Epic 12: The Fall and Rise of T-hawk's Economy

[T-hawk]

http://www.dos486.com/civ4/epic12/

Not the same game as Civ 3 Epic 12, that's for sure...

[Kylearan]

Hi,

heh, you had similar conclusions about the game and a very similar opening as I had, only that I ignored the iron and rushed with axes instead of swords, probably losing more than you but I didn't mind. I found it very interesting though that my India had expanded to a lot more cities than your India. (That my Inca had more cities was no surprise, as I attacked him much later than you did). Additionally, I had three early religions on my continent (you only one), and Fred was the tech monster in my game, instead of Mansa in yours (well, at least initially). Interesting differences.

Was there a specific reason you didn't move the palace?

I saw the map oddities around Karakorum as well, but I don't mind them much. What the map script produces is not "more realistic" than when a human makes some changes which won't normally occur, so...

I was very surprised too, though, to see only two AIs on our starting continent, and Asoka among them. Definitely not the difficulty of the original Gauntlet, but I enjoyed the game nonetheless, as I don't do these super-early rushes normally.

-Kylearan

[sunrise089]

Great Library in 1240AD????

Other than that - Bravo.

[Sullla]

Your comments notwithstanding, the game went exactly the way I expected it to go. With this setup, I knew that early rushed would dominate the action. It was simply the best strategy to employ; trying to build out of that tundra WOULD have been madness. I talk a lot more about this in my "Comments" feature, so I'll just say here that my goal for this scenario was not to create an impossible-type game. (The comments in the description were deliberately misleading in that regard.) We already had a game like that in Epic Ten, and there was no need to repeat it so soon afterwards. The goal was to make a difficult game, in which finding a path to victory would require boldness and some strategic vision. I'm actually very happy with the way your game played out; it was no cakewalk even after the initial rush completed successfully. I hope that makes sense...

Incidently, I did NOT draw the river by Tiwanaku, or touch it in any way. The map naturally creates non-floodplains desert tiles next to rivers occasionally. (Sirian once explained it, but I can't remember why.) The river by Karakorum was altered slightly, but only because I had to delete the Incan units there (the player's start was the original Incan starting position), and that wipes out the river as well. Aside from the tiny little northern offshoots that go nowhere, the river at Karakorum looks exactly the same as it did originally. You're starting to see things that aren't there.

I did not pick Mansa Musa by hand as an opponent. All the AIs were random for this game. Now, I happened to really like the mix we ended up with, but that was nothing but a nice dice roll there. (I enjoy the fact that everyone thinks things are planned which weren't. )

Thanks for another great report.

[darrelljs]

I think waiting for Swords is almost never the better alternative. Compare how your India was defended vs. what I had to face. Also by declaring early I had more time to get India generating commerce (chopping trees in Delhi to get the Library up ASAP was a must IMHO) before taking on Huyana Capac, which allowed me to avoid economic collapse. All that said, though, you pulled off a rapid recovery with superior mid-game empire management and expert diplomatic machinations. Very nice win indeed .

Darrell

[T-hawk]

heh, you had similar conclusions about the game and a very similar opening as I had, only that I ignored the iron and rushed with axes instead of swords, probably losing more than you but I didn't mind.

I was glad I did go for swords. It didn't take any extra time to start the war with swords instead of axes - I had Iron Working and the iron connected before I was finished building axemen. And a sword stack does need a couple axes, to counter enemy axes. Finally, the stronger swords were more easily able to handle the later cleanup against scattered barbarian and fringe Inca cities, without needing any fresh reinforcements.

I went after the Inca right away with the swords because I was scared of them getting elephants. I did have Ivory, but had no chance of getting Construction any time soon.

Additionally, I had three early religions on my continent (you only one)

I had four - Asoka founded all of the first three religions and Huayna got Confucianism. But only Hinduism ever came into play since the others never spread anywhere, so for practical purposes, yes, there was only one.

Was there a specific reason you didn't move the palace?

Civ 3 thinking. Didn't seem worthwhile, since I planned to skip Bureaucracy and get the Forbidden Palace early. In hindsight, yes, the FP took a long time to build, and moving the Palace (comparatively much cheaper in Civ 4 than Civ 3) would've fixed the economy much sooner along with Bureaucracy in Delhi.

[T-hawk]

Your comments notwithstanding, the game went exactly the way I expected it to go. With this setup, I knew that early rushed would dominate the action.

I need to remember that you're not Sirian. He's long lamented the invariable effectiveness of early aggression, in both Civ 3 and Civ 4. I never expected an RBCiv game geared specifically to rushing, and even felt a bit dirty about having to resort to it.

I'm actually very happy with the way your game played out; it was no cakewalk even after the initial rush completed successfully. I hope that makes sense...

Well, it was easier than the report really conveys. With a land advantage and some trading partners, I was pretty confident in eventually catching up. And I knew exactly what I was doing when driving towards bankruptcy; I could've avoided all that by simply razing a couple more cities instead of keeping them. So it did require a strategic approach, but I did know exactly what approach was required.

Incidently, I did NOT draw the river by Tiwanaku, or touch it in any way. The map naturally creates non-floodplains desert tiles next to rivers occasionally. (Sirian once explained it, but I can't remember why.)

Really? The prosecution withdraws the question, then. Maybe it's something specific to Tilted Axis?

The river by Karakorum was altered slightly, but only because I had to delete the Incan units there (the player's start was the original Incan starting position), and that wipes out the river as well. Aside from the tiny little northern offshoots that go nowhere, the river at Karakorum looks exactly the same as it did originally. You're starting to see things that aren't there.

It's a minor quibble, but I just found it jarring. Every time I looked at that river with those offshoots I was reminded that it was hand-drawn. Even if it covers exactly the same tiles it still looks screwy. The trick in the world builder is that rivers always have a direction - make sure to always click downstream towards the ocean, and you won't get the little offshoots.

(I enjoy the fact that everyone thinks things are planned which weren't. )

Yeah, I got some of that too in the Civ 3 games that I sponsored. Sirian in particular was hilarious about it. In something like three straight games, oil ended up just outside his borders just by chance when I hadn't moved it at all.

[pindicator]

Good report, T-hawk! Taking over the entire starting continent was a prospect I dreaded to do, considering it would mean doing exactly what you pulled off. A very nice game, and I think some very insightful points on how the game turned out in the end.

[darrelljs]

I was glad I did go for swords. It didn't take any extra time to start the war with swords instead of axes - I had Iron Working and the iron connected before I was finished building axemen. And a sword stack does need a couple axes, to counter enemy axes.

If you time it so your first Settler completes near Bronze Working, you can definitely get an Axe stack ready before a Sword stack. I'm willing to believe Swords are more effective (especially if your opponent has no metals as was the case here), but Axes are faster .

Darrell

[T-hawk]

If you time it so your first Settler completes near Bronze Working, you can definitely get an Axe stack ready before a Sword stack. I'm willing to believe Swords are more effective (especially if your opponent has no metals as was the case here), but Axes are faster .

But the timing didn't work that way. With two improved furs tiles at the capital, Iron Working came only about 15 turns after Bronze Working. And I didn't just build axe, axe, axe from the start, I first covered the basics of training a few archers and a second and third worker. That pushed back the military training enough that Iron came online before I was done building axes.

And I wasn't focused on the speed to India or Delhi. I was focused on securing the entire continent (to Cuzco), before the Inca got to Construction for elephants. To rush a couple cities, axemen can be faster, but to demolish two entire civs, I'm convinced swords are the way to go. Axemen are cheap, but they die and require replacement. For extended campaigns, the power of swords means they survive longer and the promotion power snowballs. A CR3 swordsman demolishes anything in the ancient era, and I had more of those than I would've had CR3 axes.

Usually, the chief strike against swordsman rushes is the requirement for Iron. Bronze Working is such a monster tech that you want it early anyway, but Iron Working represents a significant gamble that comes up snake-eyes if you don't have Iron. I got Iron Working expecting to target an enemy city with the resource so I could switch over to swords -- but when it showed up right next to home, it was obvious to go with the stronger unit right from the start.