For MOO2, extensive gaming has determined that the best early strategy involves maximizing your production (equivalent of shields), or production's surrogate, population. The production/population maximization strategy in MOO2 will almost always defeat a technology (equiv. trade) maximization strategy.

Now, CivII is somewhat different in that its technology tree gives much greater incremental rewards, in the form of Wonders, to the tech/trade maximization player. However, I am of the opinion that a pop./shields maximization strategy will eventually be superior.

The pop./shields player will lag behind in the early to mid game, with slower scientific advancement and thus inferior units. This creates a window of opportunity (perhaps a rather large window) during which the tech/trade player had the advantage. However, the mid to late game, the pop./shields player regains the advantage, as his massive population and production advantage allow him to outbuild anyone else.

Pop./shields gives an advantage whether you choose the space race (it allows you to crank out ship components faster) or military conquest (it allows you crank out units faster).

The really important thing to note is the equivalences among various resources. There are really four resources: population is the fourth, in addition to food, trade, shields. At some level population is the key resource, but only insofar as it can be transformed into more of one of the other resources. Production is, I assert again, the next key resource, because it can easily be transformed into anything else through the ever helpful caravans/freight.

Trade can also convert to production (through buying, whether incremental or not) but at a less favorable exchange rate than that between production and trade. (No one ever said the exchange rate had to be "fair"!)

Is it possible to win CivII with a tech/trade strategy? Yes, of course; this is the root of the OCC (One City Challenge) strategy. However, for a normal game, *especially* one which will involve significant military conflict, I submit that the most successful strategy is to skew your early game in favor of pop./shields, catch up the mid game, and gain a dominant advantage in the late game.

Feel free to spin this off into a new topic if that would better serve the message board etiquette... I'm new here.

Its alot easier to make the transition from high trade to high production.Especially if you if have built civ helping wonders.You can use "we love" days to catch up in population in a matter of turns.By then its game over.

especially true in MP.By the time you have infastructure to support your "larger" and more "productive" civ,the trader is so far ahead its not funny.And if you take this "sheild" approach in MP you will become familiar with having NO wonders at all.You will have to make war to try and slow them down.But you will be facing superior military technology

How will you expand beyond 6-10 cities at deity without a happy wonder or government change?.The latter requires infastructure and that takes TIME.You will have a civ of Elvi'

However, in MP, you can't afford to fall behind early in sciences, especially with agressive opponents who are racing through the science tree. All your shields can't build wonders if they are already built before you get the science.

The problem with that is this game is decided in the early/mid game.

First crack at wonders=first to build wonders.

first to Philosophy.To Democracy etc..

By the time you "catch up" the game will be over.You will take even more time to build infastructure to support your "larger" civ.To keep em happy.Meanwhile the "trader" will have used "we love" to catch up in population in literally a few turns.Whilst the "production" civ will be full of Elvi'

The transition from science to production is easy and natural in late game.Not so the other way.

You will have to make war to slow them down but you will be facing superior military technology all game.

The game favors the peaceful scientist.

> Your strategy is sound against the AI. [...]
>
> However, in MP, you can't afford to fall
> behind early in sciences, especially with
> agressive opponents who are racing through
> the science tree. All your shields can't
> build wonders if they are already built
> before you get the science.

This point is well taken. I have never played multiplayer (MP), so my strategies are directed against the AI.

Two further comments.

First, to continue the comparions to MOO2 -- in that game, the production maximization strategy is even *more* effective in multiplayer. Currently there is a discussion on alt.games.moo2 as to whether a non-production player can possibly keep up with everyone else. It can be done against the AI but not against good human opponents.

In CivII the opposite appears to be the case: the science maximization strategy is the only effective strategy against human opponents.

My second comment -- getting away from the shields vs. trade arrows argument -- let us focus on population. More pop. means more shields or trade (or both). Because the early game is so critical, it seems that you goal should be to maximize your trade as quickly as possible. The question is, will you maximize trade faster by concentrating on trade arrows from the start, or should you engage in a brief period of pop. maximization first?

If, by turn X, you have 5 size-2 cities to an opponent's 2 size-3 cities and 1 size-1 city, it seems you should always have more trade than him (barring outrageous imbalance in special resource squares). Thus it may be that your best bet early in the game is to expand as quickly as possible, spreading out and maximizing your pop. *which equals* maximizing trade.

Clearly there is an inflection point somewhere, beyond which you receive diminishing returns from the pop. maximization strategy. After that point you should allow your main cities to grow and focus on maximizing trade (while still building new cities in outlying areas). I don't have a hard and fast rule for when this inflection point occurs, just a general feel -- but I would be interested to hear from anyone who has a more rigorous mathematical underpinning to his strategy.

I should perhaps give some of the credit to Tim Smith's Hi-Res Graphics, which I installed just before starting the game. I mean, when your Settler is represented by a covered wagon icon, it's a little harder to say, "okay, you just do a bit of irrigation here before you go off and found a new city."

Thanks again, everyone.

If you have 15 cities around 1000 BC on Warlord, you will probably win. Soon you'll be ready for prince level.