Thanks! That's pretty illuminating. I am indeed playing on Gods and Kings, not Brave New World. I assume trade routes are different to trade networks, which I have via roads and harbours.
Thus far in my games, maybe because I have been playing on Huge Maps, I have not found granaries and food bonuses to be very useful at all, because there is plenty of land to settle, and I almost always have a happiness problem, so I just end up putting my cities on production focus. You are probably right about the Wonders... and another problem is probably the multiplayer score ranking. I am always worried if I fall behind other players, because I think it means they are ahead. That said, some of the Wonders are ridiculously good. Notre Dame, Leaning Tower, Porcelein Tower and Louvre are all game-changers.
Also with the AI at King difficulty, I find that I can usually beat them to the first wonder of a new Era. So if I go for the Great Library, I only worry about human players, but the AI will beat me if I get greedy and try to get Stonehenge after Great Library. Similarly I can usually Oracle if I want, unless a human player beats me to it. In my last game with Babylon, I managed to get both Oracle and Petra, though I guess with Petra, it maybe because nobody else had deserts anyway.
This is a really fascinating game, but some factions (like Babylon) seem pretty ridiculously overpowered for multiplayer.
Thanks! That's pretty illuminating. I am indeed playing on Gods and Kings, not Brave New World. I assume trade routes are different to trade networks, which I have via roads and harbours.
Yeah, in BNW the trade networks are renamed "city connections" and function mostly the same way, but they get rid of most of the incidental gold from terrain (no more gold from tiles adjacent to rivers, for example). Instead you build caravans and cargo ships to establish foreign trade (for gold) or internal trade (for bonus food or hammers).
If nowhere else, you definitely want to build a granary in your capital, as the bigger your capital is, the more you can leverage the science multipliers you'll probably be building there (you'll also want to make sure to get an aqueduct up in your capital as soon as it's convenient for the same reason). They're useful even in cities you don't plan to grow much, though; at the very least it means that you can work one more hill tile instead of grassland at the city.
How much have you been using religion? If you're having happiness issues, there are a lot of religious beliefs that can bolster your empire's happiness (and if you don't need more happiness, you can get lots of gold out of it instead). In fact, since you don't have BNW, you might be working with the unnerfed Ceremonial Burial belief (not sure if they patched that for all versions or just BNW), which can really really help your expansion.
I loved Civ V until Gandhi attacked me...that experience was wrong on so many levels. I am a fan of the old Civ: Call to Power II game that was put out by someone besides Sid Meier (Activision?).
Just installed it on my mac. Technically I'm well below specifications for processor but it seemed to work fine with everything at minimum (I don't really care about the graphics considering I started with Civ 2 hehe). Its certainly better with Gods & Kings installed.
Just installed it on my mac. Technically I'm well below specifications for processor but it seemed to work fine with everything at minimum (I don't really care about the graphics considering I started with Civ 2 hehe). Its certainly better with Gods & Kings installed.
with a low processor you may notice turns begin to take forever. i am not a graphics freak either, and went all out on processor over graphics because i sometimes like to go crazy and have lots of things happening but if you have a fast processor on civ you can usually be at the end with turns going decently fast. a low end processor you can go grab a coffee, watch tv or something between turns late game
Yeah, I tend not to play the larger map sizes in Civ 5 for that reason; the time to process each turn can get lengthy on my computer, and the increased number of players mean that domination and diplomacy can get rather tedious.
i always play huge or large, so it got unbarable with my old laptop. this desktop can handle it though, even as i, as mentioned in the last post, go crazy and make an insane amount of stuff happen because i always turn up the player count even higher
Just installed it on my mac. Technically I'm well below specifications for processor but it seemed to work fine with everything at minimum (I don't really care about the graphics considering I started with Civ 2 hehe). Its certainly better with Gods & Kings installed.
with a low processor you may notice turns begin to take forever. i am not a graphics freak either, and went all out on processor over graphics because i sometimes like to go crazy and have lots of things happening but if you have a fast processor on civ you can usually be at the end with turns going decently fast. a low end processor you can go grab a coffee, watch tv or something between turns late game
Nah its not that bad. Maybe 5-7 seconds a turn at later ages. I just avoid the huge maps and play smaller ones. Besides I found previously that when I've played larger maps I get bored after awhile.
i only really got bored when i tryed to play at marathon pace. when i thought it was almost over i then realized how far i still was. other than that it is usually something goes really bad that i can't get back from or i just forget because i pick up another game for a day and i never seem to be able to resume a game if i leave it for a while and so i start a new one.
Well, after several Marathon Huge games and many hours, my friend and I decided that it was inevitable that one of us (usually whoever won the race for the Great Library) would establish an insurmountable advantage in science/economy etc, and the other would give up.
We tried to play with rules like 'no road pillaging, no buying AI to declare war on each other... etc to preserve peace and enhance the chance of us actually reaching the Industrial Age and developing a 'Cold War' scenario, but such agreements always fell apart because he is the type who tries to seek every little advantage and breaks the rules in spirit, if not practise.
Ironically, after taking a break, we came back and decided to try the game at Standard Standard, with no rules at all.... and for the first time, we got to the Great Power Rivalry stage, and just entered the Modern Era! Despite both of us trying every thing in our power to screw each other over.
I used China and he used Poland. He won the race for the Great Lib (I didn't even try cos my Capitol didn't have enough hills) and took an early Science and Social Policy advantage (Poland is amazing, I'm never gonna catch him in that regard.) We started on different continents, and his tech advantage has given him an edge in most of the skirmishes we have had thus far...
A single caravel caused way too much damage to my coastal resources in our first conflict, and he also managed to force all 3 of my neighbours to declare war on me, which was mostly damaging because it ruined my trade income, which was further constrained when he managed to secure a Trade Embargo on me, presumably because the AI fear me, since I retaliated against all 3 of them and took 1 city off each of them, including 2 capitols filled with Wonders.
He has always been 1 step ahead. I lost control of my coastline on 3 occasions, 1st time was Caravel, 2nd time was Frigates, 3rd time was Submarines. He also attempted a surprise amphibious assault on my capitol, which I repelled without too much difficulty.
Surprisingly, given all that, it's not all bad news as I am ahead on every Demographic measure except Science (Though I know I am way behind in Social Policy). This is because I didn't focus on specialists as much as he did, and thus my cities had a chance to grow, my capitol has 19 pop, vs his on 13. I have only just decided to fill up most of my specialist buildings, and now I think my science rate is superior, so I am closing the tech gap and have superior productive capacity, especially when it comes to naval ports, as all but 2 of my 8 cities are coastal.
I have also retaliated militarily. After I acquired Frigates of my own, I repelled his navy and sunk a few of his ships, and ruled the oceans until he surprised me with Submarines. I launched a surprise invasion of my own, he responded in force before I could actually capture a city, but I did do significant damage via pillaging before my task force of obsolete Chokonu and Knights were destroyed. During the war I also destroyed most (maybe all) of his cargo ships, though he did likewise with his submarines shortly after.
For the first time in a MP game, I am in (near) the endgame and I am forced to consider victory strategies and Ideologies. He chose Autocracy and I chose Order, mostly because I didn't know anything about Autocracy and Freedom, and I knew Order would solve my Happiness issues and boost Science. I am not overly worried about an invasion in the short-medium term, as I have military/naval superiority for now, and I am determined to ensure he does not surprise me again with Battleships and Carriers, and I don't intend to surrender control of the oceans again. With several large coastal cities with Seaports, and his tech advantage diminishing, I am fairly confident... In fact if he doesn't contest the oceans, I will blockade his ports and shut down all his maritime trading routes.
I have been ahead or on par with him on gold income for most of the game, but his net income has recently eclipsed mine, presumably because he acquired 'Nationalism'. I intend to remedy that with a round of Bank and Stock Exchange construction/buying, and short of him doing something very unexpected, I think I can maintain a marginal economic/production advantage.
If anyone has bothered reading this essay, I'd love some advice...
1) If he does try to contest the oceans, what tactics should I be aware of? Currently I have Submarine and Frigates in duos patrolling the oceans. I hope to build Carriers and Battleships before or around the same time as him, and outproduce him with my port advantage, but I don't know anything about Naval combat beyond Frigates. I don't even know how Carriers work at sea.
2) I currently have a small advantage with City-State allies, but Gunboat Diplomacy worries me for the future (And since he is Poland, he will probably get it soon). It looks incredibly over-powered, and I am worried about being crippled by World Congress treaties. Is there any way I can counter that?
3) Which lv3 Tenent should I go for? i.e. which Victory type should I aim for? Although I think I can maintain a naval superiority, I doubt I can pull off a successful land invasion, especially given his combat bonuses with Autocracy. My current idea is Science victory, but I don't know if there are things he can do with his Social Policy advantage or World Congress to screw me over in that regard.
4) I have a lack of Oil in 8 cities!! One of my cities will acquire oil shortly through border growth, but I fear just 1 oil well won't be enough. I am considering establishing new colonies to secure more oil, but there is no oil near nice territories... is it worth it to build a city just to acquire oil, and how many oil wells do I need?
1) Battleships rule the seas in the Modern era, but they are vulnerable to submarines and fighters. Destroyers can protect them from both. Destroyers can also capture enemy cities directly on the coastline, which can be softened up by Battleships. Carriers function purely as platforms for delivering air units. Their primary purpose is carrying bombers to attack other continents/targets that are distant from your cities, but they can also carry fighters which can supplement your firepower against naval targets. Fighters also provide line of sight, which can be very useful for allowing your battleships (and their indirect targeting) to hit enemy targets on the opposite side of hills/forests.
2) Gunboat Diplomacy isn't as good as it first appears. In order to leverage it, your opponent will likely need to have the largest army in the world and keep at least one or two units near every city-state he wants to intimidate. You can counter it by using your production advantage to maintain a larger army, and by using your forces to harass and destroy his intimidating units. In practice, you can make it impractical for him to use it against any city-state that doesn't border his territory.
4) Answering this one first because it is critical to deciding your victory condition. You need oil to fuel a modern military, especially a modern navy. As such, it is worth it to build a city just to acquire oil. Relative access to oil should be a significant factor in determining if you go for the conquest victory. With bombers, battleships, and destroyers, you can take his coastal cities. With bombers and tanks working in tandem, you have a shot at a successful land invasion. All of that needs sufficient oil, and his ability to attack you will depend in large part upon his access to oil, which you should determine ASAP (remember that if he takes the Third Alternative tenet he doubles his access to strategic resources).
3) Science Victory is a solid choice for victory condition; Autocracy is hyper-focused on military and gets next to no science bonuses, so if you've got a tech advantage, there's not a lot he can do about it except dive into Rationalism (if he hasn't already), and he's only got one or two more free policies left. You'll still want to maintain some level of control over the World Congress--going for the space victory necessarily opens up the UN and the diplomatic victory, so you need to make sure no one is voted world leader while you're building your spaceship. If you can exercise some control over resolutions, getting the ISS active and using your superior production to get first place can give you a big boost.
Even if you go for the science victory, though, if you can achieve and maintain naval superiority, use it. Blockade, cripple, and even destroy his coastal cities. That will give him a big hit to his trade network and make it very difficult for him to project power off of his continent, whether to attack you or leverage Gunboat Diplomacy. And the fewer (and smaller) cities he has, the worse his research is going to be.
1- best tactic i have in the ocean is the increased attack range upgrade. it is perhaps the best thing you could get for a ship because they then could attack from outside city attack range. you usually have some melee units hidden behind some ships that will move forward to give visual range, fire all ships, then move back the melee. when health is zero, melee units moves in to take it.
2- i do not know of this gunboat diplomacy. is this a brave new worlds thing?
3- it all depends on your current advantages. since you haven't thought of it as you go, you need to see what is best at this moment. look at the victory conditions and what you are closest to just start making progress there. there is no right or wrong way to win
4- if oil is important to your plans, you may want to. if there are ai's think of trading. if there are city states with oil then you could try to get them. you could also just take one of your friends cities if need be.
i think the more players you have the more likely you are to get a cold war scenario. with more people, wonders and other things are spread more thin. also it opens up diplomacy if a player gets too strong and needs to be weakened to prevent them from getting too far ahead. with two players one of two players will get the wonders, and it can get really uneven. when it gets uneven and there is noone to assist in evening the score, then the gap in power might just continue to grow uncontrollably.
Thanks guys. I am just taking a dinner break from the game. Something has gone quite horribly wrong. He has just managed to make Autocracy the World Ideology! I assumed the AI would support me, but since none of them have any ideologies, they didn't bother vetoing and he had 1 more vote than me. I desperately need to get it repealed cos it is costing me 12 happiness per turn. Thankfully I am still in the green, just about. I despertaely need to get it repealed at the next World Congress. Are there any tricks I should be aware of for winning City-States? I don't think he's using Gunboat diplomacy just yet.
This has all sorts of consequences. My friend mentioned he was struggling with happiness because I had more tourism, now I guess my tourism is doing nothing, after I decided to commit more investment on Hotels and other culture buildings... as well as the Tourism bonus for 3rd Tenent of Order. His improved Happiness has also boosted his science significantly, because he has already unlocked all of Rationalism (I have 2). I am about to get Battleships and Carriers tech, and I dont see any emerging from his ports, so hopefully I am not too far behind.
This is turning into a very interesting game. A few turns ago I thought I had the advantage... now the tables have turned, and there is still no clear winner. My gold investments have finished and I have now re-established a gold income advantage.
In terms of Strategic Resources, I have secured 3 oil wells, potential growth into 2 more, whereas I think he is relying on a City-State for now. When war comes I will throw gold at it to cripple his advanced units if he doesn't have oil wells of his own. For that reason I probably won't try to compete for that City State for now, so as to not tip him off about that plan
World Congress: Doing city-state quests and pouring gold into them is pretty much your main means of getting more allies/weaning them away from your opponent for WC superiority. Aside from maintaining city-state allies, you can trade any AI you have an embassy with for votes on an upcoming resolution. If you can, you'll want to address this sooner rather than later, as a World Ideology makes it very likely that the AI will select Autocracy when it comes time to pick its own ideology. If you can get that repealed and you have superior tourism output, you may even be able to get the AI to pick Order, which would put him under even more pressure (and potentially open up a cultural victory for you with Order tenets). Keep in mind that having the World Ideology will give your opponent additional delegates.
Alternately, if the pressure on you is too strong, you can simply switch to Autocracy yourself. You'll lose your early adopter bonus from picking Order, but most of your other tenets should convert over (i.e. you won't have to start from scratch). This could be an interesting prelude to an all out invasion, particularly if you can secure battleships and naval superiority before your opponent. It sounds like you have a pretty good supply of oil for building a sizable navy out of.
How many extra votes does a World Ideology give him? It really has been a game changer, and by the sounds of it, unless I get it repealed, things could get a lot worse... I have struggled with Happiness ever since, whereas he has been free to soar to new heights. Given that he had re-established a scientific and gold lead, I was forced to speed up war plans and successfully disrupted his trade income to the extent that I now have a lead again. (320 to 240).
Unfortunately, given his tech advantage, and frankly, he is a more skilful player in general, I have not been able to exert total control of the oceans, but I did manage to destroy most of his cargo ships (again) and prevent trade on one of the two oceans between us.
I have been plowing gold into City-States, partly because I actually need them to maintain happiness levels for such a large empire, given that I have -13 penalty from the World Congress. I have 7 city-state allies at the moment, he has 2, and the next vote is in 12 turns, I sincerely hope no other factions adopts Autocracy in the meantime. I assume he will try to initiate a few coups in the leadup to the WC, but hopefully war pressure will mean he cannot save too much gold.
you can trade any AI you have an embassy with for votes on an upcoming resolution.
OMG u can do THAT?! Man that's probably what he did. I did notice some odd voting patterns... damnit I wish I knew this sooner. No wonder he's been owning me in the WC... sigh... How does it work exactly? Do you do it on the turn you submit delegates, or before so? How does it work if both of us are trying to bribe people at the same time?
I badly need to break his hold on the WC before I get screwed by it further. He is already invading another AI faction to secure Uranium. Thankfully I have supplies in the territories I already own, but it won't do me any good if his nukes drop first, or if he uses WC to determine if nukes can or cannot be used...
@Heindrich1988 I believe having the World Ideology gives 2 additional delegates, but that may depend on map size, etc.
I misspoke before (going off of memory here); to trade delegates, you need to use your spies as diplomats in AI civs' capital cities. Once your diplomat is in place (there's a wait of a few turns while they settle in), you can go into the trade screen and ask them to support or oppose a specific resolution; you only get their base delegate for the resolution, the rest of their votes (say from city-states) can be distributed however they like. This will normally cost you some gold per turn or perhaps a luxury; the full cost will depend on how much they like you and on how much they care about the resolution in question. Once they've pledged their delegates, you can move your diplomats elsewhere. This has to be done before the voting turn--once the resolutions are up for a vote, it's too late to trade for delegates.
I own it. I haven't played it for a long time, though. Civilization is the ultimate time sink. That is both a blessing and a curse. It's a really enjoyable game, but I always wind up putting in more hours than I had planned, at great detriment to other areas. It's similar with every game, but Civilization takes it to a whole different level. It may be an extra hour or two for Baldur's Gate. It's another four or five hours with regard to Civilization!
I actually just decided to play again. For once I went without mods and played Egypt on immortal difficulty. My starting plan worked and I was in medieval era with a religion around turn 70. I then continued to be passive all the way up to this point I am at now. Throughout this time I have accepted all declarations of friendship and then got research agreements that pretty much guarantee peace for the duration. I am in atomic and keeping up in technology, but Washington is getting ahead. Now, however, the Huns are finally declaring war on me. I will need to build units fast because my only unit is my starting warrior luckily they are a little busy on my city states so I can get battleships ready and send them over. After this I may need to deal with Washington before it is too late.
while I can survive this, it would seem as though progress has been slowed much too far by this. we are in a stalemate and meanwhile Washington has the Apollo program. Those Huns may have assured America's victory by deciding to try and kill me.
That's one thing that I find annoying about wars in Civ 5 (and 4, for that matter). If you and your enemy are roughly evenly matched (such that you have to throw the bulk of your production into the war effort), you'll often end up falling econmically/technologically behind any civs who aren't bogged down in a war. So even if you win the war, you'll often end up worse off than you were before. At that point you just have to hope that the additional city (or cities) that you acquired will pay dividends and allow you to pull ahead in the future, but anything could happen in the mean time. Like the Civ who wasn't engaged in your previous war deciding to declare war on you with his technologically superior units, before you've had a chance to fully recover.
In general I find conquest to be the least viable victory option in Civ games.
yeah but it was just much too late for their cities to pay me back the dividends in technology to keep me in the game. I would have been needing to build units to stop Washington's victory but instead I end up needing everybody to fight the huns. Maybe I still stand a chance if other people slow down Washington, I keep the Huns at Bay, and attempt to win culturally. The Sydney opera house could do me a favor by bring in a free policy and I am ahead in policies but I think Washington may just have it in the bag unless an alliance is formed.
Civ 5 is a great game and I have enjoyed many a hour playing single-player and multiplayer, but I feel that it is missing a few things to have become a truly special game.
1) For single-player, I hate how difficulty is governed by arbitary bonuses and penalties for the AI, and that at the higher difficulties, the AI blatantly cheats. It is really obvious in the early game, when despite me almost always building a monument first and adopting Liberty asap, most AI factions can beat me to a 2nd and 3rd city, and somehow pump out a massive military and build a wonder at the same time. If you start next to an aggressive faction like the Huns, and do not have defensible terrain, you are basically screwed no matter what you do. I don't mind a challenge, and I wish the AI can remain more competitive in the long run in King and Emperor difficulties, but I don't like playing against cheating AI.
2) Science is way too important and way too fast. In every game I have played against my friend, he who builds the Great Library ends up winning. Even a narrow tech advantage is usually insurmountable in war, and if somebody gets ahead, there is virtually nothing you can do to catch up. In a Standard Standard game, each era only lasts long enough for one war in each era. In my first game ever, I foolishly chose Standard Huge (Real World Map mod), not appreciating the synergy between map size and game length. I sent a few Caravels out into the world in the early Renaissance Age from Shanghai, by the time they had finished exploring most of the world, they returned to Chinese colonies in Australia and Indonesia in the Atomic Age, next to Aircraft Carriers and Battleships!
3) I don't understand why the game takes up so much computing power. My laptop is a bit old, but it can run Shogun 2 Total War on near max settings without lag. Yet in a Huge Map, turn resolution becomes slow around the late Renaissance or early Industrial Era, and I was forced to abandon an Marathon Huge Real World Map with 22 Civs because each turn took over 3 mins to resolve.
4) I have no idea how to resolve this, but I wish there was a 3rd option between Sequential Turns and Simultaneous Turns. In MP, my friend and I always try to raid each other for the smallest advantage (If I have a naval advantage at a specific point in time, it is a waste not to use it trying to damage the other side), but this means almost perpetual war, which really slows down the game in Hybrid Mode. Simultaneous turns is unfair because it suits he who clicks faster and has a less laggy PC, I wish there was a way of making a MP less time consuming. That would allow more 3-way or 4-way games where a balance of power is more likely to be sustainable.
Finally on your specific scenario... Is Diplomatic Victory an option for you? In the only game I have competed on Marathon Huge, I became obscenely rich and just bought myself most city states in the world, so I achieved a Diplomatic Victory in the first meeting of the UN. This seems to be the quickest path to victory if you have the income to support it. I was actually gunning for a Culture Victory for most of the game, and was probably about 30-40 turns away from it when I achieved the Diplo Vic.
1- I know what you mean about the ai cheating. about the cities I one time made a bunch of teams of two to see what it is like, and I noticed my ally started with 2 settlers and other units so they do actually get to build 2 cities right away on harder difficulties. yeah, that is kinda cheating. 2- yes it is and that is why I always go for that great library, followed by libraries in the rest of the cities then a national college. I do end up getting in medieval sooner than anyone if my start up plan falls through, and I get a religion without even having a shrine because I get a great prophet. 3- I went back to an old game with huge, maximum players and city states, that began to take forever because I was on a laptop. It did a lot better on my new computer, but yes it is very annoying for a slow processor. 4- I don't know how they could possibly attempt that. The only thing I could think of is allowing each player to mess around with cities and stuff followed by each player getting to move units and make changes. At least it will make the civ building part go faster.
unfortunately, it is not very achievable. I mentioned that I was getting lots of research agreements and that didn't allow me to maintain a lot of city states. I have 4 atm because of an English coup on one of my city states that they followed up with another coup when I reclaimed it. Would do something about them if not for the Huns, who also took one of my 6 previous city states because they attacked it in the war and had a sub on the coast near the city that stopped me from sending battleship backup.
@TJ_Hooker Conquest is interesting in that it's a really powerful strategy (taking cities with pop and buildings > settling new ones) that can catastrophically backfire in a variety of ways. It does get tedious on larger maps, though, so I often end up shooting for a different victory condition after a few strategic victories. My personal sweet spot for a conquest victory is usually a Small map, which has enough players to keep things interesting without dragging out the game.
2- yes it is and that is why I always go for that great library, followed by libraries in the rest of the cities then a national college. I do end up getting in medieval sooner than anyone if my start up plan falls through, and I get a religion without even having a shrine because I get a great prophet.
Exactly, and that leads to the problem that most (1v1) games are kinda determined by the quality of your starting location. If I have grassland hills, marble, cows and a forest or two, there is virtually nothing you can do if you started in a jungle.
I do something similar regarding religion. I typically research Theology as my first Medieval tech, and around the time I get there, I finish off the Liberty policies and get a Great Engineer as my free Great Person. I then use that Great Engineer to rush Hagia Sophia, which gets me the free Great Prophet to Found a Religion even though I typically have 0 faith at this point.
hmmm... looks like we share a starting plan on getting our religion up without faith
typically I think the best thing you could possibly start with are deer. the granary makes a deer city grow extremely quick early on and they have production in it plus an addition production for a camp. though I was in a tundra, all the deer forests around me easily made my starting position great, and I prospered from it.
The impact of a good/bad starting location on this game is huge in MP. In the last game in the sequence I played vs that friend, I had an amazing area of grasslands, rivers, hills and coastline, and with no aggressive AI nearby, so I was free to settle 4 cities unopposed and establish a solid core, and win the important Wonder races in the early game (Great Library, Oracle and Hagia Sophia). My opponent had no chance once he realised he did not spawn nearby. (We used random factions, I got America, he got Huns).
Speaking of Hagia Sophia... I've modified my strategy a little bit. If I win the race for GL, I can also win the race for Oracle, and reach Theology and Liberty x5 much quicker than my opponent. Resources permitting, that means I can win the race for Hagia Sophia without a Great Engineer from Liberty. So, instead of Great Engineer, I get a Great Scientist and build the +8 Science lab or whatever. That's kinda like getting Babylon's civ bonus for any other civ, and gives you an unassailable tech lead.
CONGRATULATIONS! we have a winner on my early game strategy! hmmmm... now it makes me rethink how a game between us would go. whoever actually won there would screw the other because the plan, unfortunately, relies on wonders
CONGRATULATIONS! we have a winner on my early game strategy! hmmmm... now it makes me rethink how a game between us would go. whoever actually won there would screw the other because the plan, unfortunately, relies on wonders
Thx... The thing with playing so much 1v1 MP is that it quickly forces you to find an optimal strategy, especially for the early game. It got pretty ridiculous... u know, where I'd consider buying tiles with forests, so I could cut them down to speed up wonder construction. Once my friend actually almost beat me to the Pyramids AND GL cos he used the workers from the Pyramids to chop down forests enmasse. lol
I wish Civ5 MP was a bit more... user friendly. 1v1v1 would be awesome,
Comments
Thanks! That's pretty illuminating. I am indeed playing on Gods and Kings, not Brave New World. I assume trade routes are different to trade networks, which I have via roads and harbours.
Thus far in my games, maybe because I have been playing on Huge Maps, I have not found granaries and food bonuses to be very useful at all, because there is plenty of land to settle, and I almost always have a happiness problem, so I just end up putting my cities on production focus. You are probably right about the Wonders... and another problem is probably the multiplayer score ranking. I am always worried if I fall behind other players, because I think it means they are ahead. That said, some of the Wonders are ridiculously good. Notre Dame, Leaning Tower, Porcelein Tower and Louvre are all game-changers.
Also with the AI at King difficulty, I find that I can usually beat them to the first wonder of a new Era. So if I go for the Great Library, I only worry about human players, but the AI will beat me if I get greedy and try to get Stonehenge after Great Library. Similarly I can usually Oracle if I want, unless a human player beats me to it. In my last game with Babylon, I managed to get both Oracle and Petra, though I guess with Petra, it maybe because nobody else had deserts anyway.
This is a really fascinating game, but some factions (like Babylon) seem pretty ridiculously overpowered for multiplayer.
If nowhere else, you definitely want to build a granary in your capital, as the bigger your capital is, the more you can leverage the science multipliers you'll probably be building there (you'll also want to make sure to get an aqueduct up in your capital as soon as it's convenient for the same reason). They're useful even in cities you don't plan to grow much, though; at the very least it means that you can work one more hill tile instead of grassland at the city.
How much have you been using religion? If you're having happiness issues, there are a lot of religious beliefs that can bolster your empire's happiness (and if you don't need more happiness, you can get lots of gold out of it instead). In fact, since you don't have BNW, you might be working with the unnerfed Ceremonial Burial belief (not sure if they patched that for all versions or just BNW), which can really really help your expansion.
I am a fan of the old Civ: Call to Power II game that was put out by someone besides Sid Meier (Activision?).
We tried to play with rules like 'no road pillaging, no buying AI to declare war on each other... etc to preserve peace and enhance the chance of us actually reaching the Industrial Age and developing a 'Cold War' scenario, but such agreements always fell apart because he is the type who tries to seek every little advantage and breaks the rules in spirit, if not practise.
Ironically, after taking a break, we came back and decided to try the game at Standard Standard, with no rules at all.... and for the first time, we got to the Great Power Rivalry stage, and just entered the Modern Era! Despite both of us trying every thing in our power to screw each other over.
I used China and he used Poland. He won the race for the Great Lib (I didn't even try cos my Capitol didn't have enough hills) and took an early Science and Social Policy advantage (Poland is amazing, I'm never gonna catch him in that regard.) We started on different continents, and his tech advantage has given him an edge in most of the skirmishes we have had thus far...
A single caravel caused way too much damage to my coastal resources in our first conflict, and he also managed to force all 3 of my neighbours to declare war on me, which was mostly damaging because it ruined my trade income, which was further constrained when he managed to secure a Trade Embargo on me, presumably because the AI fear me, since I retaliated against all 3 of them and took 1 city off each of them, including 2 capitols filled with Wonders.
He has always been 1 step ahead. I lost control of my coastline on 3 occasions, 1st time was Caravel, 2nd time was Frigates, 3rd time was Submarines. He also attempted a surprise amphibious assault on my capitol, which I repelled without too much difficulty.
Surprisingly, given all that, it's not all bad news as I am ahead on every Demographic measure except Science (Though I know I am way behind in Social Policy). This is because I didn't focus on specialists as much as he did, and thus my cities had a chance to grow, my capitol has 19 pop, vs his on 13. I have only just decided to fill up most of my specialist buildings, and now I think my science rate is superior, so I am closing the tech gap and have superior productive capacity, especially when it comes to naval ports, as all but 2 of my 8 cities are coastal.
I have also retaliated militarily. After I acquired Frigates of my own, I repelled his navy and sunk a few of his ships, and ruled the oceans until he surprised me with Submarines. I launched a surprise invasion of my own, he responded in force before I could actually capture a city, but I did do significant damage via pillaging before my task force of obsolete Chokonu and Knights were destroyed. During the war I also destroyed most (maybe all) of his cargo ships, though he did likewise with his submarines shortly after.
For the first time in a MP game, I am in (near) the endgame and I am forced to consider victory strategies and Ideologies. He chose Autocracy and I chose Order, mostly because I didn't know anything about Autocracy and Freedom, and I knew Order would solve my Happiness issues and boost Science. I am not overly worried about an invasion in the short-medium term, as I have military/naval superiority for now, and I am determined to ensure he does not surprise me again with Battleships and Carriers, and I don't intend to surrender control of the oceans again. With several large coastal cities with Seaports, and his tech advantage diminishing, I am fairly confident... In fact if he doesn't contest the oceans, I will blockade his ports and shut down all his maritime trading routes.
I have been ahead or on par with him on gold income for most of the game, but his net income has recently eclipsed mine, presumably because he acquired 'Nationalism'. I intend to remedy that with a round of Bank and Stock Exchange construction/buying, and short of him doing something very unexpected, I think I can maintain a marginal economic/production advantage.
If anyone has bothered reading this essay, I'd love some advice...
1) If he does try to contest the oceans, what tactics should I be aware of? Currently I have Submarine and Frigates in duos patrolling the oceans. I hope to build Carriers and Battleships before or around the same time as him, and outproduce him with my port advantage, but I don't know anything about Naval combat beyond Frigates. I don't even know how Carriers work at sea.
2) I currently have a small advantage with City-State allies, but Gunboat Diplomacy worries me for the future (And since he is Poland, he will probably get it soon). It looks incredibly over-powered, and I am worried about being crippled by World Congress treaties. Is there any way I can counter that?
3) Which lv3 Tenent should I go for? i.e. which Victory type should I aim for? Although I think I can maintain a naval superiority, I doubt I can pull off a successful land invasion, especially given his combat bonuses with Autocracy. My current idea is Science victory, but I don't know if there are things he can do with his Social Policy advantage or World Congress to screw me over in that regard.
4) I have a lack of Oil in 8 cities!! One of my cities will acquire oil shortly through border growth, but I fear just 1 oil well won't be enough. I am considering establishing new colonies to secure more oil, but there is no oil near nice territories... is it worth it to build a city just to acquire oil, and how many oil wells do I need?
Thanks!
2) Gunboat Diplomacy isn't as good as it first appears. In order to leverage it, your opponent will likely need to have the largest army in the world and keep at least one or two units near every city-state he wants to intimidate. You can counter it by using your production advantage to maintain a larger army, and by using your forces to harass and destroy his intimidating units. In practice, you can make it impractical for him to use it against any city-state that doesn't border his territory.
4) Answering this one first because it is critical to deciding your victory condition. You need oil to fuel a modern military, especially a modern navy. As such, it is worth it to build a city just to acquire oil. Relative access to oil should be a significant factor in determining if you go for the conquest victory. With bombers, battleships, and destroyers, you can take his coastal cities. With bombers and tanks working in tandem, you have a shot at a successful land invasion. All of that needs sufficient oil, and his ability to attack you will depend in large part upon his access to oil, which you should determine ASAP (remember that if he takes the Third Alternative tenet he doubles his access to strategic resources).
3) Science Victory is a solid choice for victory condition; Autocracy is hyper-focused on military and gets next to no science bonuses, so if you've got a tech advantage, there's not a lot he can do about it except dive into Rationalism (if he hasn't already), and he's only got one or two more free policies left. You'll still want to maintain some level of control over the World Congress--going for the space victory necessarily opens up the UN and the diplomatic victory, so you need to make sure no one is voted world leader while you're building your spaceship. If you can exercise some control over resolutions, getting the ISS active and using your superior production to get first place can give you a big boost.
Even if you go for the science victory, though, if you can achieve and maintain naval superiority, use it. Blockade, cripple, and even destroy his coastal cities. That will give him a big hit to his trade network and make it very difficult for him to project power off of his continent, whether to attack you or leverage Gunboat Diplomacy. And the fewer (and smaller) cities he has, the worse his research is going to be.
2- i do not know of this gunboat diplomacy. is this a brave new worlds thing?
3- it all depends on your current advantages. since you haven't thought of it as you go, you need to see what is best at this moment. look at the victory conditions and what you are closest to just start making progress there. there is no right or wrong way to win
4- if oil is important to your plans, you may want to. if there are ai's think of trading. if there are city states with oil then you could try to get them. you could also just take one of your friends cities if need be.
i think the more players you have the more likely you are to get a cold war scenario. with more people, wonders and other things are spread more thin. also it opens up diplomacy if a player gets too strong and needs to be weakened to prevent them from getting too far ahead. with two players one of two players will get the wonders, and it can get really uneven. when it gets uneven and there is noone to assist in evening the score, then the gap in power might just continue to grow uncontrollably.
@Kaigen
Thanks guys. I am just taking a dinner break from the game. Something has gone quite horribly wrong. He has just managed to make Autocracy the World Ideology! I assumed the AI would support me, but since none of them have any ideologies, they didn't bother vetoing and he had 1 more vote than me. I desperately need to get it repealed cos it is costing me 12 happiness per turn. Thankfully I am still in the green, just about. I despertaely need to get it repealed at the next World Congress. Are there any tricks I should be aware of for winning City-States? I don't think he's using Gunboat diplomacy just yet.
This has all sorts of consequences. My friend mentioned he was struggling with happiness because I had more tourism, now I guess my tourism is doing nothing, after I decided to commit more investment on Hotels and other culture buildings... as well as the Tourism bonus for 3rd Tenent of Order. His improved Happiness has also boosted his science significantly, because he has already unlocked all of Rationalism (I have 2). I am about to get Battleships and Carriers tech, and I dont see any emerging from his ports, so hopefully I am not too far behind.
This is turning into a very interesting game. A few turns ago I thought I had the advantage... now the tables have turned, and there is still no clear winner. My gold investments have finished and I have now re-established a gold income advantage.
In terms of Strategic Resources, I have secured 3 oil wells, potential growth into 2 more, whereas I think he is relying on a City-State for now. When war comes I will throw gold at it to cripple his advanced units if he doesn't have oil wells of his own. For that reason I probably won't try to compete for that City State for now, so as to not tip him off about that plan
Alternately, if the pressure on you is too strong, you can simply switch to Autocracy yourself. You'll lose your early adopter bonus from picking Order, but most of your other tenets should convert over (i.e. you won't have to start from scratch). This could be an interesting prelude to an all out invasion, particularly if you can secure battleships and naval superiority before your opponent. It sounds like you have a pretty good supply of oil for building a sizable navy out of.
Thanks again, much appreciated!
How many extra votes does a World Ideology give him? It really has been a game changer, and by the sounds of it, unless I get it repealed, things could get a lot worse... I have struggled with Happiness ever since, whereas he has been free to soar to new heights. Given that he had re-established a scientific and gold lead, I was forced to speed up war plans and successfully disrupted his trade income to the extent that I now have a lead again. (320 to 240).
Unfortunately, given his tech advantage, and frankly, he is a more skilful player in general, I have not been able to exert total control of the oceans, but I did manage to destroy most of his cargo ships (again) and prevent trade on one of the two oceans between us.
I have been plowing gold into City-States, partly because I actually need them to maintain happiness levels for such a large empire, given that I have -13 penalty from the World Congress. I have 7 city-state allies at the moment, he has 2, and the next vote is in 12 turns, I sincerely hope no other factions adopts Autocracy in the meantime. I assume he will try to initiate a few coups in the leadup to the WC, but hopefully war pressure will mean he cannot save too much gold. OMG u can do THAT?! Man that's probably what he did. I did notice some odd voting patterns... damnit I wish I knew this sooner. No wonder he's been owning me in the WC... sigh... How does it work exactly? Do you do it on the turn you submit delegates, or before so? How does it work if both of us are trying to bribe people at the same time?
I badly need to break his hold on the WC before I get screwed by it further. He is already invading another AI faction to secure Uranium. Thankfully I have supplies in the territories I already own, but it won't do me any good if his nukes drop first, or if he uses WC to determine if nukes can or cannot be used...
I misspoke before (going off of memory here); to trade delegates, you need to use your spies as diplomats in AI civs' capital cities. Once your diplomat is in place (there's a wait of a few turns while they settle in), you can go into the trade screen and ask them to support or oppose a specific resolution; you only get their base delegate for the resolution, the rest of their votes (say from city-states) can be distributed however they like. This will normally cost you some gold per turn or perhaps a luxury; the full cost will depend on how much they like you and on how much they care about the resolution in question. Once they've pledged their delegates, you can move your diplomats elsewhere. This has to be done before the voting turn--once the resolutions are up for a vote, it's too late to trade for delegates.
In general I find conquest to be the least viable victory option in Civ games.
Civ 5 is a great game and I have enjoyed many a hour playing single-player and multiplayer, but I feel that it is missing a few things to have become a truly special game.
1) For single-player, I hate how difficulty is governed by arbitary bonuses and penalties for the AI, and that at the higher difficulties, the AI blatantly cheats. It is really obvious in the early game, when despite me almost always building a monument first and adopting Liberty asap, most AI factions can beat me to a 2nd and 3rd city, and somehow pump out a massive military and build a wonder at the same time. If you start next to an aggressive faction like the Huns, and do not have defensible terrain, you are basically screwed no matter what you do. I don't mind a challenge, and I wish the AI can remain more competitive in the long run in King and Emperor difficulties, but I don't like playing against cheating AI.
2) Science is way too important and way too fast. In every game I have played against my friend, he who builds the Great Library ends up winning. Even a narrow tech advantage is usually insurmountable in war, and if somebody gets ahead, there is virtually nothing you can do to catch up. In a Standard Standard game, each era only lasts long enough for one war in each era. In my first game ever, I foolishly chose Standard Huge (Real World Map mod), not appreciating the synergy between map size and game length. I sent a few Caravels out into the world in the early Renaissance Age from Shanghai, by the time they had finished exploring most of the world, they returned to Chinese colonies in Australia and Indonesia in the Atomic Age, next to Aircraft Carriers and Battleships!
3) I don't understand why the game takes up so much computing power. My laptop is a bit old, but it can run Shogun 2 Total War on near max settings without lag. Yet in a Huge Map, turn resolution becomes slow around the late Renaissance or early Industrial Era, and I was forced to abandon an Marathon Huge Real World Map with 22 Civs because each turn took over 3 mins to resolve.
4) I have no idea how to resolve this, but I wish there was a 3rd option between Sequential Turns and Simultaneous Turns. In MP, my friend and I always try to raid each other for the smallest advantage (If I have a naval advantage at a specific point in time, it is a waste not to use it trying to damage the other side), but this means almost perpetual war, which really slows down the game in Hybrid Mode. Simultaneous turns is unfair because it suits he who clicks faster and has a less laggy PC, I wish there was a way of making a MP less time consuming. That would allow more 3-way or 4-way games where a balance of power is more likely to be sustainable.
Finally on your specific scenario... Is Diplomatic Victory an option for you? In the only game I have competed on Marathon Huge, I became obscenely rich and just bought myself most city states in the world, so I achieved a Diplomatic Victory in the first meeting of the UN. This seems to be the quickest path to victory if you have the income to support it. I was actually gunning for a Culture Victory for most of the game, and was probably about 30-40 turns away from it when I achieved the Diplo Vic.
2- yes it is and that is why I always go for that great library, followed by libraries in the rest of the cities then a national college. I do end up getting in medieval sooner than anyone if my start up plan falls through, and I get a religion without even having a shrine because I get a great prophet.
3- I went back to an old game with huge, maximum players and city states, that began to take forever because I was on a laptop. It did a lot better on my new computer, but yes it is very annoying for a slow processor.
4- I don't know how they could possibly attempt that. The only thing I could think of is allowing each player to mess around with cities and stuff followed by each player getting to move units and make changes. At least it will make the civ building part go faster.
unfortunately, it is not very achievable. I mentioned that I was getting lots of research agreements and that didn't allow me to maintain a lot of city states. I have 4 atm because of an English coup on one of my city states that they followed up with another coup when I reclaimed it. Would do something about them if not for the Huns, who also took one of my 6 previous city states because they attacked it in the war and had a sub on the coast near the city that stopped me from sending battleship backup.
I do something similar regarding religion. I typically research Theology as my first Medieval tech, and around the time I get there, I finish off the Liberty policies and get a Great Engineer as my free Great Person. I then use that Great Engineer to rush Hagia Sophia, which gets me the free Great Prophet to Found a Religion even though I typically have 0 faith at this point.
typically I think the best thing you could possibly start with are deer. the granary makes a deer city grow extremely quick early on and they have production in it plus an addition production for a camp. though I was in a tundra, all the deer forests around me easily made my starting position great, and I prospered from it.
The impact of a good/bad starting location on this game is huge in MP. In the last game in the sequence I played vs that friend, I had an amazing area of grasslands, rivers, hills and coastline, and with no aggressive AI nearby, so I was free to settle 4 cities unopposed and establish a solid core, and win the important Wonder races in the early game (Great Library, Oracle and Hagia Sophia). My opponent had no chance once he realised he did not spawn nearby. (We used random factions, I got America, he got Huns).
Speaking of Hagia Sophia... I've modified my strategy a little bit. If I win the race for GL, I can also win the race for Oracle, and reach Theology and Liberty x5 much quicker than my opponent. Resources permitting, that means I can win the race for Hagia Sophia without a Great Engineer from Liberty. So, instead of Great Engineer, I get a Great Scientist and build the +8 Science lab or whatever. That's kinda like getting Babylon's civ bonus for any other civ, and gives you an unassailable tech lead.
I wish Civ5 MP was a bit more... user friendly. 1v1v1 would be awesome,