You can have less cities than others as far as you have places to put down more. so expand as fast as you can and always build your cities a bee line towards your neighbours.

For your wonder-building cities, have a couple of other cities support it. They can provide martial law units and other units to disband and add to the wonder (don't wait for trade, disband other units).

Geez. Why didn't you guys tell me that Republic bites for levels higher than King?

For anyone who cares, this is what has seemed to work for me so far...
Now I know why everyone stays in Monarchy so long. As long as you have a decent SSC going, you can celebrate and get the same benefits all while keeping your martial law and not having to pay the support penalty. Lightblub flickers on... I wish I'd known about this eariler. Well, I knew of it in theory but never connected the thoughts.
Also, as far as the number of cities thing... 6 really isn't enough. This game was made for expansion. 10-12 is more like it (for a perfectionist). Building more pays off - the caravans really come rollin' in. I still think grabbing the SoL as fast as possible is the way to go. It gets you into the serious gov'ts in which you can make some real progress whether it be toward world domination or AC. I think I'm starting to understand why Ming is so much in favor of Communism. Simply celebrate and your SSC rakes in the beakers. Who needs Senate interference and support costs? Everything else, like vet Spys, is icing on the cake. Fundamentalism is great for those pure-of-heart warmongers, but the science hit is too much for me. I know it can be overcome by timely frieght delivery, but I'm not quite that good yet.

...an aside...
I noticed this little bit of strat somewhere and decided to try it out. It works nicely... don't tip any huts until you've researched Monarchy. The "useless" techs only raise the beaker requirement for the next tech, extending your stay in Despotism. Although, you have to give up the possibility of a positive tip for a while, in my book, it's worth it. My rule of thumb is... if I've already laid down my first city, don't tip until Monarchy. Try it and notice how much faster you get into Monarchy.
Waiting to tip a hut has other benifits as well. For example, if you wait to tip a hut until it's within a city radius, it will never release barbarians. Waiting can get you Philosophy, Medicine, or some other non-basic tech... much better than a bottom-rung tech IMO. And waiting resolves early "support problems" when units assign themselves to your cities. If you've waited until you've, say, 4 cities up before the tip, you've many more opitions to work with.
...nice things to know.

If you couldn't already tell, apparently I like to type.

that should help just a little!

Agree with Wrecked tho', I get faster wins when I wean myself off the good production in Monarchy crutch and go to higher form of gov.t earlier. Often get to go straight to democracy, missing out republic. Simple fact is, shields don't yield research. In democracy, and even in republic, the extra gold soon makes up for the reduction in the number of usable shields.

Realised a while back that just cause I'd found a hut didn't mean I had to tip it. So now (large maps again) I often have untipped huts lieing about waiting for the right moment to be tipped. Knowing when that right moment might be was an aspect of my game I was working on when I bumped into Apolyton, got seduced by OCC and also discovered that I, too, like typing.

Haven't tried the no wonder challenges but had started to think I build too many WoW before tried OCC. Now certain of it. Plan to focus strategy and try being more selective (unless MP turns out to be the way to go). Downside is I'll lose to the A1 when the strategy turns out not to be well enough thought out.

Wrecked. If you can get the Theatre and build it in a coastal city then you can run your navy and merchant marine out of there. I often try to plan ahead from quite near the start of a game so as to keep this as an option. You can also run an army out of this city w/o unhappiness problems. Some people want such a city to have many shields. Because I haven't been going in for offense much I like one with good agriculture (unhapiness doesn't constrain this city's growth so it grows real quick).

Xen Yu. Thanks. I've written that down and put it in a safe place.

Oh, drinking can definately change the level of civ you play....micromanagement is useless after a few pints (some silly attempt to be thread context.)

Basic civing - like alcohol - is best when you pick a particular type and stay with it. Expansionist = Beers, Perfectionist = Wines. Don't mix them or your belly will hurt!

I am usually a perfectionist because I don't like having to micromanage a ton of cities, but I recently played a scenario (Labrynth)where I had a lot of land to cover, so I decided to try a modified ICS using communism. (there were no goody huts)

By focusing your reseach target you are more likely to get what you want. Against the AI this is especially so.

My primary research goal was Democracy for the Statue of Liberty and the ability to go Commie. I went bee-line for Monarchy like usual - but then pottery for the HG to allow continued small city expansion in Monarchy. I used 4 cities as primary cities/wonder cities, but built all the wonders with caravans from supporting cities - those primary cities I allowed to grow toward size 8, but other cities were size 2, 3 or 4. Mostly I just expanded and built warriors, some horsemen and settlers with roads everywhere, then caravans for internal trade routes, with my cities two or three squares apart.

I picked up the Great Wall for the first time in ages as I trundled through and then Leos and then the SoL. Switched to commie, was still able to go and get Mikes next. Then I went after techs that would upgrade my units and give me the sea strength that I needed. I think I got Democracy as my 20th technology and with commie and those roads and internal trade routes I was getting techs every 3 or 4 turns.

Question...
What units do you like to race for before starting to conquer? I've found that Catapults and Legion rule early, especially if the terrain is harsh. You simply cannot stop them with the defensive units of the time. I used to put a lot of weight into Phalanx, relying on them for early protection, but in my last game I was forced into an early two front war and got spanked because I relied too heavily upon them. Especially early, a good offense seems to be the ONLY good defense. I was forced to research Mathematics just so I could station a Cat within my cities to ward off all of those opposing Legion. Until Gunpowder, defensive units are lack without walls... and walls seem so... counterproductive... reactive instead of proactive. I've never built the Great Wall and may experiment to see its benefits.

Getting back to my initial question... I really prefer to advance all the way to Tactics before switching to a miliary stance... and Espionage if possible. It seems like a long time but Cavalry, Alpine, and Spys are just too good. Anything less produces lack-luster results, being too slow (1-mov't units) or wield insufficient firepower (my Knights always seem to run up against Pikemen w/ Walls). I want a crushingly decisive victory. Besides, once you get the science ball rolling, the tech really pours in, allowing you to advance far above the opposition... but before modern units hit the scene. I'm just not all about Tanks and Howies for some reason.

With which unit(s) do you enjoy massacring?

walls=diplomats

Crusaders

pikes with catapults

If I'm behind in the happiness race, I will switch to the real military path and work my way to vet knights. If you can get there first, you have a window of opportunity to take some cities. Yeah, you will lose a bunch of them, but they do work well.

I noticed that one wonder no one seems to mention is the Pyramids. In my earlier games, I always used to build this to avoid paying the maintenance on granaries while getting the population boost. Is this wonder worth building?

I seem to have no luck at all attacking AI units unless my units are veterans on this level. Many times I've lost musketeers attacking phalanxes. Do you build barracks in most of your cities?

I'm a big fan of using spies in my military - it seems like when I use the diplomat to sabatoge a city, they always go after the unit under production. I can never get at the city walls with them.

I rarely build barracks. Sun Tzu's Academy is great for producing vets; if you're far enough ahead in tech, vet status doesn't matter much (try using Dragoons or Cavalry against those same Phalanxes). Some of your units will become vets by virtue of winning. Two things to remember when attacking: show up with more units than you think you'll need, and don't be afraid to take some losses.

As for those that play offensively, most swear by the barracks (and Sun Tsu's War Accadamy)

And diplomats tend to go for easier targets more than harder targets, so city walls will be one of the last targets (people will send whole armies at cities to get down walls) I personally would rather wait and just incite a revolt - i get all the structures in tact, along with the defending units.

I've found that if I send multiple diplomats into a city on the same turn, only one will sabotage production. This means that once one of the diplomats sabotages production, none of the other diplomats entering the same city on the same turn will waste their time on production. They'll all try for real city improvements. I think the subsequent diplomats won't try to sabotage production because there are no shields left in the box to sabotage. The previous spy already sabotaged them all and there won't be any more until the beginning of the next turn. Someone here may have encountered a quirky situation where production was sabotaged while the city had no shields in the box, but it's never happened to me. Note: This also works for spies sabotaging a random improvement "using her judgement".

Much like yours, my diplomats always seem to sabotage production if they're the only one sabotaging the city that turn. As SCG mentioned, diplomats tend to go for crappy stuff first and do the walls only if there's nothing else to sabotage. It'll take multiple diplomats to take down the walls (but it's well worth it, in my opinion).

quote: Originally posted by Edward on 06-28-2000 11:20 AM It'll take multiple diplomats to take down the walls (but it's well worth it, in my opinion).

My rule of thumb is 5 diplos per city being attacked, to get the walls. It depends on the number of improvements, of course, but at the diplo (as opposed to spy) stage, the AI cities don't usually have all that many. The unit in production often goes first, and temple and barracks often next. The 4th or 5th diplo usually gets the walls, in my experience.

It hurts to lose that many, but it makes a huge difference in attack success.

When I'm on a serious conquest mission I accumulate at least 5 diplos and then have one relatively high-production city churning them out continuously, along with the conquered city if it's adequately defended.
Any spares turn into spies, if you've got Leo's.

Five diplomats is 150 shields. For only 10 shields more you can have four additional elephants, knights or crusaders in your attck; include catapaults if you don't mind the slow movement. For the same number of shields you can have three additional dragoons in your attack. Of course diplomats do not have any per turn costs: either in shields or unhappiness.

A diplomat that tries to sabotage a city is lost for sure at 30 shields a pop. The advantage of putting fighting units to risk is that upon capturing the city you do not lose the improvements (other than temples and cathedrals). If the city has walls you don't lose more than one unit of population. That means the city can soon be going strong and creating new units of whatever kind you deem necessary.

quote: Campo: If the city has walls you don't lose more than one unit of population. That means the city can soon be going strong and creating new units of whatever kind you deem necessary.

I'm usually an AC kinda guy but have been trying out conquest lately. I suppose I never really thought about this... that if you leave the walls up in the target city that it'll only lose one pop point instead of 4-5. Hmm, interesting. Even though you'd need a much larger attacking force, I'm all about superior units so it's not as big a problem. Nice point. I think I'll try leaving the walls up from now on and see where it gets me. I'd much rather use more units (as opposed to diplos targeting the walls) and take the city at a larger pop with improvements to sell than a lower one with none.

What I decided to do was go for a modified ICS and get industrialization as early as possible. Instead of looking for the best terain I started filling my continent with cities with minimal or no overlap and used roads to tranport my warriors quickly to build HG and Col in the same grassy coastal city. I never hesitate to buy a needed wonder if I can't build it faster than the AI, even if I have to sell things to do it. As soon as I get transports from Industrialization I fill them with caravans/freights and run them to the Japanese or some other perfectionist civ with high pop cities. Run the whole boatload into the same city and even Hides can get you a decent amount of cash and science. If you have several transports you can repeat as soon as you can fill them up. I haven't made it to AC yet on this game, but by doing the same thing with a boatload of dips and spies I'm keeping up with the AI and keeping them convinced to leave me alone.

Jschagle. Attitude towards the pyramids is partly influenced by attitude towards WLT-Ds. Let it be whispered only very gently but there is a school of thought which views dependance on WLT-Ds as, well, less than challenging shall we say. A dude who subscribed to such a view (and who likes to build a plenitude of cities) might well think well of the conical-shaped Wonder. One who likes to celebrate often and long will not build the pyramids and indeed, will not routinely build granaries either.

edward. If, mayhap, you are playing on one of the lower levels you do right not to put all your eggs in the subversion basket. It remains a powerful tactic at all levels but is insufficient, by itself, to guarrantee success on deity. In the early stages gold is in shortish supply and there are many calls on the treasury. Later on you can get rich Lord, rich, rich, rich in both fundy and democracy but both have their problems. Timing good subversions when in democracy is a subject to which, on and off, I have devoted some attention (without having progressed much beyond the first step on the road to wisdom). Incidentally, there is a phase in the game when defending against subversion by the A1 is a matter requiring attention. Apologies if you are a regular deity player who has refined subversion techniques beyond my humble level. But if so GIVE WITH THE HOT SUBVERSION TIPS!!

jpk. Interesting post. Must ponder.

quote: Originally posted by jpk on 06-28-2000 03:21 PM Five diplomats is 150 shields. For only 10 shields more you can have four additional elephants, knights or crusaders in your attck; include catapaults if you don't mind the slow movement. . . Perhaps I am missing something because I don't see why losing diplomats is preferable to losing fighting units. I always play against the AI so that might be a difference.

jpk:
Good point about the costs, but the problem is that vet pikemen behind walls can withstand quite an assault from elephants, knights, and crusaders. It's possible to build those extra four attackers and then lose all of them and still not capture the city. Especially if the enemy city has 4 or 5 defensive units (more likely in the capital), or gets reinforced as you approach, or has a river defensive bonus.

I remember once sending, I think, 12 knights and crusaders against a city, and losing all of them to pikemen (don't know how many defenders). My glorious army that was intended to wipe out the 3 AI cities was destroyed. You're right that it's nice to capture the city more intact. But I'd rather capture it in shambles than lose my attackers in a failed attempt.

And sometimes you get lucky and the second diplo takes out the walls. My guideline of 5 is so you don't lose 3 or 4 on improvements and still not get the walls down; then it's a total waste.

Whether it is better to use diplomats or extra attacking units depends upon the situation. Your example of knights against pikeman is a good example of what can go wrong. If I recall correctly a knight's attack value is 4 and a fortified pikeman's defense value is 6. There might be a difference in hit points, I don't remember. This is before city walls. Even if your knight is a veteran the attack value is only equal to the defense value of a nonveteran pikeman, again this is before the effect of city walls is introduced. When attacking I think it is important to have an attack value significantly higher than the defense value of any likely defender. This is one reason why I like to develop a significant technological lead.

Once pikemen appear in quantity, knights should retire to the round table.

jpk,
I agree with you in that Knights should leave the battle scene when a lot of pikemen show up. It seems to me that, for early strikes, one should shoot directly for Knights or Crusaders and not meddle with anything else. For example, if you want to attack with Knights, move right up that path. Don't dabble in other techs to get Wonders, for instance. Personally, I enjoy the defense factor of the Knight but enjoy Mike's Chapel ever more, so if I want to attack someone early I'm going to use Crusaders since they take no extra research. IMO, the happy-wonder path is better when you've fenced off any opponents, and the warrior path if you've got peeps in your backyard.

Q...
Would you rather have Mike's Chapel + Crusaders or Sun Tzu + Knights? Gotta love both but my game plan will definately dictate the decision. I'd choose ST+Knights for pure war, MC+Crusaders to clear out a couple civs before shooting up the tech ladder for a better unit.

... my take on attack & defense unit-stats ...
When in conquer mode (aiming to take out a whole civ, not just one city), if I had my choice, I'd always choose Legion over Catapults and Knights over Crusaders.
"Why take the lower attack value when conquest is the goal?"
It's simple in my mind... the doubled defense factor is proportionally better than the smaller (relatively) attack advantage. In my experience, Legion and Knights are going to live longer making them a better value. That extra point or two isn't going to make the difference in an appropriately executed attack.
"Well, that's easily fixable. Just pair it with a good defensive unit."
If you attempt to do this, you've just hugely complicated your attack. Coordinating one unit type is infinately easier than two. Think about it... now you have to produce and balance two types of units whilst keeping them together on the battlefield. ...and good luck keeping a defensive unit with your Crusaders.
Just my $.02

You're correct, I play on Emperor level. No deity secrets for revolts and subversions to reveal, I fear.

In the past I've played the peaceful AC scientist. Recently I've been trying to conquer the world. A VERY different strategy is required. It's like a whole new game.

quote: Originally posted by Hawkx9 on 06-29-2000 12:38 PM Campo, Are you actually getting cannons and musketeers before the AI throws up any walls?

No, the AI usually has walls before I get either knights/crusaders or cannons. But against phalanx and pikement the cannons usually win despite the walls, while the knights/crusaders can get wiped out.

Usually there's a close civ that I take out very early with archers/horsemen, or sometimes legions. That's before city walls. This is when it's so close that we're competing for territory to settle. But it's generally only one, or at most two, AI civs.

I agree that the 5 attack is great, but someone who defends with Archers and Chariots is going to make mincemeat of the Crusader/Dip force.