelligence increase at higher levels or am I left with this hopelessly imbecile (but heavily anti-handicapped) AI?

I've never used myself, but you may try BetterAI.

Number three: attacking easier than defending? Same situation as depicted previously. Thing is, he nearly has the same power as I do in the power graph. However, it is very easy to destroy him. Why? His forces are spread thin throughout his empire. I steamrolled him (took half his cities so far). Then I realized, it is much much easier to attack in war than it is to defend. This is because you can concentrate your assault of many troops on one specific city (or two, if you're attacking from two flanks). Comments? Agree, disagree?

Yes, I think attacking is easier, especially early in the game. Later you have many fast moving units and railroads. The AI has huge stacks and you need many troops to take one city.

Number four: who to attack first? This relates somewhat to number one. When I've got my stacks of axemen building up getting ready to invade someone's capital (the capitals are always the nicest cities), I usually have two options (up to four if I start inland). My question is, how do I decide who to eliminate first? Should I make sure to take out the financial guys quickly? Should I leave the industrious guys to later so I can take their wonders? (assume equally good capital locations)

I usually go for the most advanced civilization. My last game, Mansa Musa had lot of techs over me. I attacked him. I was a little afraid Toku would attack me, but he was behind tech. I didn't eliminate Mansa Musa, but I put him really down, he fell from the first place to the last place on score.

Number five: Terra. I keep playing Terra and I'm finding the same recurring problem. The game is pretty much decided by the time colonization is possible. Especially since there's less space available on the starting continent, warmongering is much more frequent and you end up taking over two civilizations, putting you in great position. Has anyone tried this? If so, what do you think?

If you are really good, the game is over before the time for colonization. The only deity conquest victory on a huge map at HoF tables used a Terra map. I've never played Terra myself.

 

[Moxxa]

1) I'll make settlers on Emperor only if I don't like where the AI has placed its cities.

2) Agree. I don't think the AI gets more "I" as the difficulty goes up. They just get the reserach and production advantages and more starting units.

3) The best defense is a good offense. The AI doesn't seem to understand this. That's why I think the Protective trait was designed more for the AI.

4) Attak whoever is most likely to make a huge army in the late game first. After that, attack whoever has the best cities. After that, go for the AI who is most advanced. It seems to work for me.

5) Terra is my favorite map type, by FAR. If you want to colonize, which is usually the best plan, you need to have that in your gameplan from turn 1. I like to Chariot or Axe rush one civ, catapult and sword rush another civ, then go for optics while consolidating your gains from the wars. Build the FP on your overseas colony. I've had the best results with countries that have late game UUs and UBs like America, Russia, and Germany with this strategy.

 

[Kietharr]

Through various games, I've come up with a few strategy-related dilemmas and wondering. I'd like to address five issues, and any input is appreciated.

Number one: I pity the foo that builds settlers. (meant only for humour, not insult) I've noticed that unless you have insane bad luck so as to have NO unit-relevant strategic resources, it's better to just invade others when you need another city. I usually build one or two settlers until I have to switch to conquering others' cities. This has quite a bit to do with the fact that at higher levels the AI settles faster and encounters less economic drawback from doing so. All of a sudden most of the good spots are already taken and I have to switch to warmongering. Am I in the right or in the wrong?
The AI is pretty bad at choosing city locations, I end up burning most cities and carrying a couple of settlers in my stack. I do keep holy cities and good wonders though. If the city is in a good spot i'll definately keep it though, population is great to have for whipping.

Number two: war strategies lacking in the AI. Early game: axemen, archers, JUST got catapults (but did an initial rush without them). I'm American, my opponent is Incan. I'm second in score and he's first by 1.5 times my score. He's soaring so I have little choice but to attack. I send my first group of 4 or 5 axemen to one of his cities. The city is defended by archer, spearman, chariot. I advance, but he never attacks with the chariot. If he did, I was done for. Instead, he let the chariot defend, and it was easily defeated since it only has 4 strength, and the bonus comes only from attacking the axemen. Does the AI's war strategies intelligence increase at higher levels or am I left with this hopelessly imbecile (but heavily anti-handicapped) AI?
The AI dosn't get much smarter past noble, they just get cheats. I hear the new AI in BTS is astonishing though.

Number three: attacking easier than defending? Same situation as depicted previously. Thing is, he nearly has the same power as I do in the power graph. However, it is very easy to destroy him. Why? His forces are spread thin throughout his empire. I steamrolled him (took half his cities so far). Then I realized, it is much much easier to attack in war than it is to defend. This is because you can concentrate your assault of many troops on one specific city (or two, if you're attacking from two flanks). Comments? Agree, disagree?
The AI is terrible at war, they don't stack so they only take cities with no real defense, if they encounter a city with cultural defense they set their cats down and start hitting it while their units go off to pillage. Defending is even worse, they build archers over axemen for defense.

Number four: who to attack first? This relates somewhat to number one. When I've got my stacks of axemen building up getting ready to invade someone's capital (the capitals are always the nicest cities), I usually have two options (up to four if I start inland). My question is, how do I decide who to eliminate first? Should I make sure to take out the financial guys quickly? Should I leave the industrious guys to later so I can take their wonders? (assume equally good capital locations)
Take out people who aren't going to want to trade with you first, then people who will backstab you. If you have an AI with its UU in its prime, leave them alone unless you have no choice, if it's an AI who's a few techs away from his uber UU take him out before he has the chance.

Number five: Terra. I keep playing Terra and I'm finding the same recurring problem. The game is pretty much decided by the time colonization is possible. Especially since there's less space available on the starting continent, warmongering is much more frequent and you end up taking over two civilizations, putting you in great position. Has anyone tried this? If so, what do you think?I play terra all of the time, and this is generally the case. I only ever colonize the other continent if I don't feel like wiping out the rest from the old world.

Hope that helps

 

[jihe]

2. if the AI is as competent in war as human I assure you you will be slaughtered everytime on higher levels.

3. in modern wars it's much more difficult to attack. bombers+railroads.

4. the guy closest to you Iguess.

Through various games, I've come up with a few strategy-related dilemmas and wondering. I'd like to address five issues, and any input is appreciated.

Number one: I pity the foo that builds settlers. (meant only for humour, not insult) I've noticed that unless you have insane bad luck so as to have NO unit-relevant strategic resources, it's better to just invade others when you need another city. I usually build one or two settlers until I have to switch to conquering others' cities. This has quite a bit to do with the fact that at higher levels the AI settles faster and encounters less economic drawback from doing so. All of a sudden most of the good spots are already taken and I have to switch to warmongering. Am I in the right or in the wrong?

Number two: war strategies lacking in the AI. Early game: axemen, archers, JUST got catapults (but did an initial rush without them). I'm American, my opponent is Incan. I'm second in score and he's first by 1.5 times my score. He's soaring so I have little choice but to attack. I send my first group of 4 or 5 axemen to one of his cities. The city is defended by archer, spearman, chariot. I advance, but he never attacks with the chariot. If he did, I was done for. Instead, he let the chariot defend, and it was easily defeated since it only has 4 strength, and the bonus comes only from attacking the axemen. Does the AI's war strategies intelligence increase at higher levels or am I left with this hopelessly imbecile (but heavily anti-handicapped) AI?

Number three: attacking easier than defending? Same situation as depicted previously. Thing is, he nearly has the same power as I do in the power graph. However, it is very easy to destroy him. Why? His forces are spread thin throughout his empire. I steamrolled him (took half his cities so far). Then I realized, it is much much easier to attack in war than it is to defend. This is because you can concentrate your assault of many troops on one specific city (or two, if you're attacking from two flanks). Comments? Agree, disagree?

Number four: who to attack first? This relates somewhat to number one. When I've got my stacks of axemen building up getting ready to invade someone's capital (the capitals are always the nicest cities), I usually have two options (up to four if I start inland). My question is, how do I decide who to eliminate first? Should I make sure to take out the financial guys quickly? Should I leave the industrious guys to later so I can take their wonders? (assume equally good capital locations)

Number five: Terra. I keep playing Terra and I'm finding the same recurring problem. The game is pretty much decided by the time colonization is possible. Especially since there's less space available on the starting continent, warmongering is much more frequent and you end up taking over two civilizations, putting you in great position. Has anyone tried this? If so, what do you think?

 

[axident]

1. Early rushing is par for course at higher difficulty levels, so I'm not sure if this is even a serious question.

2. Again, is this even a serious question? AI in ANY game is inferior to a good human player, with the possible exceptions of games like chess. AI will come out of its city to attack you if it has significantly better than 50-50 odds of winning. In fact you can even "lure" out defenders (say, longbowmen for this example) by rushing with a combination of strong units and weak ones. Just move one weak unit near a city but not so near that the longbowman can pop out and back in on the same turn. Then when the longbowman kills the weak unit, beat the living crap out of the longbowman, which doesn't have the fortification, walls/culture, and city garrison bonus out on the open field. This doesn't work quite as well if the opponent has a good mix of units, and quite frankly it's time consuming and I don't often do this on purpose; I prefer the massive collateral damage approach.

3. Once again, is this is a serious question? Of course the best defense is a good offense. You can't just huddle in your cities while you get pillaged to death, and if you have a strong enough army to bounce pillagers, you might as well take the offensive while you're at it. If you play your cards right, the AI will be stuck with lots of units per city to quell unrest due to various reasons (Emancipation, war weariness, simple large size, etc.). Even if that's not the case, the AI peppers the field with its units, guarding important strategic resources such as bananas and incense, making the actual city attack that much easier for you. After the obligatory early rushes, if I am at peace, I typically think about taking out a civ if I am at least half of its power on the graph, figuring that I will take fewer losses and continue to crank out units while the enemy will not be able to replace his/her losses as quickly.

4. It all depends, but generally you want to be opportunistic and attack those who are close by so you can keep some or all of their cities without eating too much of the distance penalty; it's a wasteful exercise to DoW and do nothing but raze, raze, raze, unless you are on a Pangaea-style map and going for early conquest.

For instance, I had a thorny situation in my current game where I was just about to invade one neighbor, whom I had earlier crippled and wanted to kill before he got longbows, when my other neighbor DoW on me. I figured that my other neighbor had more time to tech up, and I wanted to kill him first before he got to longbows, so I beat him up until his first longbows showed up, at which point I asked for peace and some techs, then beat up the other guy. So I fought both wars without facing more than a couple of longbows.

Also, why do you feel like you need to always be at the front lines? I typically don't even get involved in wars after the early or mid game, except when I have a massive tech lead. I just have others fight wars for me, it just takes a tech or two. I typically get the AI to fight the tech leader first, then one of the bullies who has a lot of land next after the tech threat is neutralized. Or I'll even kill the threat myself if he's not that far away. Be friends with SOME of your neighbors, though. A good neighbor is one like Napolean who keeps attacking his other neighbors after I prod him with a bribe or two, and he's good enough at war that he'll hold his own and keep others busy as I build an insurmountable tech lead. My goal is to have everybody continually fighting to a draw--the incessant pillaging, bad blood, unhappiness, and resources going to units rather than infrastructure/tech is worth every bloody tech I have to trade to get the first proxy war going.

5. I don't play Terra maps but am familiar with the concept. Of course the game is going to be mostly decided.. most of the critical points of a game occur in the BC years, and I would go so far as to say the period between 4000 BC and 3000 BC is more important than any other period.

 

[Defiant47]

This is a good strategy. I'm happy it's not the only one. Even on Deity it's possible to win the game without war (with some settings, picking up opponents, etc.)

Is there any way to win on Deity without war, without a diplomatic victory?

I've never used myself, but you may try BetterAI.

Is that a mod? If so, do I have to forgo the HOF mod (not use it)?

Yes, I think attacking is easier, especially early in the game. Later you have many fast moving units and railroads. The AI has huge stacks and you need many troops to take one city.

Ah, yes, railroads would be the bane of my existence.

I usually go for the most advanced civilization. My last game, Mansa Musa had lot of techs over me. I attacked him. I was a little afraid Toku would attack me, but he was behind tech. I didn't eliminate Mansa Musa, but I put him really down, he fell from the first place to the last place on score.

When I declare war on somebody, I like to take them down all the way. If I don't want to exterminate them right away, I'll stay at war with them, because the diplomatic penalties will come up again if I make peace and later want to finish them off.

If you are really good, the game is over before the time for colonization. The only deity conquest victory on a huge map at HoF tables used a Terra map. I've never played Terra myself.

Ah, I thought so.

1) I'll make settlers on Emperor only if I don't like where the AI has placed its cities.

Many times they place their cities one tile away from what I think is the ideal location, but usually they have population and maybe even some buildings that I keep the city.

2) Agree. I don't think the AI gets more "I" as the difficulty goes up. They just get the reserach and production advantages and more starting units.

I was wondering that...

3) The best defense is a good offense. The AI doesn't seem to understand this. That's why I think the Protective trait was designed more for the AI.

Protective can actually be pretty good. The first strike is like a combat I, although it is only for archery units (early game). The city defense is also good because it allows you to quickly place a unit or two in your city to defend it while you move on to take the next cities... so many times I've been held back by having to defend my cities.

4) Attak whoever is most likely to make a huge army in the late game first. After that, attack whoever has the best cities. After that, go for the AI who is most advanced. It seems to work for me.

I see. I would tend to disagree, because the advanced AIs are more dangerous, since they might acquire technologies to get better units.

5) Terra is my favorite map type, by FAR. If you want to colonize, which is usually the best plan, you need to have that in your gameplan from turn 1. I like to Chariot or Axe rush one civ, catapult and sword rush another civ, then go for optics while consolidating your gains from the wars. Build the FP on your overseas colony. I've had the best results with countries that have late game UUs and UBs like America, Russia, and Germany with this strategy.

But isn't it pretty much decided before you get to colonize? If you've already taken two civs, you can probably take another before the technology comes up, and then you're really close to winning (last time I played it, I conquered the second civ with just a little bit more time, probably enough, to spare before optics came by).

The AI is pretty bad at choosing city locations, I end up burning most cities and carrying a couple of settlers in my stack. I do keep holy cities and good wonders though. If the city is in a good spot i'll definately keep it though, population is great to have for whipping.

I've noticed that the AI isn't too terrible at city locations, and it's usually not worth the bother to burn most of his cities just to replace them a tile away.

The AI dosn't get much smarter past noble, they just get cheats. I hear the new AI in BTS is astonishing though.

That's what I thought...

The AI is terrible at war, they don't stack so they only take cities with no real defense, if they encounter a city with cultural defense they set their cats down and start hitting it while their units go off to pillage. Defending is even worse, they build archers over axemen for defense.

Yes, I have noticed that.

Take out people who aren't going to want to trade with you first, then people who will backstab you. If you have an AI with its UU in its prime, leave them alone unless you have no choice, if it's an AI who's a few techs away from his uber UU take him out before he has the chance.

Makes sense.

I play terra all of the time, and this is generally the case. I only ever colonize the other continent if I don't feel like wiping out the rest from the old world.

I thought so. In that case, it feels more like a smaller map with more opponents...

1. Early rushing is par for course at higher difficulty levels, so I'm not sure if this is even a serious question.

So I'm in the right.

2. Again, is this even a serious question?

It is a way to open up conversation, and for people to share their opinions on the subject.

AI in ANY game is inferior to a good human player, with the possible exceptions of games like chess. AI will come out of its city to attack you if it has significantly better than 50-50 odds of winning. In fact you can even "lure" out defenders (say, longbowmen for this example) by rushing with a combination of strong units and weak ones. Just move one weak unit near a city but not so near that the longbowman can pop out and back in on the same turn. Then when the longbowman kills the weak unit, beat the living crap out of the longbowman, which doesn't have the fortification, walls/culture, and city garrison bonus out on the open field. This doesn't work quite as well if the opponent has a good mix of units, and quite frankly it's time consuming and I don't often do this on purpose; I prefer the massive collateral damage approach.

But my example happened the exact opposite... the chariot would not come out of the city, despite my axemen being done for if it did.

3. Once again, is this is a serious question?

It is a way to open up conversation, and for people to share their opinions on the subject. Also, ever wondered that I might be new to this concept of war? Every single game I played I was a religion-whore. I finally broke my religion desires and started getting tons of wonders instead. I broke that desire as well, and started getting tons of enemy cities instead.

Of course the best defense is a good offense. You can't just huddle in your cities while you get pillaged to death, and if you have a strong enough army to bounce pillagers, you might as well take the offensive while you're at it.

Well, of course. My friends always think city defense and I warn them that you should never have city defense... which is why things like walls and castle are useless. If they're onto the city defense, you're done for.

If you play your cards right, the AI will be stuck with lots of units per city to quell unrest due to various reasons (Emancipation, war weariness, simple large size, etc.). Even if that's not the case, the AI peppers the field with its units, guarding important strategic resources such as bananas and incense, making the actual city attack that much easier for you. After the obligatory early rushes, if I am at peace, I typically think about taking out a civ if I am at least half of its power on the graph, figuring that I will take fewer losses and continue to crank out units while the enemy will not be able to replace his/her losses as quickly.

Which annoys me because the AI should have some intelligence so that he actually defends his cities rather than wander around.

4. It all depends, but generally you want to be opportunistic and attack those who are close by so you can keep some or all of their cities without eating too much of the distance penalty; it's a wasteful exercise to DoW and do nothing but raze, raze, raze, unless you are on a Pangaea-style map and going for early conquest.

I usually do not raze either because I like to keep the cities.

Also, why do you feel like you need to always be at the front lines? I typically don't even get involved in wars after the early or mid game, except when I have a massive tech lead. I just have others fight wars for me, it just takes a tech or two. I typically get the AI to fight the tech leader first, then one of the bullies who has a lot of land next after the tech threat is neutralized. Or I'll even kill the threat myself if he's not that far away. Be friends with SOME of your neighbors, though. A good neighbor is one like Napolean who keeps attacking his other neighbors after I prod him with a bribe or two, and he's good enough at war that he'll hold his own and keep others busy as I build an insurmountable tech lead. My goal is to have everybody continually fighting to a draw--the incessant pillaging, bad blood, unhappiness, and resources going to units rather than infrastructure/tech is worth every bloody tech I have to trade to get the first proxy war going.

I've never had the AI not have every person redded out for war. Even if I gave myself a million gold and all the technologies, it still would be impossible to strike a deal with them to declare war on someone.

5. I don't play Terra maps but am familiar with the concept. Of course the game is going to be mostly decided.. most of the critical points of a game occur in the BC years, and I would go so far as to say the period between 4000 BC and 3000 BC is more important than any other period.

So then isn't Terra just like playing a map with more opponents than default? Since HOF is whiny about not having the default number of AI for a map size, isn't Terra a way to make more opponents on a smaller map while still legal?



Humorous note: It took me about 24 hours to respond to this. I started almost right after the latest post, but I could only get a little bit done before real life called and I had to leave the window open.

 

[axident]

As you could tell from my bananas and incense comment, I wrote what I wrote tongue-in-cheek; sorry if it sounded belligerent; I just meant that yeah, you're already doing everything right!

Not sure what happened with your chariot/axeman scenario.

Don't get religion, make lopsided tech trades, give tribute, open borders, etc. etc. and you will eventually get someone Pleased or better, and if you have some techs on them you can get them to attack the tech leader, assuming that they aren't friends with the tech leader too.

Also, you may want to extort techs and relieve war weariness, diplo points be damned, rather than always fighting wars to the bitter end. My current game featured Catherine giving me four techs, including Construction, after I took her from first to last place.

 

[Defiant47]

As you could tell from my bananas and incense comment, I wrote what I wrote tongue-in-cheek; sorry if it sounded belligerent; I just meant that yeah, you're already doing everything right!

It's all good.

Not sure what happened with your chariot/axeman scenario.

AU is what happened... I gambled on the AI being unintelligent and NOT attacking my axemen and screwing me horribly, and I won.

Don't get religion, make lopsided tech trades, give tribute, open borders, etc. etc. and you will eventually get someone Pleased or better, and if you have some techs on them you can get them to attack the tech leader, assuming that they aren't friends with the tech leader too.

Problem is that everyone's happy with everyone usually. Even if I'm friendly with someone, they wouldn't think of attacking somebody else, because they're friends. And I usually accept giving tribute (the diplomatic bonus is immense), make open borders early, and switch civics and religion freely when spiritual (do a bit more thinking if not).

Also, you may want to extort techs and relieve war weariness, diplo points be damned, rather than always fighting wars to the bitter end. My current game featured Catherine giving me four techs, including Construction, after I took her from first to last place.

I've been thinking about it, and I would probably accept the end of a war in exchange for some techs... although I would preferably want to wait until Feudalism so I can vassalize the enemy too.