Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AdamH]

Sooo... I've played a few games, I wouldn't say I'm amazing at TTA, but there's something I think I've "discovered" about the game that doesn't seem to be the consensus so maybe some more skilled players here can tell me why I'm wrong? Disclaimer: I really don't play 4P games anymore, they just take too long for me.

Early military: I don't think it's worth it. Let's start with the thing I'm most confident about: the event where you get to build a free warrior. I think that it's only worth doing in edge cases, and most of the time it's actively harmful to you. Sure, if you have Moses or a ton of early food/people it might not be so bad but I just think there are much better things you can do with that person.

The next thing: investing in age 1 military techs (the red ones, not necessarily Warfare/Cartography and the like) and tactics is always a waste. You could be using that science and those people and resources to build up, even if it's just for Age 2 military stuff. I feel like you're stunting yourself at such a high cost by investing in Age 1 military that it can't possibly be worth it. I'm fully aware of aggression cards and events, but aggression is such a small penalty to have played on you, and it costs so much to build up and play and you get so little out of it that it's not worth it, and even the worst Age 1 events don't hurt the weakest player that much. I'd rather be hit by aggression/events once each turn than have my guys locked up in military, and even then most of the time I can draw enough defense cards to not be affected anyways.

Once it gets to Age 2 things change. The Age 2 tactics can provide an actual benefit that's relevant. Getting the full bonus from these can be huge because of Napoleon and Air Forces later, and Age 2 military techs allow you to get the full tactics bonus for every good tactic in the game. In fact, I think that you become even more of a military threat by building up to take advantage of this quickly than you would be if you started building in Age 1. The difference is that you get to wait until Age 2 to see how much you want to invest in it and you get additional flexibility.

It seems important to me to try and draw as many military cards as you can so you can seed events that aren't very harmful to the weaker players. Drawing 3 Age 2 cards each turn you can is also very important so you can get a good tactic and figure out which military techs to take.

I mean, I don't win all of my games, so maybe there's something I'm missing here?

[Watno]

I think the free warrior event is mostly worth it. There aren't many awesome things you can use your workers for in Age I.

I hugely disagree on Age I military techs: Knights are awesome. I really don't see how you can consider getting hit by a successful agression small penalty. The effect of a single negative event might not be that bad, but if you're hit by multiple that really sets you back. And there's quite a lot of events that care about strength, not to mention colonies.
Furthermore, you don't really need Age III tactics usually. So with Knights, you can not only get a significant strength advantage in Age I, but also only need one other military tech to enable lots of awesome Age II tactics you can potentially keep all game.

Drawing military cards is indeed very important, making Caesar and Warfare so awesome.

[Tables]

In my opinion, Age I military is very important.

Firstly you say the events 'don't hurt much' but I disagree. Suppose in an average 4 player game 8 age I events get resolved, and say perhaps 6 of those will be during Age I. I dunno if that's really an accurate figure, but I think it seems reasonable. Even excluding territories for now, 7 events out of 15 care about strength - and naturally, every territory indirectly cares about it as well. So really that's around 13/21 events, or about 2/3rds which care about strength. In a typical game that means if you neglect strength, you're willingly either taking a penalty or giving away a reward around four times.

Secondly is the fact that neglecting military completely leads to a big problem with aggressions. You say those Age I aggresions don't hurt much, well, they still hurt somewhat AND give a reward to the aggressor. Enslave costs you 2-3 food and a CA typically (to get that Pop back), much more if you need to disband. That's around a turn's tempo of pop production lost, as well as a valuable earlygame CA. Raid varies, but at the very least losing a Philosophy is going to set you back 1 CA and 3 resources if you want to rebuild it (and most likely you will), which is around a turn's tempo of resource production, and again also the valuable earlygame CA. That also only costs 1 MA to play, making it doubly dangerous, AND if you've upgraded to Philosophy or other Age I urban buildings, it's even more damaging. Plunder is a little less scary - 3 resources/food is, again, around a turn's tempo lost but you don't lose a CA rebuilding, and it's 2 MA.

You say you often have bonus cards, but this won't always be the case. There are 6 bonus cards in the Age I military deck - the same number of aggressions. In a four player game, if you're weakest, you can't expect to consistently defend yourself this way.

Secondly you don't need to invest a huge amount in Age I to have a 'decent' military. One military tech, one tactics and one-two units in military keeps you up to a decent strength. And of course, these investments stay as a bonus to your strength in Age II and beyond, as well as giving you the techs. You don't need Cavalrymen if you have Knights, or Riflemen if you have Swordsmen, since you can make Age II tactics with those. This also lets you get onto the Age II tactics quicker - you might only need to snatch up one age II military tech to make your tactics, instead of two, and you might be able to make an antiquated unit much more easily (especially the case with e.g. Conquistadors and Classic Army).

I could say more in defence of Age I military but I really need to go out shopping now...

[AdamH]

I agree on Cæsar and Warfare, those are quite good. Drawing military cards is really important regardless of what age you're in.

I remember counting through my IRL set to see all the event cards. I looked through Age 1 events only, and if I remember correctly a little less than half of them even cared about strength. Of those, the worst one I could find was one that made you decrease your population, or one that made you destroy a building. The cost of these things is one civil action and some food/rock, which I see as less than the cost of committing one of your guys to be military.

I don't think I agree with the idea that there aren't awesome things your people can be doing in Age 1. I think Printing Press is pretty good, so are Ag and Bronze...

What you say about Knights (and Swordsmen too I guess) is interesting. There may be a case where it could be worth it to take the tech in Age 1 and see if you draw an Age 2 tactic to go with it, that might save you from having to wait for it in Age 2. Playing it and building it, though, I don't see the benefit of that. Perhaps I should try and take a closer look at Age 2 and Age 3 tactics and see if it's feasible to try using Age 1 Military techs through the end of the game.

-- reads Tables' post --

Perhaps the problem is more exacerbated in 4P games? Maybe it's a function of the people I play with? Most of what you're saying goes against my "feel" of the game. Do you think this same stuff applies in 2P or 3P games?

Some of the Age 2 events are pretty harsh on weaker players, I agree. Seeing Age 2 events come up in the current events is one of the catalysts for making me want to start building military.

Regarding territories, sure if I end up seeding some I will try to get some bonus for colonizing and I'll usually replace my starting Warrior if I know some territories are coming up, and this usually accomplishes my mission. I see that more as an economic investment than a military investment, I guess? Hmm... In a 3P game even if I don't seed any territories I usually end up with one without going out of my way at all. Sometimes I even feel safe playing my defense cards for this purpose.

I've done early military investments before -- usually my attacks are defended and it's very difficult to get them to connect. If I do, I feel like my reward is just not very good. If I'm being attacked, most of the time I'm able to defend, and I find myself asking if it's even worth it to do so, just because I don't care very much about what I'm losing. I can't remember a single time I've ever been hit by an aggression and felt like I was really screwed over by it.

[Jack Rudd]

Printing Press is pretty terrible. The only time I've used it in a recent game is when I've had Leonardo and exactly 3 Science, and needed to find some way out of a research hole.

[Tables]

Perhaps the problem is more exacerbated in 4P games? Maybe it's a function of the people I play with? Most of what you're saying goes against my "feel" of the game. Do you think this same stuff applies in 2P or 3P games?

In 2P thanks to being a zero sum game, military is the single main thing in the game. If you're ahead on military, attacking forces your opponent to either defend, sacrifice units or lose - all three are great things for you, and coupled with the advantages from events from being ahead, strength becomes hugely important. Well, forcing them to use bonus cards isn't quite so good, but it does leave them fewer bonuses for e.g. territories.

Regarding territories, sure if I end up seeding some I will try to get some bonus for colonizing and I'll usually replace my starting Warrior if I know some territories are coming up, and this usually accomplishes my mission. I see that more as an economic investment than a military investment, I guess? Hmm... In a 3P game even if I don't seed any territories I usually end up with one without going out of my way at all. Sometimes I even feel safe playing my defense cards for this purpose.

I think the thing in bold is key. Yes, they're an economic investment, but how do you win them? By military strength. How do you pay? You lose strength. And losing strength when you're already weak, especially if you also pay bonus cards, opens you up to easy aggressions, especially if the territory wasn't won on your turn.

I've done early military investments before -- usually my attacks are defended and it's very difficult to get them to connect. If I do, I feel like my reward is just not very good. If I'm being attacked, most of the time I'm able to defend, and I find myself asking if it's even worth it to do so, just because I don't care very much about what I'm losing. I can't remember a single time I've ever been hit by an aggression and felt like I was really screwed over by it.

For the most part, early military investment isn't primarily about setting up to try and attack, but a means to set yourself up with a solid early strength for events, transitioning into age II, winning territories, and in addition as a means to harass weaker players. A lot of players are actually quite irrational about defending from attacks in age I - for example, against an Enslave, they'll happily sacrifice a Warrior to defend when they have an unused worker - meaning they chose to disband a warrior and lose one pop over losing one pop. They deny the winner 3 resources, but hurt themselves more than that in the process. Similarly for a Raid, sacrificing a Warrior is a 2-3 food, 2 resource, 1 CA and 1 Ma investment, just to avoid losing a total 3 food+resources. These moves are often okay in a 2 player game but rarely in 4 player. Now this might make it seem as though age I military is less worthwhile, but you do severely hurt a player who defends this way - and if you ARE that player, then you're crippling yourself for no reason!

As for being hit and screwed over, that's rare. You'll often be hurt, and set back a bit, and that's what it's about. Early military isn't about trying to take a player out before the game even begins but about setting yourself up for later. The thing with Military is that it doesn't give instant rewards like other investments do, but instead provides you with chances to get things from semi-random events.

[AHoppy]

I'm really liking this discussion because I'm super lost when it comes to military. I would listen to tables.  He likes to screw people up with military

[Thisisnotasmile]

Some of the Age 2 events are pretty harsh on weaker players, I agree. Seeing Age 2 events come up in the current events is one of the catalysts for making me want to start building military.

This part particularly stood out to me, because I play completely the opposite. If I'm weakest and the next event is from age 1 (and I don't have good odds of knowing it's okay), there's no way I'm seeding an event for my political action. If it's an age 2 event I'll play mine anyway. There are just so many more "the weakest player gets hurt" events in age one than there are in age two, and if you do end up getting hit in age two, the likelyhood is that you'll have a stronger economy to build back up then anyway.

[Tables]

Yeah, I agree with TINAS. There's a few really nasty ones in age II but they mostly aren't that bad. Independence Declaration can be horrible, or sometimes barely painful at all. Missing out on Cold War is often costly. Refugees is sometimes unpleasant. I count a total of 11 strength dependent events in age II including territories, out of 20, and they're overall relatively less damaging than the Age I events I'd say.

[AdamH]

OK I'll have to take a closer look at the Age 2 events to see how nasty they are. I mean the worst ones are a lot worse, I'm thinking of independence declaration and one that takes a yellow dot away from the weakest player and gives it to the strongest. In any case I think if Age 2 events are coming up and you don't have a plan for military strength yet then you have bigger problems, right?

So let's say you draw a bunch of events that don't care about military (or aren't a huge deal, like bad territories or something) and you can play them. Now you know that early military isn't very important, right? So would you say it's safer in situations like these to ignore Age 1 military? Maybe if I draw nothing but tactics and aggression cards in Age 1 I should look into building up? Would you say this is closer to "sound strategy"?

Printing Press. Terrible? Really? I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as enough science and Printing Press is the only way you can get more than 4 Science per turn in Age 1 without upgrading to an Age 1 government (which I'm quite sure is pretty terrible). I'd probably still do Printing Press if it didn't give me the extra point per turn.

[Tables]

OK I'll have to take a closer look at the Age 2 events to see how nasty they are. I mean the worst ones are a lot worse, I'm thinking of independence declaration

As the weakest civilisation, Independence declaration will often not even affect you. There's a decent chance you haven't won a territory, and depending on what ones you have won if any, it might not be that bad - losing Wealthy territory (blue tokens) won't hurt much, losing a Historic territory (Happy face) will likely be easily fixed, and if it's your turn, losing a Strategic Territory (2 strength) can be dealt with quickly.

and one that takes a yellow dot away from the weakest player and gives it to the strongest.

That's an age I event.

So let's say you draw a bunch of events that don't care about military (or aren't a huge deal, like bad territories or something) and you can play them. Now you know that early military isn't very important, right? So would you say it's safer in situations like these to ignore Age 1 military? Maybe if I draw nothing but tactics and aggression cards in Age 1 I should look into building up? Would you say this is closer to "sound strategy"?

Hmm... if you draw a lot of non-military stuff from the military deck, then your neighbours are more likely to be drawing aggressions, tactics and strength based events. So I don't really think it works like that necessarily. Conversely if you draw nothing but, THEN I'd consider doing less military wise - you can still only hold on to a very limited number of military cards per turn, so you might only keep one of those useful aggressions. But you would know you've seen and discarded some decent number of them already. It sounds backwards but yeah, that's what I would consider. It would likely depend on leader/wonder/tactics and what's on the card row though.

Printing Press. Terrible? Really? I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as enough science and Printing Press is the only way you can get more than 4 Science per turn in Age 1 without upgrading to an Age 1 government (which I'm quite sure is pretty terrible). I'd probably still do Printing Press if it didn't give me the extra point per turn.

I'd say Printing Press is one of the weakest age I techs. It's ahead of Theocracy, and... uhh... that's probably it. Maybe Monarchy but Monarchy is alright. Now I agree with the sentiment that you can't get enough Science. But in Age I, you start weak - you need to build up food, resources, science, military, a wonder and sometimes happiness. Science is only on facet of what you need, and you can't spend all of your time getting it. Two Alchemies takes up 9 extra resources to build, and takes two population (one starting) to give four science. That's a good amount. To get higher with a Printing Press requires: 1) Spending the three science to develop the tech and 2) Putting an extra worker (likely a somewhat limited resource at this point) into work on science and 3) Spending the four resources to get that one worker there. It's a big cost, and puts you behind on improving all the other aspects of your civilisation.

Probably the only time I'd really consider Printing Press (asides from the Advanced Game at least) is when I miss out on Alchemy and really need to get my science up to 3-4 per turn. But even then, I'd need to know I was doing well on pop before I did it (maybe because of events or Moses making things easier pop wise).

Oh and you can get past 4 science per turn through Wonders (Library of Alexandria is an Age A +1, University Carolinas is an Age I +2, Kutna Hora Silver Mines and Ankor Vat are Age I +1) and Leaders (Aristotle gives an indirect bonus, Confucius can give +1-2, Leonardo gives +1 with Alchemy, Copernicus can give +1 with temples (but he also likes Libraries), and a number of leaders give indirect bonuses like lowering certain tech costs or giving more science from yellow cards), so Printing Press isn't the ONLY way to beat 4/turn.

[AdamH]

So you're telling me that there are more important things than science? Do I really need to re-think my entire life here?

And just to be clear, you're also telling me that if I draw a ton of tactics/aggression cards in Age 1 that that's the most conducive thing to me ignoring early military? Just trying to make sure I understand you correctly.

[Thisisnotasmile]

OK I'll have to take a closer look at the Age 2 events to see how nasty they are. I mean the worst ones are a lot worse, I'm thinking of independence declaration and one that takes a yellow dot away from the weakest player and gives it to the strongest. In any case I think if Age 2 events are coming up and you don't have a plan for military strength yet then you have bigger problems, right?

So let's say you draw a bunch of events that don't care about military (or aren't a huge deal, like bad territories or something) and you can play them. Now you know that early military isn't very important, right? So would you say it's safer in situations like these to ignore Age 1 military? Maybe if I draw nothing but tactics and aggression cards in Age 1 I should look into building up? Would you say this is closer to "sound strategy"?

I think it's pretty irrelevant how many non-strength events you play. Your opponents are still going to be playing the strength events and the fact that you keep playing events means their events are just going to get drawn quicker.

Printing Press. Terrible? Really? I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as enough science and Printing Press is the only way you can get more than 4 Science per turn in Age 1 without upgrading to an Age 1 government (which I'm quite sure is pretty terrible). I'd probably still do Printing Press if it didn't give me the extra point per turn.

Printing Press isn't the worst Age 1 card, but I won't pick it up unless I've missed out on all the Alchemies. 4 Science is plenty each turn in Age 1, but 2 is nowhere near enough. Don't forget there are a number of leaders, wonders, actions and events which can provide Science too.

[Tables]

So you're telling me that there are more important things than science? Do I really need to re-think my entire life here?

And just to be clear, you're also telling me that if I draw a ton of tactics/aggression cards in Age 1 that that's the most conducive thing to me ignoring early military? Just trying to make sure I understand you correctly.

I think point for point, science is the most valuable resource in age I. But would you rather be producing 3 resources and 5 science, or 6 resources and 4 science? I would definitely lean towards the latter.

And well... kinda. If I have to discard lots of aggressions and/or military events then likely I'll build only token military strength, such as a Medieval Army and nothing else. But if I have e.g. Ceaser or Warfare so I can hold on to more stuff, I might well go for a more military route. It's all based on what I can achieve with my military cards versus what I think others could achieve with theirs.

[Sigismundo]

So you're telling me that there are more important things than science? Do I really need to re-think my entire life here?

No, science is the key resource of course (not counting military as a resource).  But due to all the things you need to get done in Age I with a limited amount of resources and population you just can't afford to put that into Printing press generally ever if you are playing against good players.  You will need one happiness tech populated (unless you got HG) and typically around 4 or more military people or else you will start getting pummeled by aggressions and/or events.
4 science is plenty in age 1.  If you need more than that you are probably taking too many techs in general and not enough yellows.

Printing press is terrible due to how the game plays out.  By age 2 you might be able to afford to put someone on Journalism, but even that isn't a given.  It get's much better if you missed alchemy and/or have Newton though.

I'd recommend going through some of the Div 1 league games on BGO some time.  They can be quite a useful tool to go through the logs and read the journals to try and pick up some good info.

EDIT:

Noticed I don't think anyone mentioned this specifically about Age 1 military techs and another reason why they are so huge.  If you grab them it makes it that much easier to swap to any of the better age 2 techs.  Otherwise not only do you have to grab the tech, but you have to hope to get Riflemen and/or cavalry men at a minimum as well as the tactic.  There are less of these in the deck than the age 1 techs.  Skipping them can put you in a whole that you can't recover.  Both Knights and Swordsmen are some of the most important techs.  If you invest heavily in strength Iron becomes much less important.  You can still win games with only 3 bronze workers for the entire game. 

[Tables]

So you're telling me that there are more important things than science? Do I really need to re-think my entire life here?

No, science is the key resource of course (not counting military as a resource).  But due to all the things you need to get done in Age I with a limited amount of resources and population you just can't afford to put that into Printing press generally ever if you are playing against good players.  You will need one happiness tech populated (unless you got HG) and typically around 4 or more military people or else you will start getting pummeled by aggressions and/or events.

4 people in military in age I is about the maximum I could see you reasonably putting on, not the minimum, in a 3-4 player game. Perhaps towards the end of the age 4 would be normal but that takes a while. I also disagree with needing a happiness tech in Age I - I usually get by without one, one guy on Religion or a happiness Wonder (even a one happy face one like Colloseum or Great Wall works) is enough in age I - heck often you can just have a discontent guy and be okay.

Noticed I don't think anyone mentioned this specifically about Age 1 military techs and another reason why they are so huge.  If you grab them it makes it that much easier to swap to any of the better age 2 techs.  Otherwise not only do you have to grab the tech, but you have to hope to get Riflemen and/or cavalry men at a minimum as well as the tactic.  There are less of these in the deck than the age 1 techs.  Skipping them can put you in a whole that you can't recover.  Both Knights and Swordsmen are some of the most important techs.  If you invest heavily in strength Iron becomes much less important.  You can still win games with only 3 bronze workers for the entire game.

I think I mentioned the whole tactics and age II techs thing, but yeah, I think that's a really key part of age I strength. I think Swordsmen is a lot less important though - Knights alone gives you access to all Age I techs and while both is good, it's a much diminished bonus. And while you can win with 3 guys on Bronze, I think it's generally unlikely - you probably want at least a fourth guy on Bronze and maybe even a fifth, if you never get a resource tech.

[Sigismundo]

And while you can win with 3 guys on Bronze, I think it's generally unlikely - you probably want at least a fourth guy on Bronze and maybe even a fifth, if you never get a resource tech.

I think you may need to be pretty good to do this.  But seriously check out games played by "Petri Savola" on BGO.  He basically has dominated D1 consistently in every league (2,3 and 4player), though appears to have stopped in the last few seasons and is playing TM now. 

For a while now I have been not obsessing about Iron and playing around with not grabbing it.  It has been pretty eye opening.  If you can focus more on military and yellow cards you will have plenty of rocks coming in regardless.

This game is so amazingly deep that it keeps surprising me.

[Sigismundo]

4 people in military in age I is about the maximum I could see you reasonably putting on, not the minimum, in a 3-4 player game. Perhaps towards the end of the age 4 would be normal but that takes a while. I also disagree with needing a happiness tech in Age I - I usually get by without one, one guy on Religion or a happiness Wonder (even a one happy face one like Colloseum or Great Wall works) is enough in age I - heck often you can just have a discontent guy and be okay.

I didn't mean you need a tech necessarily, I meant that you need one of your population on a tech.  And hence that you have 1 less population that you can spare for something like a library.  Hopefully Religion pops and you are good to go, but if not you might grab TS and use that.

I think the games you play are a lot less aggressive than the league games if you think 4 military workers is the maximum you will use by the end of Age 1.  If so perhaps you can get away with less than 4.

[Tables]

Well, I think I'm one of the most aggressive players in our group in general, and it's been pretty successful. I'd say 4 guys on military by the end of age I seems probably a little higher than I usually get, but I do reach 3 guys usually and 4 sometimes.

[Sigismundo]

Well, I think I'm one of the most aggressive players in our group in general, and it's been pretty successful. I'd say 4 guys on military by the end of age I seems probably a little higher than I usually get, but I do reach 3 guys usually and 4 sometimes.

That would make sense then if you are the one driving the action and typically have the military lead.  You might not need 3+ and can still do fine.  The other players are not driving you to keep up by keeping lower priority on military themselves.

I would wonder how you would do in these games if you went even harder though.  If people focus too much on infrastructure and you say have 2 Medievil armies or even more you should really be able to put them in a situation that will be hard for them to recover from.

[Tables]

I think the issue is that in 4 player, it's hard to pressure every other player reasonably. There aren't that many aggressions in age I and with one of me beating out three of them, I'm not going to attack much.

In general with military, being the strongest player by a reasonable margin gives you a moderate advantage, but being the sole weakest by by a reasonable margin gives you a huge disadvantage, I'd say.

[AdamH]

OK so I've tried to +1 as many of your posts as possible, I guess what I've never had is a situation where build Age 1 military has worked out for me and what I should do is try and search for it by going for it more often. That plus I think my TTA game has many other shortcomings, but one at a time for now. Thanks for all the feedback. Someone should start a site on BGS for TTA or something... anyone?

[ipofanes]

Someone should start a site on BGS for TTA or something... anyone?

If there only were a councilroom/scorepile for BGO. I have only seen an analysis covering a selection of 100 games.
 

[ipofanes]

I feel I had to start a new game. Vanilla, attacks allowed, four player, name: DStrategy #71, password as always.

[Thisisnotasmile]

71 already exists but /in.