Total frustration for a newbie

[vmxa]

Here is my often repeated invasion technique. It is the reason I do not bring cannons (generic for any bombardment) to the landing.

Bring my stack, 1 settler and as many armies as I have. Often at the first invasion I will have only 1 or 2 armies.

Land on a hill. Ideally the hill has only 3 tiles of land adjacent to it and they will be either hills or mountains. This lets me cut the roads and prevent an attack in force the first day.

Land, next turn found my town. Rush a wall using gold if allowed or ship disbanding otherwise. I may use one ship to seed the rush. Fort all units and load the army with any troops if it was not full (ships decide that).

No one can attack, if I cut the roads and it is all hills or jungle or forest surrounding me with the rest water. Super layout is two tiles of end all movement in all directions.

They move up as soon as I found the town. Next turn I rush a barracks and with any luck they will not be able to attack until the next turn.

I had sent my boats back to get more troops and cannons can now come. I did not need them to start as I will not be on attack for some time.

If I deem that they will be able to attack before I get the barracks up I may go with the barracks first. It is a close call. If I have armies to defend, I would rather be able to have them fully healed than get a 25% extra from a wall.

The consideration is
A) no attack until I stop the counterattacks
B) cannons cannot defend, so units are better

Understand what B means. It means if you get lots of damage and have 10 cannons, they will not be put up for defense. Now damaged units must go back up to fight.

This makes them very vulnerable. If I had 10 more units instead of cannons, those unit would be at full health and take a turn or two.

If I lose all but the 10 cannons, the town is captured along with the cannons. Again having 10 units instead may allow me to not lose the town and all thoe damaged units will be at full strength for the next turn.

I have seen this go both ways too often. If we are talking about a walk over, then do as you please, but if they have units more or less on par with yours, bombardment is not much help.

Remember they will have a lot more attackers than you have defenders. They will be able to replace losses and get them on the front faster than you can.

The thing that aids in the holding on is that you get full health from the barracks in C3C for units and armies, as long as they did not move. You will get some promotions, so the extra hit point can make a significant increase in survivial of units. You can expect a leader or a lot more, depending on the numbers.

This means more armies and they can be offensive ones now. This is predicated on facing scores, if not hundreds of units. If you will be getting only dozens, please feel free to bring cannons.

In games that are conquest only, where you play deep into the turns, I may have a spare transport. If I do I will bring 6 workers. Now when I found the city I can go for a barracks as I will add in those workers and presto, size 7 no need for a wall.

 

[Sashie VII]

In games that are conquest only, where you play deep into the turns, I may have a spare transport. If I do I will bring 6 workers. Now when I found the city I can go for a barracks as I will add in those workers and presto, size 7 no need for a wall.

Another lesson learned

Somehow I'm starting to feel like a slow-witted disciple. Thanks, this is very instructive

 

[Alex Johnson]

First, I think that if my starting location is not optimum, then starting a new game is cheating. If this game at Warlord level is so easy to beat, then I should be able to beat it regardless of my starting situation. I AM winning, but only on points.

There's a weird part of life. Sometimes just seeing something beaten is enough that your brain can jump the gap and let you beat it over and over. It's the intuitive jump step of learning. If you can't yet win with a bad start, you'll never make the jump, but if you end up with a super-easy baby-you start, then you might win and then the intuitive jump happens and you keep winning. It's worth trying, but I totally understand your reasoning. If it isn't so hard, why should I have to cherry-pick an easy game? You don't have to, but it might speed up the learning process.

Second, you need a hell of a lot of units to take one city, let alone conquer a rival. If the rival is across water, it takes even longer.

The cities that are beyond my capitol are producing very slowly regardless of surrounding tiles because of waste/corruption, and the cities that I conquered are useless. Are you saying that this doesn't happen to you?

The corruption thing happens to everyone. But those cities don't need to be productive. You are not trying to rule the other guy's land, you are trying to eliminate him from the game. All you need the city for is a place for your units to rest and heal. Build a barracks and a wall and keep it heavily defended. Sell unneeded improvements the computer made (for example, banks are useless to you because of the corruption).

Now, about conquering rivals and how many units it takes. I suspect you are not picking your battles intelligently. If you have 5 AIs to conquer, how do you decide which one you attack? Are you just going after the nearest one? Take a look at their defenders and at the technologies they are missing (in the trade window). Pick on the weak guy first. This will be the easiest way into another continent. For example, my wife just beat a game and she wasted hundreds of units and hours of gameplay by attacking the Aztecs. Her knights against their fortified pikemen in jungles and mountains. All she wanted was a domination victory. If she had thought it out, she could have taken the Germans much faster. They had no source of iron (spearmen and archers against her knights) and their country was well-roaded grasslands. Her units could move over it at full speed and steamroller the whole continent in a fraction of the time it took her to dig out the Aztecs.

Beat the easy guy and you will have a foothold on their continent. Beat the easy guy and you will have all his wonders benefiting you. Beat the easy guy and you will have more cities producing the minimum 1 shield/1 commerce that pays for your next war. Beat the easy guy and your army won't be decimated, so you'll have that much more to use against the next enemy (if you attack the strongest AI, you might win but leave yourself so weakened that you can't defeat anyone else...but defeat the weakest and it takes no toll at all so you can go straight into attacking the next one...if you are lucky you'll get domination before you ever have to face your actual rival for top Civ).

Fourth, some have suggested I not build wonders, and some say I should. I don't see how I can win without Heroic Epic, United Nations, and some of the other wonders that seem to be essential. Don't wonders also give me victory points?

You aren't playing Settlers of Cataan. There are no Victory Points. You get points, yes, which might be part of why you win by points. Getting X points won't just make you win instantly, AFAIK. Wonders are not necessary. I like them. Many here hate them. I usually build a couple as I'm leaving the Middle Ages (sometimes I build the Lighthouse in the Ancient Age, if I'm stuck on a small island). I have never built either Heroic Epic nor United Nations, and I have also never lost a game. I don't know why you think they are essential. To me the most useful wonders are Smith's Trading Co (all marketplaces and banks are free!) and Sistine Chapel (a couple cathedrals in the big cities with this wonder is a LOT cheaper than ramping up your luxury slider enough to do the same thing). But even for me it totally depends on the game. I decide what I need as the game plays out. I don't always build a certain wonder and I don't lose the game or cry about it if the AI beats me to any particular wonder, either. Wonders are bonuses for players that are far enough ahead that they can spare a high-production city for 20-40 turns.

 

[Sashie VII]

You aren't playing Settlers of Cataan. There are no Victory Points. You get points, yes, which might be part of why you win by points. Getting X points won't just make you win instantly, AFAIK. Wonders are not necessary. I like them. Many here hate them. I usually build a couple as I'm leaving the Middle Ages (sometimes I build the Lighthouse in the Ancient Age, if I'm stuck on a small island). I have never built either Heroic Epic nor United Nations, and I have also never lost a game. I don't know why you think they are essential. To me the most useful wonders are Smith's Trading Co (all marketplaces and banks are free!) and Sistine Chapel (a couple cathedrals in the big cities with this wonder is a LOT cheaper than ramping up your luxury slider enough to do the same thing). But even for me it totally depends on the game. I decide what I need as the game plays out. I don't always build a certain wonder and I don't lose the game or cry about it if the AI beats me to any particular wonder, either. Wonders are bonuses for players that are far enough ahead that they can spare a high-production city for 20-40 turns.

IOW, build wonders that has the effects that you desire/will be beneficial. For instance, IMO The Colossus is not worth the shields, since that city could've used the time and effort to crank out settlers/workers/etc instead. Some wonders are great to have, but you can live without them. Sometimes you'll breathe easier if you hadn't built them at all.

 

[CommandoBob]

Joe we know you are not trolling as that tends to invove some unpleasant responses and those are not occuring here.

We can see you are serious about getting on top of the game. What has been suggested is doing a training run, either here or in your own SG or join one.

Joe, here are three to look at, three very different SGs.

1) Expirement 626s Solo TDG >>Expirement 626<< is an on-going game where 626 is documenting everything in great (almost too much) detail. 626 does the playing, posts his turn log and asks for others guide/correct/improve. He makes the decisions, the trainers/lurkers give the advice and insight.

2) GK2 - The Training Day Expirement >>Genghis Khan<< is perhaps the best training day game to date. This is a long thread but worth it. One of the goals was to play each form of government; I cannot recall if they did. This game has not yet been finished (but I cannot find the save!).

3) tao_1 vanilla emperor training/succession game >>tao<< is a semi-abandoned training SG. It is not very far into the game, currently it is 1350 BC; lots of game to go. It was last played back in mid-March by me. If you want to pick up the next turns feel free to do so. I think tao got involved in SGOTM 9, and everyone else dropped out.

This game is at Emperor, but don't let that bother you. I stepped up from Chieftain to Monarch/Emperor/Diety (have an SG at each level just now) and have had some good teachers along the way (early it was nerovats and Team Smurkz in SGOTM 9, lately tupaclives and andronicus). I don't know it all, but I would be glad to share a game with you.

 

[vmxa]

Game #1 is a 1.29 vanilla, so just know that. Much of the early stuff works in C3C, a big change in Republic and armies.

 

[Whomp]

This was a C3C zero science training SG which I was involved and it gives great detail to how trades were constructed as well as battle plans.

Trikos Monarch Zero Science Training Game

to Alex Johnson

 

[Alex Johnson]

to Alex Johnson

Would you care to explain what I said right? Others may benefit more by knowing what advice gets the thumbs up. Or are you just a fan of mine that I haven' met yet?

 

[Whomp]

Beat the easy guy.
If she had thought it out, she could have taken the Germans much faster. They had no source of iron (spearmen and archers against her knights) and their country was well-roaded grasslands. Her units could move over it at full speed and steamroller the whole continent in a fraction of the time it took her to dig out the Aztecs.

Or simply be opportunistic. Have a mission and acheive it. If you do fight the big guy, which you have to do sometimes, bring in someone else to the party.

The corruption thing happens to everyone. But those cities don't need to be productive. You are not trying to rule the other guy's land, you are trying to eliminate him from the game. All you need the city for is a place for your units to rest and heal.

Or as gmaharriet so eloquently explained use them as specialists and build workers and settlers.

Though I prefer to conquer wonders vs. building them, other than ToE and Hoovers, I like how you've addressed things.

 

[CommandoBob]

Game #2 is a 1.29 vanilla, so just know that. Much of the early stuff works in C3C, a big change in Republic and armies.

I see #1 is also vanilla.

I thought that Expirement 626's game was C3C. It is how he described it in the first post, where he also mentions SGL.

tao's game is vanillla, however.

 

[vmxa]

I thought that Expirement 626's game was C3C. It is how he described it in the first post, where he also mentions SGL.

tao's game is vanillla, however.

You are right, I corrected that.

 

[joe6778]

Here is my often repeated invasion technique. It is the reason I do not bring cannons (generic for any bombardment) to the landing.

Bring my stack, 1 settler and as many armies as I have. Often at the first invasion I will have only 1 or 2 armies.

Land on a hill. Ideally the hill has only 3 tiles of land adjacent to it and they will be either hills or mountains. This lets me cut the roads and prevent an attack in force the first day.

Land, next turn found my town. Rush a wall using gold if allowed or ship disbanding otherwise. I may use one ship to seed the rush. Fort all units and load the army with any troops if it was not full (ships decide that).

No one can attack, if I cut the roads and it is all hills or jungle or forest surrounding me with the rest water. Super layout is two tiles of end all movement in all directions.

They move up as soon as I found the town. Next turn I rush a barracks and with any luck they will not be able to attack until the next turn.

I had sent my boats back to get more troops and cannons can now come. I did not need them to start as I will not be on attack for some time.

If I deem that they will be able to attack before I get the barracks up I may go with the barracks first. It is a close call. If I have armies to defend, I would rather be able to have them fully healed than get a 25% extra from a wall.

The consideration is
A) no attack until I stop the counterattacks
B) cannons cannot defend, so units are better

Understand what B means. It means if you get lots of damage and have 10 cannons, they will not be put up for defense. Now damaged units must go back up to fight.

This makes them very vulnerable. If I had 10 more units instead of cannons, those unit would be at full health and take a turn or two.

If I lose all but the 10 cannons, the town is captured along with the cannons. Again having 10 units instead may allow me to not lose the town and all thoe damaged units will be at full strength for the next turn.

I have seen this go both ways too often. If we are talking about a walk over, then do as you please, but if they have units more or less on par with yours, bombardment is not much help.

Remember they will have a lot more attackers than you have defenders. They will be able to replace losses and get them on the front faster than you can.

The thing that aids in the holding on is that you get full health from the barracks in C3C for units and armies, as long as they did not move. You will get some promotions, so the extra hit point can make a significant increase in survivial of units. You can expect a leader or a lot more, depending on the numbers.

This means more armies and they can be offensive ones now. This is predicated on facing scores, if not hundreds of units. If you will be getting only dozens, please feel free to bring cannons.

In games that are conquest only, where you play deep into the turns, I may have a spare transport. If I do I will bring 6 workers. Now when I found the city I can go for a barracks as I will add in those workers and presto, size 7 no need for a wall.

How can you land armies until you have transports? You don't get transports that can carry armies until later in the game. By that time, my rivals are firmly established.

In practice, since I couldn't build transports, I landed a leader and a ton of tanks on a hill near an enemy city with the idea of forming an army after I landed. They were attacked by at least 20 enemy tanks and destroyed. That ended my invasion. I landed far away from the enemy capitol near a small town, and I attacked them because they were the rival closest to my point total, so I thought I would try to take them down a little. It was obviously a poor choice, but they had started the war and I was trying to take it to their continent.

And the civ I was attacking had at least three cities with populations of about 30!!! My best city barely had a population of 20. How the heck can I get cities with populations that high?

In my current game, I took the advice of building one city to build settlers, one to build military units, and one to build workers.

I was successful in eliminating my other rivals on my continent, but it took me many turns and many units to do so, and the remaining cities of my main rivals are across the ocean. It's going to take a while before I can build enough transports and units to muster up a decent invasion force. I don't think I'll have enough time to win by domination.

I still don't see how I can win a game any way but on points.

Again, I appreciate all the help I've received on this website. I just don't think that it should take a college course to be able to beat the AI on Warlord level.

 

[CommandoBob]

How can you land armies until you have transports?

Galleons will hold four units, an army and the three units that make up the army.

I still don't see how I can win a game any way but on points.

When do you decide how you want to win? If you wait until 100 AD you have waited too long. Midpoint of the game is around 1400 AD (turn 270 of 540).

The opening turns are critical to your success. Misplay those and the AI will take the lead and give you a thrashing.

We Need Your Help to Help You Play Better
I know others have stated this before, but let me reinforce it.

For the people on this forum to help you, they need two things from you. The starting, 4000 BC save of a game and the 3000 BC save of that same game. Even in only 20 turns of gameplay, these experts can see what you are doing right, and reinforce that, and they can also determine what needs to be improved. More than likely, if you post a 4000 BC save, somebody will take it and play 20 turns just to show you what they would do, as a guide.

But you've got to post that save.

 

[jkk]

And the civ I was attacking had at least three cities with populations of about 30!!! My best city barely had a population of 20. How the heck can I get cities with populations that high?

The underlying assumption there is that cities with such massive populations would be desirable. I don't think they are. If you look at the AI's countryside you will note a significant amount of completely underutilized terrain. No matter how immense a city is, it can still only produce one item at a time. Moreover, if a city is immense, there is a limit to how much can be done to make its people happy.

My new rule is this: unless it's in the middle of a thick mountain range, no space in my country is unable to be utilized by one of my cities. If there is a pair of spaces in the middle of a bunch of cities that none can use, no problem: build a city, let it reach a small maximum and put the extra people as specialists. It costs my country nothing (because it doesn't build improvements) and it pays my country cash and research. I don't care about its corruption because specialists are not subject to corruption.

If you want to get cities up to massive population, you will also need irrigated grasslands. Fine...but what about mining the grasslands? Again, here the assumption is that bigger would be better, and I don't think that assumption is well founded. I personally would rather have more productive per capita than bigger, especially if I could have half again as many cities. By making a beeline for Adam Smith's, I will end up not paying maintenance on economic improvements in those extra cities. That means I get freaking rich, and rich civs get advantages poor civs do not, such as the ability to buy pretty much whatever.

What is more, if you use luxury rates rather than colosseums to hold down dissent, smaller cities shine. Everyone here seems to agree that it's cheaper to raise the lux rate than to build colosseums, and my experience bears that out. Because you used the lux rate, it affects every city in your civilization without waiting for the hicks on the frontiers who can barely build a courthouse to reduce the hideous corruption, much less whip up a cathedral.

Finally, let me echo CommandoBob and everyone else: you need to post what you're doing--that is, the saves at start and specified timeframes. I have been trogging around the online world since BBSes and I can't remember ever seeing a group so eager to help. To get that help you need to use the tools, namely saves. At this point the experts are itching with curiosity just to see what could possibly be the matter. If you do as they recommend you will learn and improve. If you just keep posting 'I tried this but I can't/it doesn't work/they overwhelm me/etc.' you will spin your wheels. They want to help--loan them your tools.

 

[vmxa]

joe6778
"How can you land armies until you have transports? You don't get transports that can carry armies until later in the game. By that time, my rivals are firmly established."

You can do it with a galley, you just have to use no more than the number of units that can fit in the given ship.
Galley - army and one unit
Caravel - army and two units
Galleon - army and three units
Transport - army and up the full 4 units.

Now the smaller the number of units, the more the risk of being attacked. The good news is that if it is galley time, you are probably facing AA or early IA units.

If you land in a well chosen site, you should have time to load the rest of the units in the army, before they can attack. The AI will not attack 3 man armies at full health, unless they are low level units and they have higher level units. So if you drop and fill a sword army, and the AI has calvs, they may attack.

I cannot recall any army better than muskets being attacked, unless it was bombers. If you had tanks and had formed a three man tank army, or infantry armies and dropped them on a hill, while cutting the roads with a few calv armies, you would not have been attacked.

You then fill the 4th spot, you best have the Pentagon and MA, and fort up. No attacks will come, until the have bombed those armies down to at least yellow.

"And the civ I was attacking had at least three cities with populations of about 30!!! My best city barely had a population of 20. How the heck can I get cities with populations that high?"

Why would you want to have cities with 30 pop? I never do that and win at all levels. The only point to monster metros, is for scores. I don't care about scores.

If you did want them, then you need to have 21 tiles, most irrigated and all railed. A few flood plains or wheat/cows/deer and you can generate enough food to grow that large. The game should have ended before then.

I amfinishing an AW now where my cap is making about 130 shields at size 12. So I can make tank in one turn, why do I need more than that?


"I still don't see how I can win a game any way but on points."

This one I do not understand as I could have sworn I showed you how easy it was to win by domination.

 

[Alex Johnson]

I've never seen Civ3 AI get cities that large! 30?!? I've seen Civ1 cities that big. The biggest Civ3 city I've seen was my own of 28, and I haven't repeated it since reading these forums. See, to get a city bigger than 22 you need to irrigate grassland and railroad it. Each irrigated space is not mined, so you are reducing your production just to have a bigger population, and bigger populations cost you to maintain (unhappiness in a size 30 city must be a *****). Imagine what he is spending on keeping those 3 cities happy and then allocate that much per turn to your army and you'll be unstoppable.

I don't understand why you keep seeing things I've never seen. The AI getting tanks, cities of size 30, the AI having superior technology to you. I've never seen any of this. During the time you've been posting in this thread, I've played from Chieftain to Regent and I've still had no trouble staying ahead in technology (although my military is usually smaller than my rivals, because I have infantry and cavalry vs their pikemen and swordsmen it is a slaughter in my favor every time). You keep taking military conquest as a goal (at least it sounds that way) yet you keep getting to the modern era. Every conquest game I've played has ended in the 1500s AD.

Please answer these questions. How many wonders do you build on average in a whole game? What is the first wonder you try to build? When do you stop expanding and start building units for war (a year or a technology when you switch production)? When you start fighting do you always set a goal (when you reach this goal you make peace, at least for a few turns)? Would you give an example of the goals you set for your wars? Please describe a situation where you start warring: year, the tech you are researching, you government type, your best defence unit, your best offense unit, the enemy's best defence and offense units, and who started the war (you or the AI)? I'll try to analyze what you tell me to see what you could do to get the advantage.

 

[vmxa]

Alex Johnson
"See, to get a city bigger than 22 you need to irrigate grassland and railroad it. Each irrigated space is not mined, so you are reducing your production just to have a bigger population, and bigger populations cost you to maintain (unhappiness in a size 30 city must be a *****)."

Actually larger than 22 gets easier to keep happy. This because after you use the full 21 tiles, the citizens must become specialist. So those free specialist contribute to happiness.

It is the getting to 22 that can be an issue with happiness, not beyond it.

"I don't understand why you keep seeing things I've never seen. The AI getting tanks, cities of size 30, the AI having superior technology to you. I've never seen any of this."

That is becasue you have not played at a high enough level, believe me Sid AI's will have better units and tech for most of the game. I have busted many 30+ metros, but that is usually in conquest games.

 

[Zerbean]

After reading through the first few pages and this last one, I must say it's helped me immensley. I've never bothered with the luxory slider before and I always had 5 or 6 cities building settlers, not just 2. Now I'm actually able to have a more balanced Civ instead of being spread out so thin with no military to defend myself. Normally I always got rolled shortly after the industrial age. But now, I almost took out Germany before 510 BC My best yet.

I was always too mixed up in expanding quickly. I figured the larger I was, the more techs I could get quicker, which is true in a sense. But I never had the military to defend myself. Now I just war, take a city sue for peace and take a few of the enemy techs, rinse and repeat.

Thanks for all the hints and tips, now I just gotta figure out how to stop from crashing every 15mins.

 

[Alex Johnson]

"I don't understand why you keep seeing things I've never seen. The AI getting tanks, cities of size 30, the AI having superior technology to you. I've never seen any of this."

That is becasue you have not played at a high enough level, believe me Sid AI's will have better units and tech for most of the game. I have busted many 30+ metros, but that is usually in conquest games.

We're talking about Warlord here. Joe is trying to get good enough to beat warlord. I have never seen the AI capable of any of those accomplishments at warlord level. I don't doubt the Sid AI could be more advanced...it only takes 40% as long as you to research techs and build units. But at Warlord it tries to research every tech in ascending order, and it takes 20% longer than the human for each one.

 

[vmxa]

Yeah I know Joe was talking about Warlord, I just did not know what you were talking about as you did not preface it. My only point was for those who read this thread, to not think can could not occur.