When to switch out of slavery?

[dylanmeditates]

Of course it's situational, but when should i switch out of slavery? obviously caste system is not enough of a workshop bonus in itself to merit an immediate switch. what about guilds? probably not then either. but maybe by the time you hit chemistry, you should start making the switch? or is workshop economy simply not worth it until you hit state property?

Is my intuition correct on this- if you have lots of expansive open green land, you want to start switching sooner, as opposed to a more fragmented, or coastal, or more brown land where the food is all focused in just a few tiles; then you want to switch later bc it will b a while b4 your workshop economy will b strong enough.

I notice that by the end of some games, many builds can be done in a single turn in my high production cities. How can I figure out how to get to this max-out status asap?

Basically it's just so stressful to switch out of slavery at first because you have no population to work lots of hammer tiles and I'm always afraid the bottom will fall out of my military production. A larger empire switches to workshop+universal suffrage production economy much more smoothly because you have more leeway.

playing on immortal, training for deity.
thanks friends

 

[Lexicus]

I never switch out of slavery, until I have Fiber Optics and the Kremlin is obsolete. And even then I'll generally stay in it.

I play monarch, epic speed, on large or huge maps though, with a playstyle heavily tilted towards aggressive warfare. So I stay in slavery to whip units and infrastructure in newly conquered cities. Having airports in cities on a new continent 1 turn after disorder stops is too powerful to pass up.

For Deity my impression is that it is largely the same; it depends what victory you're going for but as all victories seem to be achieved earlier on Deity slavery is proportionally more powerful. Conquest or Domination you probably never want to switch out of slavery; other victories I'm less certain of.

Slavery isn't so useful in the late-game for a space victory and I'd guess that when going for a cultural victory you'd want help whipping key infrastructure and wonders, but OTOH you might want a period of Emancipation for the quick cottage growth.

And Caste System for the unlimited artists would also be desirable.

I am of course open to correcting from higher-level players about any of the above.

 

[dylanmeditates]

Whipping airports is not very efficient because they are so expensive, you are whipping away high levels of population that took years to get to. it's much different than growing from size 2>4 and whipping catapults and maces etc repeatedly etc which is very efficient when you don't have the happy+healthy resources to support large cities.

what you are missing out on without late game workshop economy is the opportunity to have 1-turn troops in multiple cities. until the end of time, 1 troop of your choice every turn in multiple cities (bureau hammer bonus, great general troop production bonuses, heroic epic cities are all potential for this). how can slavery even come close to that?

with new cities, try building theatres if necessary, then forges, granaries, courthouses, then barracks if you want to keep a dependable military ball rolling.

 

[rah]

Whipping airports is not very efficient because they are so expensive, you are whipping away high levels of population that took years to get to. it's much different than growing from size 2>4 and whipping catapults and maces etc repeatedly etc which is very efficient when you don't have the happy+healthy resources to support large cities.

Yeah but when that huge city comes out of revolt and it's going to starve for many turns due to unhappiness, whipping away high levels of population is the only solution, so win-win as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah but when that huge city comes out of revolt and it's going to starve for many turns due to unhappiness, whipping away high levels of population is the only solution, so win-win as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly.

Whipping airports is not very efficient because they are so expensive, you are whipping away high levels of population that took years to get to. it's much different than growing from size 2>4 and whipping catapults and maces etc repeatedly etc which is very efficient when you don't have the happy+healthy resources to support large cities.

Well, as rah pointed out these cities typically starve down anyway. But rather more importantly an airport in a city allows you to airlift an unlimited number of units into it, as opposed to 1 per turn without an airport.
This means that my capacity to reinforce another continent is (at least in theory) limited only by the number of airports I have in my empire.
That is hugely powerful, it's worth far more than the population I lose by cracking the whip, even if the new city was perfectly productive which it won't be.

what you are missing out on without late game workshop economy is the opportunity to have 1-turn troops in multiple cities. until the end of time, 1 troop of your choice every turn in multiple cities (bureau hammer bonus, great general troop production bonuses, heroic epic cities are all potential for this). how can slavery even come close to that?

Well, I mentioned I play on Epic speed. I haven't tested it but I'm pretty sure that getting 1 unit/turn on Epic is considerably more difficult than in Standard speed. I usually only get 1 city producing modern/future units at 1/turn, and I need to put HE, the GG building, and the Ironworks in the same high-production city to achieve this.

Notice, btw, that I'm not exactly advising you to adopt my playstyle nor suggesting it is the most efficient. I do think my settings make it a bit more efficient than it would be on standard settings.

However, I have certainly read posts by Deity players saying they never really switch out of slavery because it is impossible to match the hammer production of slavery by working tiles, even in the late game. Of course, by "late game" they may have meant the age of Rifles and Cavalry, which gets back to my point about Deity games seeming shorter in general than games on lower difficulties.

 

[Seraiel]

Switching out of Slavery is important in three situations afaik:

1. Playing a Spacerace. Then switch somewhere between aquiring Guilds and Chemistry (usually very close together, because Guilds is aquired by trade while Chemistry usually has to be researched and can even be supported by a GS-bulb) . In a Spacerace, the whip is counter-productive, because one wants all cities to grow as large as possible, to work as much as possible, therefore Caste is the superior, as it gives extra and allows for more Specialists, which in the end is all which is the main goal.
It's slightly more difficult, because the Executive-spread again demands Slavery and ofc., any turns in Anarchy are horrible. This is why HoFers developed a playstyle where they use GAs to do those switches, and believe me, but playing a good Spacerace is really the most difficult thing CIV has to offer and timing those switches well is maybe / probably the most difficult task of the whole Spacerace. The overall strategy is somehow like this, push to Education as fast as possible, bulb it in any case (maybe even double bulb it) . Then, stop research, fast-build Oxford. Once Oxford is ready, restart research, start 1st GA, switch to Caste (times with the situation of aquiring Guilds / Chemistry that I described. Is very difficult in reality though, because one wants the GA as early as possible, maybe even still in the time when the Universities build, so they get the production-bonus, then finish them by whip and then switch to Caste on the last turns of the GA. This has the efficiency-advantage, that the GA also runs while the cities still have more population. ) Create more GPs during that GA, chain 2nd and 3rd GA, stay in Caste. Reach Corporations 'til end of 3rd GA to switch to Slavery on the last turns (major difficulty, because that's only very little time. Also, getting the right GPs becomes more and more difficult, because one needs GSs to burn on the way to Corporations, a GE one started super-early to have him for Mining Inc. and enough GMs and GAs to be able to start those GAs) . Then, cold-whip all the Executives, start 4th (and 5th!) GA, finish the game while running the 5th GA to have the production-bonus when building the Spaceship. Ideal case: GA 1-5 are all after each other, only as little turns as possible spend without being in a GA (just imagine how difficult it already is to get 4 different GPs to start the 5th GA) .

2. In a Culture-victory. Then switch as soon as you are able to finish enough Missionaries for the Religion-spread (the last Temples can usually be chopped easily, the bottle-neck in Culture-victories is the religion-spread, because moving the units takes so long and because of the limit of three Missionaries max. at one time) .

3. In a time-victory. Then switch at the point where you can't justify the from not running Emancipation anymore, so when the from Emancipation has become more of a problem, than not being able to whip out the infrastructure and especially the Executives.

--------

It's true for Dom- / Conquest games, that Slavery (+ drafting!!! ) is superior to any normal production. Dylan: At the point, where you have your cities 1T produce troops, Slavery (+ drafting!!!!!!!!!!!) would already have won you the game. There's also 0 need to have any large cities at the end of a Dom- / Conquest game. Just keep whipping / drafting 'til you've won the game. No need to even think about Civics like Universal Suffrage, -rushing is highly inefficient, even with Kremlin, and also nn to think about the efficiency of Workshops, nothing beats the efficiency of drafting Rifles. Even if you play on Fast speed and reach the time of Tanks, can 1T produce Tanks, you can also whip Nukes and take the city with a Cavalry.
The point is, that you need a lot of time to reach the point where you can 1T troops by normal means. In all of that time, you can already draft and whip a city (1.5 units / T) . While it may be more efficient to 1T units than to whip them in late-game, the game where you drafted and whipped all cities as harshly as possible from the time of Cuirrs, Rifles and Cavs, your units will have advanced and conquered more of the map, and what takes longest on speeds except Marathon is moving the units. Getting enough power isn't that difficult. If you attack earlier, then you need less and the amount of troops that can be produced in that Cuirr / Cav / Rifle time via the whip and the draft you cannot imagine. If you're interested, look in the last writeup I made (Replay #9 - Systematically beating Deity) . In it, I attacked the first civ with something like 10-30 Rifles and Cavs, then capitulated two civs fast and after that, I already was as something like 100+ troops, which were way more than I needed for any target. I had 300-400 troops in the end, which was again only a few turns later because 1.5 troops / city / turn at 20-30 cities = 50 troops / turn. What I wrote is true, what takes the longest is moving the troops, not getting them, and the game was played on a large Boreal map, so the possibilities for the map to be even larger (or worse) are limited .

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Whip anger isn't sustainable in healthy cities that whip non-stop (stacking goes faster than fading).
Whipping non-stop runs the risk of crippling the economy too much and depriving the player from the option to tech up. This may or may not matter, depending on the game. However, retaining the means to tech up is a sort of safety net. This is a conservative view.

Also, at some point in the game, there are additional sources of unhappiness that may deter one from whipping agressively (mostly Emancipation & war weariness but also war against brothers of the faith, yearn to join motherland, etc.).
Some cities that have been whipped can get into a situation where they do not want to be whipped anymore. See below pics for examples :

Spoiler :

Still in Slavery but switching to another civic is now a serious option.
Note : it isn't so much that these cities want Caste, but rather that they can't benefit much from Slavery anymore.

Leaving aside all considerations,
A switch to Caste System can be envisioned as soon as workshops are decent tiles. A 1F3H workshop is a decent tile.

The quality of your workshop tiles is a pre-requisite.
Then there are some other considerations, like :
- the number of workshop tiles you have. Switching into Caste for a production bonus with only 1/20th of workshop tiles seems... doesn't seem very compelling.

- The need for instant production. The reason Slavery is so much used in the early game or during war preparations is because of the speed at which it nets units.
Having access to Drafting, as mentioned by Seraiel, is a good reason to envision Caste (one can draft Rifles while slowbuilding Siege).
If one has gone into a successful war, chances are he's got leftover units from the war. The more units are left, the easier it is to switch from one war to another and the less need for instant production there is.
Having an already active stack of doom is a reason to consider switching out of Slavery.
The same argument can be made for infrastructure, although unit production generally is more compelling than building infra.

- The level of your happy cap. No whip goes hand in hand with growing cities. If the happy cap is too limited, then there is no need to switch. One would probably want his cities to grow past size 10 and probably around size 15 or higher, depending on their quality.
Again, there may be a consideration for infrastructure. Cities that need a lot of infra probably still need Slavery. If the infra is lacking, then the value of growing will be lacking, too. All in all, you need cities that are ready for growth.
Another note, some cities cannot grow to or past size 15, example :

Spoiler :

This one would want Caste but I couldn't afford the Emancipation unhappiness earlier in the game, so Emancipation I am running.

Depending on the amount of riverside one can access, it may happen that spamming watermills is the better option, rather than workshops.
Watermills require more tech but no Caste.


tl;dr
Switching out of Slavery, short term, will probably result in a decrease in production.
Longer term, that can be evened out.
Hence the focus on the instant need for production and the ability to grow cities.
Larger cities outperform smaller ones, which is natural, both in the production and commerce departments.
However, growth requires time. Hence the necessity to distinguish a window in which one can afford to grow. Typically, that's easiest after a successful war.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it in this thread but another good time to switch out of slavery is during an early GA, you can use the no anarchy to switch into Caste at the beginning and run lots of specialists until the end when you would switch back into slavery. I guess one would also want to time one's whips such that during the GA period one's cities are growing back into the happy cap so they can be whipped again quickly when the GA ends.

 

[Qactus]

... I guess one would also want to time one's whips such that during the GA period one's cities are growing back into the happy cap so they can be whipped again quickly when the GA ends.

During a Golden Age, food is the one thing that does NOT get multiplied. So to better leverage it you should rather starve your cities for max GPP (or hammers/commerce) than grow them.

 

[Lexicus]

During a Golden Age, food is the one thing that does NOT get multiplied. So to better leverage it you should rather starve your cities for max GPP (or hammers/commerce) than grow them.

Appreciate the correction. You would not want to starve them so much you lose a population during the GA though, right?

 

[sampsa]

I think the optimal way is to stop whipping before the GA in those cities that will be producing a during the GA. Optimally (near) full food bar so that you can work 1-2 high food tiles and as many specialists as possible, losing food in the process, but not losing pop if possible. Sometimes it's best to sacrifice some population though as not doing so would delay the (and liberalism) considerably.

 

[pob]

The best way to starve is slowly until you're at the point of losing population, then starve aggressively. You lose only one population per turn no matter how many minus your city is at.

 

[Seraiel]

Directed at Born in Cantaloup's post but also interesting for others:

With all respect, I have to disagree with basically all of your post. What I wrote was the truth, those are the situations, where switching out of Slavery is adequate. Your statement, that whipping-anger grows faster than it decays, is true for the important part of the game, so one could say, that it's also true.

Important though is:

If whipping 2, 3 or later even 4-pop (or 7-pop-nukes :x) , whipping-anger doesn't become a problem though. Also, if you do a big whip in a city, you effectively gain in happiness, because you lose more population than you gain whipping anger. The last I learned from WastinTime, when I wanted to stop the drafting of some cities because of happiness-issues in (I guess) SGOTM18. He explained to me, that "a draft is only 2 , because one also loses 1 population" . I further learned, that having 1-3 in a city sometimes is acceptable, like i. e. in the situation, where one is in a game-winning position or can be with the extra troops. It neither matters if the city is once one has enough troops, nor does it matter if one ends the game with angry-cities or xx whipping-anger. Your point of view too conservative (I use that term, because you chose it yourself) . You only need to get enough troops to win the game, and cities neither have to be big, nor beautiful in the end. Conquest also secures more -resources, as time generally unlocks more possibilities for aswell. If you whip more troops with big whips, the gain in counteracts the stacking of whipping-anger. The only that is really a factor, is the by war, and that one grows larger the further a game goes (result of several different game-mechanics) . if you whip more troops, war will be shorter = less . As a last mean, you can make cease-fires to let war-weariness decay (it decays horribly slowly though) or better, accept a capitulation. The problems you experience are caused by your playstyle. You whip less, you got less troops. This makes war harder, it lasts longer, you get more by the war itself. At the same time, your cities are bigger, which again makes it more difficult for them to be happy and the fact that you get the additional you conquer later, is a bigger factor than me, and maybe also you or others initially may believe.
If you play like I propose, you simply won't get into problematic situations. Whip your cities 4->2, 6->3, 8->4 or whatever you like, the smaller the city, the easier it is, to keep it happy. The more troops you have, the faster you win this war and all wars after that, making you get less while gaining faster. The more the round progresses, the more you'll aquire, the bigger the whips can get, and at 4-pop-whips at latest, you don't gain faster than losing it anymore, you effectively gain . The last allows you to whip (and draft!) even more, making Conquest easier and faster. After the first or 2nd war, questions don't even arise anymore, because the only factor that limits your Conquest, is the time that the troops need to move over the map. You end the game with hundreds of troops and all your cities are at the minimum possible size, because otherwise, you would have whipped another unit in each of them (minimal exception that only applies to HoF: Ofc. don't whip anymore once the point where units won't be able to reach the frontlines anymore is reached, then let the cities grow to maximize score) .

I still have all of my saves (20GB+ folder) , I can post enough saves from all of the Conquest games I played to prove that this playstyle works, and because I went for Elite Quattromaster, I got savegames with unusual settings like Large / Quick / Rainforest, a setting that you know is hard to top in difficulty because Rainforest is all Jungle, slowing down troop movement, Large Rainforest is something like at least 4-6 times normal Pangaea in size, and Quick is the worst possible speed for Conquest.

On your screens, I see the following things:

1. You build the wrong improvements (Cottages instead of Farms / Mines) . I needed very long to learn this myself (it took me 'til the last Conquest games I played, so 4-5y) . Spamming Cottages, though intuition makes one assume that this would be right because of several factors, was proven wrong to me in every game where I did that. If one keeps conquering, one can fuel the deficit by Conquest , selling techs and other strategies (i. e. generating via OF from chops, one of my favourite tactics, which I also learned very late) . Spamming Cottages is the right strategy, for weak situatioins, where first breakout can only happen with Cuirrassiers. Even in that situation, which is the worst case I can imagine, running Specialists and building Research or Wealth is very competetive, and the capital is the only city that really should get Cottages, because the capital runs Buro (unless i. e. playing Rome, then everything is possible, because it's possible to conquer any map with Praets + Cats / Trebs) , and the capital maybe even has an Academy. The situation, where the extra from building Cottages in the non-capital cities instead of running Specialists decides if one is first to Liberalism, imo. is completely theoretical.

2. You built tons of unnecessary buildings (major factor, why you come into those problematic situations) . Playing for Conquest, one needs Granaries. Barracks must be evaluated by the situation, Stables can be useful in the capital and in the HE-city. The capital probably also wants a Library, maybe even Monestaries pay back in it and, in case of Cuirrassier-rush, a Market. In case of Cuirrassier-rush, non-capital cities may happen to get a Library too, maybe a Market for the GP-Farm, so it can create a GM to allow mass-upgrading HAs / Elephants / Knights. Forges depending on the setting, HE, NE, this is it.

You additionally built:

A) a Theater . Did you plan for a Globe-Theater draft-city? If so, forget about that again. Globe is incredibly expensive, it's built with no production-bonus from a resource. Also, 6 Theaters (or howmany you need) are expensive, and Drama is a tech that gives you no advantage. AI doesn't research Drama early, so I assume, that you researched it yourself. This is ok, if you need it, because it's the best tech, to get you trades, but even then, don't build Theaters, don't build the Globe, build Wealth, Research and Troops. First two help you on your way towards Cuirrassiers, which are the 2nd strongest strategy existing in CIV, people not being able to win by Cuirrassiers and needing to rely on the strongest possible strategy (war with mass-draft-Rifles) was in the early times of CIV, so long ago. Horse Archers / Elephants / Knights which you upgrade also help you with Cuirrassiers. I know you quite well, BornInCantaloup, I've seen you win wars with Maces on Deity. If you can win wars with them, you can even more easily win wars with Elephants, and then, there is no way, that you are not able to win any 1st war with Cuirrassiers, and needing the strongest of all CIV-strategies (war with mass-draft-Rifles) is the only situation, where the Globe could help more, than any of the three things I mentioned.
(Addition after re-reading the post: My experience from my games is, that every city can be drafted between 2-3 times and have as much whipping- as it is possible until that time, if whipping at least 2-pop and if not having more than 6 surplus. Cities with more than 6 surplus are more difficult and require very meticoulous management. Also, I remember, that I built the Globe in Replay #8, because that game was on Large / Terra (2200+ land) making me need Cavalries, and I had a capital in which I chopped out the NE + the Globe that had 4 strong sources of . I already had a GP-Farm, so generating more was not really desirable. Getting a city to which rules didn't apply, and that had a 250% production-bonus for building troops while having +22 , resulted in a city where I could whip 1 Cavalry every 2T without the city losing in size, it was amazing, so there are exceptions to that "don't build the Globe-rule" other than the one with draft-Rifles that I mentioned, but plz try to see how special those situations are. )

B) AP-religion-buildings. I understand you, again, but plz try to accept this. I built AP-religion-buildings 'til very late too. At first, I just loved them, because of those extra , and I built them, because they'd get me in a stronger position later. Then I began calculating them, and built them whenever the game lasted long enough, so they'd pay back, because I love them. The sad truth though is, even if they are able to pay back, it's bad to build them. Even if you're SPI, it's better to build Wealth, Research or units. Why? Because all of those things help you get an additional city. The Temple is 2 troops, but the conquered city is something like 3-6 troops. The troops you can whip in that city, get you another city, and the troops from that city again get you one city, and this goes until the end of the game, you just whip all of your cities when you're able to conquer cities with the troops from those whips, the conquered city lets you replace your losses, you proceed from one target towards the next, you win. All buildings except those I mentioned work negatively against your ability to get into that winning-cycle. It doesn't even matter, if those buildings may pay back, you need to get into that cycle.

C) A Courthouse . Seeing you build that Courthouse, imo. represents figuratively the continous problems, that arise from that "conservative point of view" . You let your cities grow larger, this makes that Courthouse a viable choice. There would have been the chance though, to simply whip troops from that city. Those troops could have helped you enter the cycle, and with the city being smaller, and with having additional from Conquest, you'd have not built that Courthouse, but even more troops. Plz understand, how your conservative approach makes it more difficult to get onto that road towards victory, which described as the winning-cycle. You think, that bigger cities are more effective, but because of that, you get into a situation, where tons of things suddenly appear valid to you, and all of those things hold you back from getting on that road towards victory, which is conquering the next city.

I'm really sorry, that this post is so long, and that everything seems to be against you, but all of this is actually ment to help. Plz just try to not think, that I'm being arrogant, that what I wrote isn't the truth, or that it doesn't apply towards your games. Should you think any of those things, write me a PM, but don't expect an instant answer, because writing this post took me 5h, and I seriously need a break before I write anything further. Just know, that investing so much time into a post, is anything but normal, and I can only guess about why I did this.

 

[Lexicus]

I further learned, that having 1-3 in a city sometimes is acceptable, like i. e. in the situation, where one is in a game-winning position or can be with the extra troops. It neither matters if the city is once one has enough troops, nor does it matter if one ends the game with angry-cities or xx whipping-anger. Your point of view too conservative (I use that term, because you chose it yourself) .

This actually articulates what I've been thinking about this since I read Cantaloup's post. In my last few games I've been doing Conquest and my empire ends up with a few large cities generating the great bulk of my research, and all the rest of my cities have been whipped so much they're at or past the happy cap even at sizes 3-6.

But it doesn't really matter because by the time this happens my all-powerful armies are just plowing through the AIs. It's also the case that when one starts getting the conquest ball rolling, one secures more luxuries and happiness can go up allowing for more whips rather than more growth.

I want to thank you in advance for the rest of your post, I'll have to read it when I have time

 

[BornInCantaloup]

@ Seraiel :
No worries. Your arguments are fair and I do agree with most of what you wrote in your 2 posts.
I'll happily state that I have a dislike for whipping 3+ pop in a city. That dislike may not be well-founded. Larger whips than that, I have very little experience with (Nukes, Executives).
Also, most of your 2nd post concerns the importance of units and I agree with it, although I certainly value infrastructure higher than you do. It's possible I place too much value on infrastructure.

Your first post was very "victory condition oriented", and I suppose this is why I wrote my own. Not as a criticism but to mention some other factors that can play a role in the decision to switch, or not, into Caste.
i.e. need for instant production, happy cap margin & number of workshops.
A game that aims flawlessly for a definite victory condition has its own timelines and those are not necessarily accessible in all games. Sometimes, there are odd occurrences in the game.

 

[dylanmeditates]

not at all seraiel, thank you so much!

I am getting into situation too often where it seems like my targets are so far ahead that all I can possibly do is sit back and wait for a more opportune moment. Am I not being aggressive enough?

And yes, over time I am learning it's not a question of what buildings not to build- it's a question of which ones at all. I'll keep digging deeper into that with my style

 

[Seraiel]

not at all seraiel, thank you so much!

I am getting into situation too often where it seems like my targets are so far ahead that all I can possibly do is sit back and wait for a more opportune moment. Am I not being aggressive enough?

You're welcome .

And I can't tell you, where the weaknesses in your play are, either you know them, or you can post a save and people can analyze. One of the most important things for me was to limit myself to a certain, optimal number of cities for a certain strategy. Like when I go for a HA-rush, I found 2-3 cities, not more, same for Elepult, and when I go for Cuirrassiers, I don't even think about founding more than 6 cities. Also very important for me was to 1. get better with Worker management and 2. do with less Workers in the beginning and overall. In my CIV-end-time, I sometimes REXed to 5 cities with only having 1 Worker, and before I developed that 1 Worker / city + 1 extra for the capital rule, people here all advised 1.5 Workers / city still. WastinTime assumed, that he sometimes has even less than 1 Worker / city, so the 1+1-rule should be seen as a maximum. And it's very important, to learn to manage those cities well. This is one of the most complicated things in CIV, but there's so much room for enhancement, like i. e. tricks from Doshin, where he used the "stop Growth" function of the city governor when a city built a Granary and would have grown on that turn, to let the city not grow but max. out food and then grow 1T later, which resulted in 2 extra . All those small things, like microing to make the most out of the 25% bonus from Forges or OR, sometimes working a Plains-Forest to grow 1T later, to whip with growth, and not grow and then whip and all of those things.

And just that you know, dylan: I didn't play 1 successful HA-rush in the whole time I played CIV. Those early rushes don't have a 100% chance, if you're waiting for that, it's no wonder that you wait endlessly. In HoF gaming, one has to decide to take everything one has and attack at some time, with HAs, that is at 12 HAs at latest, and then either the cities fall, or the game is over. With Elepults, it's a lot better, 10 Elephants and 5 Catapults at 500 BC didn't fail me often, but if you think, that even those numbers so early would have allowed me free choice of target, . And with Cuirrassiers, I usually attacked with something like 20-25 of them, usually some time before 500 AD, 20-25 troops are 2-4 whips of every city at most, but that's also the maximum, that's usually possible given that date, so it's again an all-in, and I still remember, how hard I needed to work every time I tried to Lib -> Rifles or also Cannons, which is the ultimate winning strategy, it's the strongest possible attack, with it, winning Large / Boreal becomes easy, but if you want, read the part in Replay #9, how I get it, I get it 1 or 2T before AI would have gotten Lib, and only because Roosevelt, my neighbour, from whom I had stolen a Worker early, went for Gunpowder and was willing to trade it to me, because of some incredible combination of bonuses that made him friendly on exactly that turn.

All of the last, is 1. to help you with the necessary numbers and also provide dates to you at which those numbers usually work and 2. it's to give you a feeling, of how close Deity actually really is. If you want to win every Deity-game, if you only attack with 100% winning chances, then I'd advise you to work on learning to Lib -> Rifling or (easier) start with Cannons. There's an amazing post from Doshin about that, he uses a GA to generate 3-4 GSs and then bulbs from Paper towards Steel. The last is, why Libbing Steel is so much easier, than Libbing Rifling, because Education is 2 GSs, Liberalism is 1 GS and Chemistry is 1-2 GS, so the way from Paper towards Steel is extremely short, it's basically 0.5 Liberalism + 1 Gunpowder. Rifling is 2 GSs for Education, 1 GS for PP and then, yes, RP + Gunpowder + 0.5 Liberalism, so a full, big tech more. A draft-Rifle against a Longbow, with Spy-revolts for the first, harshly defended cities is 90%+ though, there's nothing AI can do. I used Cannons the first time in Replay #5, I had laughing attacks. Reaching those two units is possible so early, and they're so much stronger than anything until that point, one loses 1-2 units with them in a whole war, they allow free choice of target.

Still, the earlier starting the war is possible, the better, and an Elephant is STR8, while a Longbow is STR6, so unless it's a CG2-LB in a Hills-city, the Elephant has 80%+ chances after 1-2 Catapults. If you're good (or lucky) , your target will only have Archers and maybe a few Spears, those are laughable for Elephants. Even if the Spear is C2 and on a hill, the Elephant has twice his STR and can have Shock, so it's 4.8 (C2 Spear, Hills are negated by Shock) against 4.8 (8 (+10% - 50%)) . 1-2 Catapults, and the Elephant again has 80%+ chances, because the Spear is a low-STR unit that can't really benefit from its bonuses, while the Elephant has twice his STR, and every bonus that Elephant gets is huge.
The only thing, why I don't advise "Elepult all the way" , is, because it needs Ivory, and Ivory just isn't available every time, but if it is, stop at 3 cities, build a Stable in your Capital and build Elephants in it. Catapults can be from the other cities, some will have a promo, some won't, just take the unpromoted ones for bombarding, and the promoted ones for attacking. Maybe it's good to produce 2-3 Elephants from the other cities aswell, doesn't matter, your first Elephants will have 2 promos, and the 7th or 8th attacking unit just doesn't need that 2nd promo anymore in order to win. Just remember, that the Elephants are the strong units, so don't attack with all Catapults first, treat those Catapults with care, only use as many as needed, until the 1st Elephant has 80% chances, as the Catapult costs almost the same as the Elephant. You'll end up with some heavily promoted Elephants, because they all get 2-4XP for their fights, so at the 3rd city, you'll have a C3 and a C2+Shock Elephant, C3-Elephant has a STR of over 10, that's not far from a Cannon, and lvl4-unit + 1 civ down means 8+ cities and HE.

 

[dylanmeditates]

what i took away from that: figure out your strategy (=how am i going to crush my neighbors militarily), and don't build more cities than you need to to achieve that.

i'm glad you mentioned making decisions based on win% as opposed to HoF. I'm definitely trying to learn more about the steadfast winning strategies as opposed to the 'if you find a perfect map, this is how to get a perfect score' strategies. which is probably part of the reason why i'm ending up sometimes in late game, 1t troop situations, bc to me that's ideal, bc i've worked myself into an un-losable situation. but obviously there's still a problem; i'm playing too conservatively, and i know i still have a lot to learn about maximizing my beaker/gold/trading economy.

 

[Seraiel]

what i took away from that: figure out your strategy (=how am i going to crush my neighbors militarily), and don't build more cities than you need to to achieve that.

I'd say "don't build more cities, than pay back until your 1st war!" Cuirrassier rush is possible from 4 cities, I've successfully conducted medieval warfare, which is more difficult from as little as 3 cities from which 1 had no food and only secured Horses, but the question is, how much cities can you found and still i. e. Lib -> Rifling. In Replay #9, I founded sth. like 9-10 cities and libbed Rifling at 700 AD. Cuirrassiers are earlier than Rifles, perfect-case-scenario something between 100 and 300 AD, that's why 6-7 cities is ideal. 3 cities for Elepult are ideal, because every city has to produce more than the Settler + a Worker + a Granary costs. City 2 and 3 usually produce sth. like 3-4 Elephants or Catapults, that's only slightly above the cost of those 3 things.

 

[Jivilov]

One of the most important things for me was to limit myself to a certain, optimal number of cities for a certain strategy. Like when I go for a HA-rush, I found 2-3 cities, not more, same for Elepult, and when I go for Cuirrassiers, I don't even think about founding more than 6 cities. Also very important for me was to 1. get better with Worker management and 2. do with less Workers in the beginning and overall.

And just that you know, dylan: I didn't play 1 successful HA-rush in the whole time I played CIV.

Most interesting. And here I am on Emperor (Warlords) trying to expand with settlers if there's nobody in the immediate vicinity.

BTW are you saying you NEVER won with a HA rush at higher levels? Thanks, and Happy Holidays !