This game is too reliant on Iron

[Helmling]

bingen beat me to it.

I'll admit that I panic if I look around and realize I have no iron. But my concern is for the late game, not ancient combat. I almost always play Greek, so I build stacks with hoplites, catapaults and the best offensive unit possible. For convenience and speed, I often just build hordes and hordes of horsemen. It's not the most efficient method, but I get impatient with the combat engine and just want to speed up wars.

Middle Ages is tougher, since I prefer the peaceful side of the research tree. I'll tell you what, though, one detour to chivalry and you can usually get the Knights Templar--even up to Emperor. If you've got aggressive neighbors, make sure you watch the available resources after that and if someone gets in your face, be sure you've got enough friends to buy the iron and horses (if need be) from a neighbor. It's rare, though, that I'll be lacking both. Usually I end up with horses, which I can easily do without, and have to go hunting for iron.

So I feel your pain, brother, but it is doable.

 

[gunkulator]

Fortunately, no resources are needed to build the most powerful units, the artillery units.

But what will you protect them with, spears? Lacking iron means you are pretty much forced to play a defensive game in the early Middle Ages. However, trebuchets are invaluable on defense. If the AI gets so much as a scratch, they run home to mommy crying.

 

[tR1cKy]

Isn't frustrating when you state obvious things and someone just don't get it?

Roxlimn, although this is a public forum and everyone is entitled to have an opinion, would you please read the post and think a little before replying?

My key point was that, before obtaining at least Engineering and Invention, you are stuck with weak units and, by consequence, your army is seen as weak even if it's quite respectable. Now, what's the point in replying with:

Sure. That's why you need Archers and upgrade to Longbowmen ASAP. And more units than usual.

... ??? ...
since it's obvious that archers can be upgraded only after those technologies are available?

I'm going to do something that i don't like at all. Picking some sentences off the context and commenting them. I hate it, because the intelligence level of the debate usually go way down, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

At the very least, you can arrange for an MPP or an MA.

MPP in middle ages?
And a MA means war... aren't we arguing about the necessity to avoid war?

You always assume the AI will attack first chance it gets. You never give them a chance. If you get caught with your pants down, it's your own fault.

At risk of being warned, this is just plain dumb. Unless we're misunderstood each other. For being "caught pants down" i mean "attacked by surprise". When an AS want to invade you, it doesn't have the courtesy to warn you first. It enters in your territory and attacks. Period.
Now, it the AS is using "slow" troops, you can be alert that an invasion is coming and try to make the AS change idea. But if they use mounted units, they can attack by complete surprise. And at this point you are really "caught pants down" because you're stuck in a state of war for at least 5 turns, like it or not.
And at this point, you have to react with archers and spears against MDI, pikemen and knights.
Got it now?

Lack Iron, Lack Saltpeter, Lack anything worth trading, and no one to ally with. Lack of Iron here is no longer the issue.

Once again, i have to explain some obvious things. With no iron, you're stuck with spears, until you have Gunpowder and saltpeter. Shouldn't the availability of saltpeter be a concern? You can be without saltpeter as well. And even if it's quite improbable that you lack anything worth trading, sometimes the civs don't need what you have to offer. Or you lack a trade route to reach it. Or you lack a trade route with others civ and cannot offer anything worthwhile to sign them into an alliance. Not counting that, when you go for defensive alliances you are already at war.

You don't initiate a war when your military is inferior. I should've thought that was quite obvious.

You do. I'm not in any way the #1 player around here, but i've attacked civs with 3x my army and won. And other players around have won wars in even more unfavourable conditions. Presuming the obvious when it's not obvious at all is typical of newbie players who feel experienced.

I think I can say for certain that I have never played a game in which I had no luxuries, no strategic resources of any kind, nor any useful bonus tiles to power a favorable deal heading into the Middle Ages.

Nor did i. But i've played games in which i was without iron and saltpeter, and my luxuries were untradeable, for the lack of trade routes or for the AS already in possess of my luxuries. You played too few games and in easy levels of difficulty. This is obvious.

 

[island007]

At the very least, you can arrange for an MPP or an MA. If you're so far down that you can't avoid war at all, then your lack of Iron is probably the least of your worries.

I think I can say for certain that I have never played a game in which I had no luxuries, no strategic resources of any kind, nor any useful bonus tiles to power a favorable deal heading into the Middle Ages.

I would just like to point out that MPP becomes available with Nationalism.

 

[budweiser]

Nothing sucks like Celts with no iron anywhere -- No Gallics .

Rome sucks like that.

 

[cfacosta]

Agreed Budweiser. I love playing rome because legions make me smile. No iron makes me very sad.

 

[schwanenfeldii]

Maybe its just me
But I am sick of struggling because of lack of iron.

I havent been playing Civ 3 for long but have worked my way up the difficulty levels and now on Emperor.
Yet all 3 Emperor games I have played so far I have had no iron, none anywhere near, and so are reduced to lesser combat units. By the time I can build enough to go try get the iron the AI has units far stronger than mine and so far I have been defeated trying to get to the iron. I have been unable to trade for it as I have not enough resources/techs/cash to trade them, and the buggers know it

All three games have been ok in terms of early expansion, knocking out my neighbour and getting to be the largest civ, but each game has fizzled away due to lack of iron.

I find it very odd that you have played three games in a row without any iron. In my last three games---on emperor and demigod---I had no trouble with iron at all (I did have serious saltpeter problems in one game, but that's another story). Perhaps it's just luck, but I have to wonder if something else is going on. Maybe you aren't expanding fast enough? Are you using settler factories? Could it be the map settings?

Perhaps the reason I don't have trouble getting iron is that during the expansion phase I try to position myself so that my border cities are on hills. I like the defensive bonus the hills provide. Besides I find an empire with natural borders more aesthetically pleasing . Maybe this strategy inadvertently gets me iron as well.

 

[tR1cKy]

It's just bad luck. Sometimes it happens. Resource placement is random. Obviously, trying to grab some hills and mountains tiles help.

Yes, Rome without iron sucks a lot. Bye bye legionaries.

 

[bonscott]

Sometimes people found their empires such that they don't get the best chance to get resources. First you want to get Iron Working ASAP so you can see where the iron is and settle there. Doesn't do you much good when you finally know where the iron is after there is no more room to exapand.
Also I think too many people found new cities next to their current ones and work their way out. That won't get you much. After your first 1 or 2 cities you need to find where a natural border might be with your neighbors. Push some settlers out to the fringes of where you think you want your border to be. Then work your way in by settling in between. That way you expand a lot and get more opportunity.

Also: See a desert nearby? Settle it. Greater chances of getting saltpeter and oil later. Jungle? Don't ignore it, settle it. Just might make get you rubber or coal later on. Tundra? Settle it. Iron, oil and coal like the tundra. Mountains and hills are ripe for iron and saltpeter as well as gold.

So increase your chances by settling outword in and getting some cities in the less desirable places cause resources like it there.

 

[budweiser]

I agree with the first part about learning IW early, but I'm not sure its possible or advisable to leave too much of a gap between cities on DG and up. I think you should expand towards the general direction of your enemies, but dont put a single city out by itself. It wastes worker turns roading it and puts the city at risk of a culture flip.

I think if you had to travel any more than 6-8 tiles to get to the iron, then you are better off preparing an archer rush to make sure you get it.

 

[gskyes]

Iron is definately the most important resource in the game. Getting it should be your #1 priority. If I don't have iron, I almost always have horses, so taking it in an early war is possible. If no horses archers can be used. But I am not an expert player, so if I have no iron and no horses and strong neighbors, I just restart.

 

[Creosote]

Well in my fourth game at Emperor I got some iron!!

Like buses, it comes along 3 at a time in my island continent.
The game is going real well and unless I screw the pooch should be my first Emperor victory. Just have one opponent left who is near as powerful as me, but a little smaller and a couple of techs behind. I am rushing to tanks which are 4 techs away in 1525AD and then I am gonna send them over in numbers and claim another 11% land for a domination victory. Least, thats the plan

Strangely I got the set - Iron, Coal and Saltpetre, does make life a lot easier!

 

[Creosote]

I find it very odd that you have played three games in a row without any iron. In my last three games---on emperor and demigod---I had no trouble with iron at all (I did have serious saltpeter problems in one game, but that's another story). Perhaps it's just luck, but I have to wonder if something else is going on. Maybe you aren't expanding fast enough? Are you using settler factories? Could it be the map settings?

Perhaps the reason I don't have trouble getting iron is that during the expansion phase I try to position myself so that my border cities are on hills. I like the defensive bonus the hills provide. Besides I find an empire with natural borders more aesthetically pleasing . Maybe this strategy inadvertently gets me iron as well.

In each game I expanded fast on a largish continent "island" and ended up conquering it, yet no iron anywhere, so I assume it was on the other continent(s). I never got a sniff of it, just luck of the draw I suppose.

 

[Roxlimn]

tR1cky:

First of all, I like to think that I think before doing anything.

Point 1: Seen as weak.

Depends. I think the AI responds to volume and attack power. Having lots of Archers around tends to deter attack, even by civs with Iron and Feudalism.

Point 2: Arranging for MA:

Arranging for an MA means you get to fight a war without really fighting one. It means getting to fight tickles of units rather than hordes of it.

Point 3: Getting surprised:

No, not really. With few exception, outposts and sentries will warn you about enemy troop concentrations at least several rounds before the computer makes an actual attack, if the forays into your lands aren't suggestive enough. Moreover, being aware of the state of things in the world generally lets you know who the chump is in the continent. As in poker, if you can't find him, it's you. Prepare to defend. I'm hardly ever surprised in this manner, and never when I didn't have Iron (because I'm extra paranoid then).

Point 4: Not having anything.

I didn't say it was impossible. I said not having Iron is the least of your worries if you don't have anything tradable.

Point 5: Winning against odds.

The fact that you can win with technically inferior troops means that your army is stronger than the AIs by virtue of you being in control. This means that your army isn't, in fact, inferior to the enemy's, just different. Attacking when the odds of winning are 10 to 1, including all the tricks you can manage to do, is a sure way of losing the game.

I'll exaggerate a bit to illustrate what I'm saying. If you're playing a One City Challenge and you have no more than 2 Spearmen in total, declaring war against an enemy who has 14 Cavalry parked outside your cultural border is not a good idea.

Point 6: I'm an idiot.

Nor did i. But i've played games in which i was without iron and saltpeter, and my luxuries were untradeable, for the lack of trade routes or for the AS already in possess of my luxuries. You played too few games and in easy levels of difficulty. This is obvious.

I'll have to admit that playing at Monarch and Emperor has been a bit boring of late, but I don't think I'll enjoy Deity styles of winning and strategy very much, based on the advice I get here on how to win at those levels. So yes, I guess I'm guilty of playing at easy levels of difficulty.

Even so, at those levels, you can always engineer snagging Iron or Saltpeter or at least some way to trade for them, if you manage reputation and warring conscientiously. You don't need luxuries to trade for Iron. You can pay money for it, you know. Or technology. Perhaps you don't regularly practice warring for luxuries you already have. Depriving a civ of a luxury resource in a war can force that civ to break treaties (weakening its place on the negotiating table) or else give you something to trade it later on.

Again, the point here is to fight the war on your terms, not the AIs. Bad to not have allies. Bad not to have war goals. Worse to be surprised.

I have to repeat that I've never been in a situation in which I had no luxury resources worth trading, no money nor tech for trading, and neither Iron nor Saltpeter nor Horses, nor any strategic resource worth trading, selling, or using. It seems very improbable to me, given conscientious play.

Of course, I'm an idiot, right, so what value can what I'm saying have?

 

[Gwil]

It's worth noting that AI civs too will suffer from lack of Iron, and part of the skill is hunting down your closest neighbour without it, and annexing their poorly defended spear towns to expand your empire. The increase in gold can help you prioritise on other military units for defence, or build up more cheap ancient age units to attack a poorly defended iron resource.

S'all about tactics. I'm playing as Romans currently, had to start an icky war with France at the start to pick up Iron, but in the process I took Paris and their only lux's too. With the Iron I could completely obliterate America in 10 or so turns, and focus my energies on the power closest to me, Egypt. They, as yet, do not have any Iron but are putting up fair resistance. The advantage I gained from using massed archers, spears and warriors to take out the French has let me keep the Egyptians in check - AND provide good staging points for galleys to ferry units onto the resource rich Egyptian west coast.

 

[tR1cKy]

First of all, I like to think that I think before doing anything.

Acknowledged. My speech was intended to draw your attention into the fact that your objection was off-mark.

I'm quoting again, but not for confrontational issues

Depends. I think the AI responds to volume and attack power. Having lots of Archers around tends to deter attack, even by civs with Iron and Feudalism.

The AS use a sort of weight for the different units. Cannot say precisely how much spears and archers are weighted against pikes and knight, but for sure you need more units, in raw numbers, to not be seen as weak.

Now, if you're playing up to regent, it's not too difficult to be on par with the AS, but when you go up in levels they are quite likely to be more powerful: extra units at start, extra support, discount price... so you may be seen as weak no matter how units you're able to crank up without being killed by the upkeep costs.

Point 2: agreed.

Point 3: Getting surprised:

I disagree. In my opinion, you're too optimistic in the ability of the human to be aware of things. But probably it depends also on the difficulty level. In monarch and above, expecially with bad odds at start, you may be in the situation in which "being aware" is simply too costly for the human player. Keeping troops as a deterrent implies a cost. Sometimes the border you share with your potential enemy don't allow you to defend in time. Sometimes you need to "drop the guard" in order to achieve a goal (tipically a military conquest), and in the meantime you're prone to a surprise attack.

See an example: my game log thread, page 1, first post. Look at the attached image. Now ignore the troops i'm amassing in Egitto Merda and imagine the tile between my city and Thebes to be roaded. In such a scenario, how can i react to an hypotethical surprise attack from Thebes? I cannot.

Now go to page 4 and look at the attached image in post #67. I have a fair military, but it's for the most part deployed outside my core. My troops are engaged in the capture of Heliopolis and Elephantine, and exactly at the moment when they cannot retreat in time, a total of 17 american units cross the border for a surprise attack. Caugh pants down, as i said. I was barely able to defend, and a bit of luck was needed to survive.

And, before you object that i should have seen them approaching and react consequently (true in abstract), i'll add that the americans had a ROP with the greeks, and obviously moved through the greek roads.

EDITED: the american also were gracious and had an active trade with me...
RE-EDITED: they were also at war with the egyptians, so we had a common enemy

Remember, the AS know where all your troops are deployed, even if they fake ignorance. Presuming to be aware of AS intentions may have sad consequences.

Point 4: ok.

Point 5: ok.

Point 6: I'm an idiot.

No, you're a newbie. Some of your remarks were typical of a newbie feeling overconfident, not idiotic. There's nothing wrong in being newbies, we all start this way . Just improve yourself and be fine.

 

[juz1138]

Lacking iron in terms of gameplay is definetly detrimental,however it is far from a gamebreaker, on a historical note, i thought it odd that bronzeworking requires no resources and ironworking requires iron to utilize its rewards, in reality ironworking gave the ability to early civilizations to field large armies as iron is much more plentiful than tin, which is required to make bronze, therefore it would be far more logical in terms of the game to have a "bronze" resource and make ironworking a resourceless tech, in the way that bronzeworking currently is.

 

[Roxlimn]

Getting Surprised:

In the first page of the post, I would almost expect an attack from Egypt at any moment. The fact that you were able to amass as large a force as you did without comment seems to indicate that the Egyptians have their minds on something else. Even so, I don't believe an attack anywhere else is feasible for sometime, and you can move troops from one city to another anyway, with ease. In this scenario, the value of a sneak attack is questionable at best. You simply station most troops at Egitto Merda, as you have done, whether you are attacked or not, and this leaves you prepared for pretty much anything.

In such a scenario, I would expect Egypt to attack quite soon, if not immediately, so no, I don't believe a surprise to any effect is possible here.

In your game in the 4th page, the Americans have loads of troops heading your direction, not for Elephantine. Despite the declared war on Egypt, I would have expected an attack immediately and prepared accordingly. The fact that you have hills and decent sight means that you will have noted the Americans moving in and should've suspected attack right from the start (which you did).

While it's debatable, I believe an RoP agreement at this point with Abe might've been more influential in deferring an attack, though you may just as well simply have allowed him to maneuver better for his treachery.

The trouble here is the river crossing going to Thebes and the war with the Egyptians. I think going for the Egyptians was the smart thing to do, even expecting an attack from America, but that's not the same as saying that the attack was a surprise one.

 

[YNCS]

I have quit games without iron and coal. As many have pointed out, it's possible to survive without iron, but if you don't have reliable sources of iron and coal, you can't build railroads, which means you either build hordes of workers or you suffocate in pollution once you're in the Industrial Age.

 

[Commander Bello]

Fortunately, no resources are needed to build the most powerful units, the artillery units.

This is a very valuable remark.

If you lack iron, go for combined unit groups:
Catapults, spears, bows, horsemen (if you have at least horses).

The AI is not able to understand bombardment. It will send in hordes of units only to die at your defensive strongpoints, if you use your early "artillery" well enough.
The same stands true when your're on the attack. A stack of 10 cats, 10 spears and 10 bows (just as an example, whatever may be the needed combination) will get you almost any city in the early game.
As the best defender will always been shown, you can easily estimate if it would be senseful to send your bows to attack, after your cats have done their job.
Simultenously, try to cut off your enemy's iron supply, if you can. Then he only has that many iron-units and will fall to your superior tactics.

In total: the game is decided by the larger numbers and the best use of those, not by ressources. If you lack a ressource, go and grab it, by whatever means seems to be necessary - including war.