|
Author
|
|
Topic: World Conquered - 750bc - No Cities |  |
|
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 10:53
 |
 |
 |  |
Hi, I conquered the world by 750bc without building a single city. Version 2.4.2, Random Map, 7 civs, Raging Hordes, No restarting civs. Diety level. I was playing around with this last night, and it really wasn't very hard. I came close a few times only to have one AI civ on an island, or running out of units. I expect this record (if it is a record) to stand for no longer than a week. I didn't keep a log, but I periodically saved the game in about 5-turn increments. If you would like, you can get them from the following URL: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/chuck0lynn/750bc.zip Again, it wasn't too hard. Especially with all the plains on this particular map. It would have been faster if I would have gotten some horsemen/chariots from the early huts rather than archers. Take care. |
Shaka Naldur
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 11:05
 |
 |
 |  |
wow, I don't know what is left to see in civilization2, maybe reaching alpha centauri in BC?? but I think that that it is impossiblefelicidades |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 11:26
 |
 |
 |  |
I don't know, Shaka. This might be something. Last week, I played with one city on an ultra-small (32x32) map. I conquered every civ but one (similar to what was done here), and left one AI civ alive (fortifying the rest of my NON units on hill-tops 3-squares away from his city). As a result, he never asked me to leave, but he couldn't get out of the "perimeter" until about 1850ad. Then I built every wonder in my only city and launched a space-ship from it. It arrived really late (2019ad), because it took awhile to build all the wonders with only one city. That was a lot harder than this was. |
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 12:39
 |
 |
 |  |
You're right Shaka, getting to AC in BC is not possible. The game won't let you build spaceship parts before 1 AD.  Not that I ever came close to that on deity.  |
Scouse Gits
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 12:58
 |
 |
 |  |
Nice one Vik!I often wondered if it was possible to conquer with no cities - now I know. Do you remember how many units you received from huts? ----------- SG (2) [This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited June 06, 2000).] |
Shaka Naldur
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 13:24
 |
 |
 |  |
wow, all the wonders with just one city!!!!!!!!!!! and I still can't win in an OCC game. with the conquest with no cities, what was your purpose not to conquer any city?? just destroying them??? becuase if you just conquered them I think that you could do it even faster that you did. the good part is that you don't have any cities so from the huts you are just going to get units, or I'm wrong??? |
Aurelius
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 13:30
 |
 |
 |  |
Damn good,Vik, I've had a few OCC games where I wandered about looking for ideal city sites while my barbarian hut tippers demanded tribute of any AI they encountered. I remember being sorely tempted to let loose a blood bath, but my devotion to OCC was too much back then. Maybe we should call your successful strategy Vik's Barbarian Method. Later |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 13:37
 |
 |
 |  |
sg(2), It not only is possible, I felt it was rather easy. Like I said, I've been trying this for a little while, and generally you can tell after about a half-hour or so whether or not you will have a chance at success. You have to have some luck with the shape of the world, and you have to have luck with the huts. I think I tagged just about every hut on the map, and since I had no cities, I got no barbarians. Overall, I got 9 archers, 1 legion, 2 chariots, and 1 horseman. Of these, I lost an archer and a chariot. I really could have benefited from fast units. I also got various amounts of gold and technologies from the huts -- I don't know how many I tipped, though. I got slowed down as I was making a bee-line to the last Spanish city. Some barbarians landed between me and the city and I couldn't get re-inforcements there right away. I probably could have destroyed the city sooner, but all I had there was a legion and an archer unit. The city was size-3, so I wanted to get one or two more units up there. I could have destroyed the last German city about 7 turns sooner, but it was mostly a size-2 undefended for those 7 turns. Everytime it built a unit, it attacked the very same turn it was completed, so I waited until I killed off the 2nd to the last civ (the Spanish) before I turned on Liepzig (the last civ). I was able to keep peace even while fortifying units outside the AI cities. They would "DEMAND" that I move the troops away from their city. I would choose the option to "move offending units to nearest city," but since I had no city, the units stayed put. Same thing happens if you break an alliance without establishing a city. |
Steve Clark
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 13:37
 |
 |
 |  |
Oh, I think both very early conquests and AC in early AD are very possible. All it takes is the right condition: all 7 civs starting on a small resource-rich landmass where all can be discovered within a few turns, and if not completely conquered, just keep one small one contained and then build up your cities to achieve maximum arrows and caravan productions. There are 100 turns (on the high levels) to 1 AD, so I'm not sure what is the most number of advances that can be researched in that time, given the best possible scenario. Perhaps playing at a lower level with more turns to 1 AD would allow you to discover Space Flight by 1 AD. |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 13:49
 |
 |
 |  |
Shaka, My aim was to destroy the cities, not take them over. In all but two cases this was a moot point. Most times, I faced either a size-1 or a size-2 city with one defender. Of course one or two successful attacks will destoy it totally. And a couple of archers are very effective against a fortified warrior. For one city, I waited a turn for the size-2 city to build a defender before I destroyed it. For the city of Liepzig, I had to wait several turns. Aurelius, Welcome back. Long time, no post? I don't have a problem with killing a city or a civ during OCC -- especially when they are sitting near a sweet 4-special spot with many river squares near-by. I just destroy the city without taking it over. One time, I allied with the AI who's capital I destroyed a couple of turns later. |
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 15:33
 |
 |
 |  |
Steve, it is certainly possible to get space flight before 1 AD on lower levels. I once played a game just for fun on chieftain and got space flight around 1000 BC (I think, it's some time ago so I don't remember the exact date). |
Steve Clark
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 16:52
 |
 |
 |  |
Yeah, and I bet those warriors and phalanxes hanging around the mud huts were were shocked to see a spaceship flying over their heads.  |
MasterBob
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 06, 2000 23:27
 |
 |
 |  |
My earliest on Chief is only 1700 or so(for spaceships), you simply can't research that fast. My high score is about 600%. [This message has been edited by MasterBob (edited June 06, 2000).] |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 07:44
 |
 |
 |  |
Masterbob,Discovering Space Flight on the Chief level at around 1000bc seems incredible. But don't doubt Paul. Both Paul, Tom DeMille, and myself have reached Alpha Centauri in the middle 1500s. In this game, we all discovered Space Flight in 1100ad. This was on Diety, 7 civs, Raging Hordes, with a "Large" map. We each played with one and only one city. This was during the OCC Fortnight Competition #9. Details are at: ../../Forum3/HTML/001116.html?date=06:44
|
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 08:59
 |
 |
 |  |
Actually, space flight in 1000 BC on chieftain is not that incredible. On lower levels there are more turns in the game and 1000 BC on chieftain is turn 150. On deity turn 150 is 1000 AD which is not that much earlier than the discovery of space flight in the fastest OCC games. With the faster research on lower levels you should probably be able to get space flight well before 1000 BC. The only problem would be that the AI will be slower so you won't be able to trade as much with them as you would on deity. |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 13:12
 |
 |
 |  |
Paul, I just confirmed it for myself, playing on Chieftan. I played with only one city, and got Space Flight in about 940bc. Probably could have gotten it sooner, but I wasn't managing the trade as sharply as usual. Plus, I hadn't even built Darwin's voyage, yet. You're right. Space Flight by 1000bc on Chieftan is not all that incredible. It just seems that way when I've played Diety for so long. [This message has been edited by vik (edited June 07, 2000).] |
Shaka Naldur
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 14:17
 |
 |
 |  |
WHat is left to do in civilization? I'm going to try that of spaceship on 1000BC, is that on a occ game? |
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 14:26
 |
 |
 |  |
Yes, in deity 1000 BC is only 60 turns so you would never get space flight at such an early date and if you forget that the turn increments are smaller on chieftain such accomplishments would easily seem impossible when in fact they are not extra-ordinary compared to deity games. |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 14:43
 |
 |
 |  |
shaka, We're talking about the discovery of the "Space Flight" technology by 1000bc, not building a spaceship by then. As Paul already pointed out, the game will not let you build Space Ship parts until 1ad, even if you have built the Apollo Program before then. When I was trying to get Space Flight, I used one city. It's pretty easy to do on Chieftan if you follow these steps: 1.) Found your city close to river squares and near 3 or 4 trade specials. 2.) Immediately begin work on the colossus (or build some warriors if you don't have Bronze Working, yet). 3.) After Bronze Working, research towards Monarchy and establish that as soon as possible. 4.) After Monarchy, go for writing, currency, and trade 5.) After Colossus is built, build a library, marketplace, and temple 6.) Research towards Republic and/or Construction 7.) Build 3 caravans and deliver them. If you don't have a useful building to build, build caravans 8.) Build Colosseum and Aqueduct; once Republic is established, bump luxuries up to attain a size-12 city through WLTCD. Set your sights on Astonomy (pun intended). 9.) Build enough caravans (6) to rush-build Copernicus while start researching towards sanitation. 10.) Get Medicine after this and build up 6 more caravans for Shakespeare's. After Shake's is built, bring population up to size-21 through WLTCD; you can sell of the temple/colosseum. You've probably traded for seafaring by now so you can build a harbor if necessary. 11.) Go for Democracy, University, and Theory of Gravity technologies while building caravans, university, bank, and stock exchange as necessary. 12.) Get your city up to max size after democracy while building Newton's college and/or caravans. 13.) Research towards refrigeration and explosives. Build 2 engineers to modify terrain as desired, after which you use WLTPD to achieve your max city size. Build a supermarket. 14.) Research straight towards Automobile, possibly building Darwin's voyage with extra caravans along the way. Build Superhighways. 15.) Research towards computers. If your engineers are finished with the terrain, consider building a factory/power plant. If you can't grow your city any more, be sure to sell off the un-needed aqueduct and sewer system. Build Offshore platform if applicable, and a research lab as soon as possible. 16.) Research towards Space Flight, saving the Flight, Radio, Advanced Flight, and Rocketry as your last four techs. 17.) Throughout the ages, make sure you give techs to the AI. That decreases the time it will take you to discover something new. Also, avoid getting techs from the AI before you need them. This also decreases the time it takes. For example, there is a good chance an AI will have discovered "Fuedalism" while your working on "Refrigeration." Since you don't need Fuedalism as a pre-req for anything except for (I think) Computers -- you certainly don't need it for refrigeration -- avoid picking this tech up if possible until after you discover Automobile. 18.) If I left something out, or got it in the wrong order, refer to Paul's OCC strategy guide (the URL is in his profile) for a more thorough walk-through. [This message has been edited by vik (edited June 07, 2000).] |
MasterBob
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 14:52
 |
 |
 |  |
I got space flight around 1000A.D once on Warlord, thats my best. I never tried OCC, its just not fun to me. |
DaveV
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 15:09
 |
 |
 |  |
vik - a minor quibble with point (17). As I heard it, the research penalty for getting "too far ahead" of the AIs only applies at Deity level. I would think there's no point in giving techs away to the AIs at Chieftan. I'd expect them to be of little use in helping out with techs, and having extra techs would only handicap them further. |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 15:32
 |
 |
 |  |
DaveV, I can't get technical with you, or site a reference. All I have to go on is my experience when I tried it this morning. At one point, I was researching Computers before the AI guys were discovering Polytheism/Trade/etc. I gave them every technology I had (except for Combustion - a Flight pre-reque). Before I gave them all this technology, discoveries were coming every 3 turns at 70% science rate. After I gave the 5 remaining civs nearly all of my technology, I was getting new discoveries every turn at 70% science. Based on this one data point, I made a conclusion. It just seemed to work that way. |
DaveV
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 15:55
 |
 |
 |  |
vik - good enough for me! I'll always take the voice of experience over something somebody might have read in a book somewhere. I stand corrected. |
tonic
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 07, 2000 18:05
 |
 |
 |  |
Vik,Your 18-point progression is a welcome complement to Paul's summary. For someone like me on the steep OCC learning curve (trying to glean the actual application of principles from the logs of past comparison games) this helps.
|
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 08, 2000 09:40
 |
 |
 |  |
tonic, Thanks. Believe me, I did not intend to list 18 separate points, only 5 or 6 originally, but I just kept typing and typing. I'm glad you appreciate it, and I am considering elaborating even further on it -- kind of, if I may be so bold -- an addendum to Paul's guide. Paul is a really good player, but I, and others, consider me to be a very good writer. Don't get on me for typos and misspellings for my posts here, because I don't spend much time editing. But when I complete the speech my installation commander will be giving in two weeks (2-star Army General I'm writing for), I guarantee that will be error-free. |
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 08, 2000 10:22
 |
 |
 |  |
Yes, you may be so bold.  I have to admit that although I consider myself a good player, at least in OCC, I am not a very good writer. So if someone who is not only a good player but also a good writer were to write an addendum to my guide that would be a good idea. |
Campo
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 09, 2000 06:59
 |
 |
 |  |
Interesting that this addendum idea arose. I've only recently tried OCC. I downloaded Paul's excellent guideline and work from that. However I found myself searching through it repeatedly during game play. I thought it would be useful to have a concise summary to follow, just to save the time of re-reading. So I wrote one. It's similar to Vik's 18-point list, but with more formatting. I made a series of tables with "Improvements" and "Research goals", chronologically arranged. And I included periodic key instructions. I was thinking about posting it, or asking Paul if he wanted to put it on his site. However with Vik's recent offer, perhaps I should send it to him as a starting point for an OCC summary guide. Vik, Paul -- would either of you like to see it or improve on it? It's in Word 2000 format, but I could save it in an older version. (Edited to correct typos.) [This message has been edited by Campo (edited June 09, 2000).] |
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 09, 2000 07:26
 |
 |
 |  |
Campo, I would like to see that. Please send it to paulvdb@home.nl . I have Word 97. |
Campo
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 09, 2000 09:40
 |
 |
 |  |
Okay, it's on the way. I'm sure it could be improved. The research goals are missing some items and there may be more city improvements. The chronological sequences could probably be improved too.I debated having three big tables: one for research goals, one for improvements, and one for wonders. However I decided that it would be better to coordinate them -- matching the techs with the corresponding improvements and wonders. There's probably a better way to present it, but I think it's a decent starting point. |
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 09, 2000 09:59
 |
 |
 |  |
Well, it looks good so far although as you said there is some room for improvement. I'll play around with it during the weekend. Would it be ok with you if I put a changed version of this on my OCC site? |
Campo
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 09, 2000 12:15
 |
 |
 |  |
Absolutely. I had been planning on filling in the gaps and then offering it to you, but since the topic came up now I figured I'd mention it. Feel free to send a copy to Vik for his suggestions too. I don't know if it's anything like what he had in mind. |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 09, 2000 15:05
 |
 |
 |  |
Campo, I emailed my section to Paul as well. If I were to edit yours, I would be focusing on format, wording, etc., rather than strategy. I prefer to let Paul hash out any strategy flaws that might be in your document. What I did is a huge elaboration on the 18 steps above. In it, I tried to take care of explaining why you do those 18 steps, and I've also expanded past the mere discovery of Space Flight and tried to include strategies for building space ships on a low budget. Really, Paul's guide as it stands now is perfectly acceptable and helpful to me, but I wanted to try and expand on the philosophy and reasoning behind why you do what you do in OCC. |
Campo
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 09, 2000 15:41
 |
 |
 |  |
Sounds good. I think we've taken complimentary approaches, not duplicate ones. My intent was simply to summarize Paul's strategy. I just wanted something short to use for quick guidance while playing a game. I completely omitted any explanations. My goal was to have a quick reference for those recurrent moments when I had to choose the next tech to research or improvement to build.
|
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 09, 2000 16:18
 |
 |
 |  |
Vik, you said that you mailed your section to me. Unfortunately I have not received it, so could you please send it again? |
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 10, 2000 00:46
 |
 |
 |  |
It just arrived in my mail, thank you. |
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 10, 2000 02:23
 |
 |
 |  |
Vik, that looks very good. It's basically a strategy guide on its own, so it could very well replace my guide. It contains all the strategy I have written and expands a bit on it. There are some things I would add or change in it, but if it's ok with you I would like to use it as the next version of the strategy guide. You will of course be credited for editing and expanding the guide. Let me know if that's ok with you. |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 10, 2000 12:33
 |
 |
 |  |
Paul, Do with it what you please. I don't even need to be acknowledged. It's not a big deal. In any editing you may choose to do, though, I would first like your attention to go towards any strategical fallacies that might be in there. Also, being an American, I tend to have this unsubstantiated notion that everyone else understands the American version of English as well as I do. As a result, there may be some expressions or figures of speech that may sound akward -- go ahead and change these around. For example, I think I said in there at one point: quote:
 "...you won't have to spend a dime..."
 |
I ought to know that a dime is not a universally accepted type of currency. Stuff like that, and anything else you see needs improving. Thanks. Edit: I also like what I interpret Campo's idea to be. It seems like he's going for a table-format that includes units, structures, wonders, and technology. That sounds excellent! [This message has been edited by vik (edited June 10, 2000).]
|
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 10, 2000 16:11
 |
 |
 |  |
I updated the OCC strategy guide with the new stuff Vik sent me. I edited it a bit here and there, but most of it is what Vik sent me. Let me know what you think of it.I also added a reference table with a recommended chronological order of research and building. It will print on one page, so you can keep it next to your computer while playing OCC games.  It's not exactly what Campo sent me, but I thought this might work better. Feedback is appreciated. |
vik
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 11, 2000 12:56
 |
 |
 |  |
Paul, I checked out the Strategy Guide. I think it looks really good. Third paragraph of section 2.4 has a typo. Should be "two" instead of "rwo" in the 3rd sentence. I don't doubt what I sent you probably had some errors in it. One thing I learned reading your edits (actually 2 things): 32-shield base production yields 80 shields after the factory/power/manu plant? Wow. That's helpful, because I always just estimated. I figured 4 specials and two or three mined-hills ought to do it. I was just hoping for the best, and I usually got close to 90 shields this way. That will lessen the load on me. But, when counting for 32 shields, it sounds like you are including an off-shore platform and railroads (even though these may not actually have been built yet). Wow, that's easy. 32 -- a number to remember. I also came into some personal confusion on the order to build a university, bank, and Isaac's. I understand better, now. I can't really fairly comment on the helpfulness of the table, because most of that stuff is in my memory. It seems useful, though, and the important thing is that new players have two ways in which to get help. Sometimes pictures/tables help more. One thing I think we can add is some strategy on when exactly to deliver caravans. I thought of this after I emailed you my section. We say "deliver them as soon as possible" when in truth we know it might be more beneficial to wait one turn to deliver a caravan. This is if you are close to discovering the next technology, or if you happen to be in a period of anarchy while switching governments. We also should state the part about maximizing the arrow squares when it is delivered. Just some thoughts. But again, looks great, although I am biased. heh heh. Edit: Also suggest starting a new thread or posting to the OCC#10 or the OCC#11 thread to get a wider array of feedback. [This message has been edited by vik (edited June 11, 2000).] |
Paul
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted June 11, 2000 14:53
 |
 |
 |  |
New thread started; please post OCC strategy guide feedback there. | |