[Note: this article should really be titled "11 Wildly Popular Addictions To Avoid." My brain was just fried when I posted the first installment, and I couldn't think of a better word than "strategies." Hopefully this will get fixed soon.]

Remember how easy it was in Civ 3 to rely on wonders like the GL or Darwin to provide overpowered benefits at key points in the game? And then you'd jump up a level or two, get beaten to those key wonders, and be totally lost at how to win without them?

If anything, I think Civ 4 has introduced even more potentially addictive behaviors than Civ 3. Not only have the unique benefits of wonders been overhauled by lessening the benefits in some cases and changing the circumstances in which you acquire those benefits in others, but the major benefits that once used to belong solely to wonders have been spread out to include leader traits, civics, and even early tech choices (e.g., forest chopping or founding a religion). This article considers eleven particularly popular tactics that will easily ensure victory at a lower difficulty level, but for which you are likely to get reamed at Monarch or above.

I do not advocate that you abandon these civics/wonders/etc. completely, merely that they be used for reasons other than simply because they've ruled at lower difficulty levels. My point is simply to argue that incorporating any of these parts of the game into your "strategy" will severely limit your capabilities at higher ability levels.

1) The Incas

HC is the perfect leader if you are a newbie or are not sure what type of game/victory you want. Want to do some warmongering? Pick a crowded Pangaea map and enjoy your Aggressive trait and Quechuas. Want to be rolling in commerce and run away with a space race? You're Financial. Want to be a religionmonger and build a shrine to increase the effects of your Financial trait? You start with Mysticism. Given how important terrain and available resources have become, HC will likely turn in a solid performance at a manageable difficulty level no matter what kind of start you are given--just leverage the appropriate strength early and watch yourself pull away at the end.

The higher you go in difficulty level, however, the more HC becomes a jack-of-all-trades-but-king-of-none, similar to the Germans in Civ 3. Warmongering, commercemongering, and religionmongering are three very different things in this game, and the luxury of changing horses in midstream will not follow you as you advance to Monarch and above. Don't expect to be able to take a warlike approach for the first 4000 years, realize that you have no Iron or Horses, then switch to a commerce track and pull off a space race victory. Picking a course early in a higher difficulty game will necessitate your sticking with it, because the AIs are cheating and you will not be able to catch up if you start late.

If you want to warmonger, you might as well play Caesar or Tokugawa; if you want to win the space race, you might as well play Washington or Elizabeth; if you want to religionmonger, you might as well play Izzy. Playing any of these civs is a roll of the dice (Caesar needs to have Iron, and Izzy needs a high commerce start, for example), but so too is HC. It's easy to see a start that begs founding an early religion only to discover that you should have been cranking your military advantage. Ultimately, you can't do both and win. HC is hard to play at higher difficulties.

2) Forest Chop/Fast Expansion

This is one of the few strategies in this article that remains effective to some degree at higher difficulty levels, due to the disproportionate advantage it gives you in the early game. However, I think it is a dangerous strategy to adopt as gospel.

The strategy is predicated on an expansion-oriented early game, as well as limiting one's early tech options (i.e., beeline to BW). An expansion-oriented early game, by definition, is not a military-oriented, commerce-oriented, or religion-oriented early game. If you have a leader that is suited to any of these early game strategies, you are failing to leverage your strengths at the most important time (i.e., when the AI has its biggest advantage and runs the risk of pulling away from you, due to the exponential bonuses that arise from having a lead in this game). You are also limiting the growth of your capital, which according to the map script is almost certainly guaranteed to be an immensely profitable city in some regard.

The new patch (1.52) has given pause to indiscrimate chops, due to the slightly increased health of forests. It is still profitable to rely on chops to make use of otherwise wasted land, and I still always look to leverage an early chop rush if I am in a heavily forested start/choose a civ that begins with Mining. It's also important to focus on expansion if you are on a Pangaea or Continents map with close neighbors. The downsides of choosing this early strategy, however, are still there, and can still spell your doom long before you ever realize that you should have invested your early energy in something other than beelining straight to a Worker and Bronze Working.

3) Founding A Religion

It's pretty tempting to want to found a religion, especially if you've been a fan of the other three editions of the series. After all, this is a completely new dimension of gameplay, which has the potential to create financial stability, cultural supremacy, and make game-long friends. What else could you ask for?

The answer is, a lot, depending on who you're playing as and what kind of start you're given. The increased AI tech speed at higher difficulty levels means that there's not much point in going for an early religion unless you already start with Mysticism. And even then, you're neglecting valuable techs in your first turns that could give you a military advantage or a productive early Worker. Just as commiting to a forest-fueled expansion rush limits your early capabilities, so too does founding a religion prevent you from pursuing potentially more lucrative early game goals. I guarantee if you found one of the early religions on a high difficulty level and happen to be next to Alexander, it will not take long before he completely cripples your ability to win the game, in which case all the potential benefits of having an early religion do you little good.

It also takes considerable effort to manage a religion effectively. Building Monastaries and Missionaries (or running the expensive Organized Religion civic while still spending builds on Missionaries), orchestrating GP production to ensure a Great Prophet to build a Shrine, placating potentially disgruntled neighbors--all of these are costs on top of the early tech commitent that comes with founding a religion. While manageable at lower difficulty levels, it becomes harder and harder to neglect military, production, and commerce the higher you go. Often it's more profitable to build a Barracks and rush several Swords to take a holy city than to create one yourself.

4) The Oracle

Darwin in the Classical era. I've read several posts from players explaining how they've orchestrated their Oracle builds so they get the most expensive tech possible from building it (Civil Service is a favorite). Depending on such a long lag time as well as being able to afford a beeline to such an expensive tech is simply ridiculous at higher difficulty levels.

Even if you have Marble and a high production city to build it in, the Oracle is cheap enough that some Industrious and/or Marble-possessing civ is likely to get to it extremely early. In which case, you are better off focusing on something else, other than gearing your entire production and economy toward gaining one relatively cheap tech.

When should you take a crack at the Oracle? Definitely if you are Industrious. Probably if you have forests to chop. Marble is nice, but taking the time to spit out a Worker and hook it up before you start may close your window. When shouldn't you? If you are on a crowded map or next to an agressive civ (Settlers and military). If the Pyramids are a better build. If you're not going to get that expensive/useful a tech anyway. If your civ/start means that wasting time on Mysticism>Polytheism as one of your first techs is not a good idea. And most importantly, if you can't/don't get started early.

5) Creative Leaders/Stonehenge

Creative leaders have their perks, but I was surprised to see a poll on this site which had Creative leaders the second most popular behind Philosophical. From the perspective of playing at a higher difficulty level, the benefits of Creative are pretty much limited to the early game--i.e., the time when the AI is cheating and ahead of you anyway. It is still good to have on a crowded map, but choosing Creative essentially amounts to using one of your leader traits to not fall as far behind in a certain area, as opposed to one that persists throughout the game and will lead you to victory.

One of the other most-cited reasons for not going Creative is that Stonehenge performs the border expansion for you at half the pace (and a cheap price), while guaranteeing an early Great Prophet and centering you on the map to boot. Of the three early Wonders (Stonehenge, Oracle, Pyramids), I would argue that their benefits are much more closely aligned to the cost of building them (120, 150, 450 on Normal speed respectively) at Monarch or above than on lower difficulty levels. Being able to run Representation early at Monarch (science and happiness will be your two biggest concerns after you've built a military) is far more powerful than getting a cheap tech for free, which is probably slightly more powerful than automatic ten turn border expansion (until Calendar, which you will need far earlier at higher difficulties). You also, once again, need to get on Stonehenge early to get it--you need a Worker, Bronze Working, and Mysticism, and that still might not be enough to stop Gandhi from beating you.

Overall, Stonehenge (as well as the Oracle) are probably overpowered at lower levels--you can get a religion, take your time getting to it as long as you chop, and get the benefits of one or both (as well as an early shrine) with a low risk of falling behind or getting whacked for not having spent your hammers on something better. Meanwhile, the Pyramids do not have as pronounced an effect (though the early Great Engineer is nice) and a prohibitive cost as well--why spend 450 when the 120 or 150 is a better bargain? Up against a cheating AI, however, the value of Stonehenge and the Oracle go down, while the Pyramids become much more attractive. If you plan to go for an early wonder on Monarch, which one you choose becomes a much more nuanced decision.

6) Philosophical Leaders + Parthenon

When I started playing the game, one of the first things I did was go Philosophical, rush to the Parthenon, plop down a bunch of farms, and run away from the Warlord/Noble AI with my GPs. It didn't matter that the Parthenon expired at Chemistry, because I'd already won by then. It wasn't even close.

GPs have considerable diversity if you are able to generate the kinds you want, and have a use no matter what type of victory you are going for. There are a couple things that are going to hinder your ability to produce as many GPs as you did on Noble though, the most important of which is the increased importance of production and commerce. Failing to keep a good military and/or failing to keep up in the tech race is ultimately the cause of losing any game, and choosing to emphasize food/specialists in one or more of your cities ultimately means you are not emphasizing production or commerce there (with the exception of the food bonuses, almost all tiles that are high food can also become high commerce). Engineers, Scientists, and Merchants make up some of the ground, of course, but in some (if not most) cases it will be more efficient to just make your high food city into a high commerce city.

I don't mean to imply that Philosophical civs are less powerful on higher levels--Woundedknight has already shown in his article that a Philosophical civ can excel at the higher difficulties, so it is certainly good enough to help get the job done. But getting the Parthenon is subject to the same pitfalls as the other early wonders, and it can be argued that the Pyramids (for 50 hammers more) encourage the use of specialists just as much, while giving you Representation and highly desirable Engineer points instead of Artist points. Ultimately, I think a Philosophical + Parthenon tactic is not a good one to choose if you are just getting your feet wet at Monarch--it will require a lot more skill to pull off than simply pushing for production and commerce (or the Pyramids).

7) Financial Leaders + Kremlin

There's no way I can argue that going for the Kremlin is a bad idea if you are a Financial civ, if you have high commerce like you should, and if you have the production capacity in one of your cities to beat the AI to it.

There are times when it might not be as good an idea as some other move. Like not having met all three of those conditions. Another strong reason to not go for the Kremlin at Monarch or above would be if you are in a neck-and-neck tech race (as you probably will be). Communism is a dead-end tech, and there are several of military techs to be gained at this point in the game, including most of the modern navy units, Artillery, and Infantry. It's one thing to fall behind a tech or two, and an entirely different thing to fall behind a military tech or two. Communism, of course, is needed eventually (spies), but rushing to it could mean somebody grabs Assembly Line at the same time and renders your military less-than-modern. You will be able to compensate by buying units, of course, but you are still behind in military techs and have to catch up. The Kremlin remains a powerful wonder capable of pushing your civ over the top, but only in the right situation (such as a one or two tech lead).

(reserved)

8) Organized Religion
9) State Property
10) Bureaucracy
11) Three Gorges Dam

1) The Incas

I don't think choosing a particular leader is a strategy, any more than regenerating the map over and over until you get one you like is a strategy. Or just giving yourself extra goodies in the worldbuilder. Strategy is about playing the position you're in, not choosing the position you want to be in.

I don't think choosing a particular leader is a strategy, any more than regenerating the map over and over until you get one you like is a strategy. Or just giving yourself extra goodies in the worldbuilder. Strategy is about playing the position you're in, not choosing the position you want to be in.

I think choosing your leader should be part of your strategy.

The article is really about things you can do in the game--choosing a certain civ or leader trait, or relying on a certain civic--that won't always fly at higher levels yet have the potential to become addictive.

I titled it the way I did because it was late at night and I couldn't think of a more concise way to express the above sentence :)

I agree that HC is a more newbie-friendly than leaders like Asoka or Mao Zedong, however, but I tried HC on Noble on a Continents map and happened to be next to Ghengis Khan. With this war-like neighbor and a Warrior based unique unit that is +100% vs. archers I decided to "rush" the Mongolians capital with its presence of archers.
The city was located on floodplains with a river on three sides so I attacked the archers with my Quechuas on the city's unprotected side (now +125% vs archers from Cover) and after about ten sieges one after another I still could not take out the city's two fortified archers.
Although this is just one anecdote from one particular player who is relatively new to Civ 4 but not the series, I proceeded to get raped by the Mongolian Chariots soon after this failed siege and realized that one should not entirely rely on an UU regardless of its specific traits and that the best approach to combat in Civ 4 is unit mix and variety, rather than sheer numbers.
Thanks for a great post that really provokes thought.

I don't think that any of those strategies need to be avoided if you know what you're doing. You just need to prioritize a little more on the higher levels but you can still use them. For example, you could found a religion to keep people happy while you concentrate on military build up because Alexander is picking on you.

In fact, founding a religion on the higher difficulty levels is almost necessary because of the happy face it provides in each city that contains your religion.

All of the things you mentioned are part of the game, so why can't you use/do them?

What's your problem with Bureaucracy?

I don't even see the point of this thread because all of these things are just parts of the game, not even strategies.

I don't think that any of those strategies need to be avoided if you know what you're doing.

Your first quote is exactly the point: my intent is not to suggest that you shouldn't use these civics/wonders/etc, merely to advocate their prudent use. And I would argue that gearing your gameplay toward acquiring these "parts of the game" for no reason other than thinking they're great amounts to a (mediocre) strategy.

When I finish this article later I will edit it to more accurately reflect this.

...gearing your gameplay toward acquiring these "parts of the game" for no reason other than thinking they're great amounts to a (mediocre) strategy.

This is something that all good CivIII players learn not to do.

I'm pretty sure that ndthsmdy is just saying that you shouldn't rely too much on certain aspects of the game, else you cripple your ability to play well and adapt. However, I think this is true for almost ANY aspect of the game. Lean too far in one direction, and you neglect the other at your own risk.

I think this is a good article (rest to come as of yet) because I understand what he means by it. As a Civ 4 newbie (got in for Christmas), I already know not to forest chop like mad (forests are also pretty nifty later on), and building the Oracle to get an otherwise expensive tech isn't really worth it all up.

Stonehenge is great AFAIK, so it'll be interesting to know a downside to it.

an interesting point, for sure.
if the above (can be) bad, what is considered good?

Stonehenge is great AFAIK, so it'll be interesting to know a downside to it.

One problem with Stonehenge is the same problem with any other Wonder - they're expensive. A very good argument could be made that using those hammers to produce a settler and a couple of units puts you in a better position in the long run.

(Check out the great CivIII article on beating the Wonder addiction. The details have changed but the general concepts holds.)

In the Civ3 War Academy there is an article called The Four Rules to Wonder Addiction (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/wonder_addiction.php). It is a guide designed to help players that have (or may) become addicted to certain wonders or wonder strategies (like ToE->Hoover). The article makes it clear that it is not so much that these wonders/wonder strategies are bad, its just that players sometimes think that they are good enough to warrant getting every game. Obviously, no wonder is good enough to warrant getting every game.

I think ndthsmdy is trying to do here is establish a similar article for Civ4. He isn't saying that these strategies / wonders / whatever are bad, hes just encouraging people to remember that they are not the be all-end all of the game.

First post btw - long time lurker though.

In the Civ3 War Academy there is an article called The Four Rules to Wonder Addiction (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/wonder_addiction.php). It is a guide designed to help players that have (or may) become addicted to certain wonders or wonder strategies (like ToE->Hoover). The article makes it clear that it is not so much that these wonders/wonder strategies are bad, its just that players sometimes think that they are good enough to warrant getting every game. Obviously, no wonder is good enough to warrant getting every game.

I think ndthsmdy is trying to do here is establish a similar article for Civ4. He isn't saying that these strategies / wonders / whatever are bad, hes just encouraging people to remember that they are not the be all-end all of the game.

First post btw - long time lurker though.

Yeah, the Wonder Addiction article is my favorite article by Ision. Unfortunetely, I don't think Ision comes here anymore to share his wisdom.

What I'm saying about this article is that none of these strategies, since most work to some degree, need to be avoided completely. I know that if you rely on one strategy, you are only going to know how to play the game when you get a start/leader that corresponds with that strategy.

One problem with Stonehenge is the same problem with any other Wonder - they're expensive. A very good argument could be made that using those hammers to produce a settler and a couple of units puts you in a better position in the long run.

(Check out the great CivIII article on beating the Wonder addiction. The details have changed but the general concepts holds.)

Actually, both Stonehenge and The Oracle don't share that problem. They're extremely cheap and the AI usually doesn't bother building Stonehenge. I had a few games where I decided not to get Stonehenge early on Noble and still got it anyway in the end. They both barely cost more than a settler and actually cost a lot less if you have the appropriate resource.

Stonehenge doesn't seem to have a downside. It is cheap, gives great border expansion and culture in all cities, and it lets you know how you face up in the world. It's seems to be always worth a shot.

Good thread, ndthsmdy.

I tend to stay away from wonders myself, unless they do not become obsolete. If I'm far enough ahead where I can beat a civ to a wonder and get a good use out of it before it becomes obsolete, then I probably don't need the wonder anyway. I could've used those hammers elsewhere. To me a wonder is only worth it if it has usefulness forever. That's coming from someone who usually plays conquest only, though.

Stonehenge doesn't seem to have a downside. It is cheap, gives great border expansion and culture in all cities, and it lets you know how you face up in the world. It's seems to be always worth a shot.


In my first few games, I couldn't understand why you would ever consider passing on Stonehenge.

Now, it's not so much that I think it's "bad," I jut don't think it's always the best option. You either have to take a break from your other production really early (at the most critical point in the game), or by the time you finish it it's not long off from being obsolete. It's pretty much always the first wonder to go obsolete, and when it does, you're left with a big, useless set of rocks.

Centering the map can be useful, but rarely do I find it has much of an impact before I pick up calendar anyway. On an islands map, for instance, it will probably come in pretty handy as you're building early galleys and such. On most other maps, you're exploration tends to be limited to one landmass anyway; it doesn't matter at that stage where that landmass is in relation to everything else.

It does, of course, have it's uses. If you're going for a cultural victory, for instance, it lets you stockpile a hefty amount of culture in the city that builds it. The 100 or so culture (tops) you'll pile up in your other cities is pretty useless, but Stonehenge itself will continue to provide a significant culture boost throughout the game to the city that built it. And compounded over all those turns (since it comes so early), that's nothing to shake a stick at.

One reason to pass on Stonehenge is to use the hammers to build the Pyramids instead, and then install the Representative gov't for happiness and science output... Especially if you are a creative civ and your borders are already expanding w/o Stonehenge.

I wonder why he dislikes State Property? I don't what's wrong with state property. Stonehenge is decent as long as you aren't Creative, so I can see why he has that.

Many of these strategies he mentions can breed dependence. E.G. if you become addicted to the free culture, you'll never learn how to play a non-creative leader effectively in situations where you're better off not rushing stonehenge.

(Such as in a fast land grab, making the settler instead could mean one more city site! And not spending all that time researching mysticism/masonry could mean that you had time to research hunting/archery, thus deterring Genghis Khan from declaring war on you!)

I don't think its that he "dislikes" anything listed so much as this is a caution not to become dependant on certain strategies. He's outlining why things that some people do over and over can actually be detremental in certain situations. Some will limit what you can do at certain time periods (like going for Stonhenge instead of making a settler/military units) and others could limit your ability to play on higher difficulty levels (like always playing HC and relying on his traits to get you through).

The idea here isn't to say that any of these strategies are bad - they all are useful and should be used in certain instinces - just that to become completely reliant on any one or more of these will likely limit you in some way

Most of what I would have said has already been said to some degree.

I did in fact consciously conceive of this article as an update of Ision's Wonder Addiction article. One of the things that has intrigued me about 4 is how potentially addictive behaviors have spread to other facets of the game.

If this article sounds obvious, I would argue that as our understanding of the game improves there will be fewer and fewer articles (Arathorn's dissection of combat mechanics comes to mind) that will be useful to everyone. This article is targeted to an audience that considers one or more of these aspects highly desirable in almost all cases. If the points made seem obvious or beneath close examination, then you don't have to waste your time on it--in fact, more power to you, since you are already a good enough player to avoid these pitfalls.

I'm sorry I have not finished this up and hope to do so in the next 24 hrs.

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote so far. The only exception I took was in regards to The Oracle.

Not that I think The Oracle is a must-have wonder; just that I don't think orchestrating your research for the big payoff is necessarily ridiculous at higher difficulties. It's a much bigger risk, for sure, but it can also have a much bigger impact. Getting to Civil Service before the AI on Noble can be handy, but doing it on Deity can be a game saver.

But, as you noted, the huge lag in some other area of research is going to cost you. So if you set your whole game up to do it without analyzing whether or not (according to your starting position, available commerce/production, neighbors' disposition, etc.) its actually possible, it can also be a game wrecker.

Anyway, looking forward to the next installments. =)

The main problem with stonehenge is that calendar obsoletes it. And there are usually plantation resources all over the place, so calendar is nice to have ASAP. If I play a non-creative civ, I'll count on spreading a religion as a source of culture. But on the other side, someone mentioned that sometimes its better not to build stonehenge even for a non-creative culture when grabbing land, but if your city isn't producing any culture, it wont be nearly as effective a land grab. I find the best strategy for grabbing land is to place cities at natural boundaries so that when their cultural borders expand, they'll prevent enemy settlers from crossing your closed borders. That strategy would be much less effective without some early source of culture.

If I'm going after a religion anyway, I'll make an effort to go after oracle. Its very cheap to build. Metal casting is a fairly expensive early tech, worth unlocking with oracle, but without so many prereqs that the AI will build oracle before you're ready. Its also not too much of a stretch from priesthood to get to the point where you have theology opened up for research, which is a fairly expensive mid game tech but with low tech requirements. While the oracle isn't essential, its a nice leg up in the tech race. I'll admit that in a recent game another civ built it when I had 1 turn left to go, and I cheated by loading an old saved game and boosting commerce production. If you're not going after religions though, oracle has too many prereqs to pursue.

The Kremlin and Three Gorges Dam are definitely important (I build the Kremlin early, so by the time I research plastic, I can rush build Three Gorges). If you're comparable in tech the AI usually wont prioritize these enough to get them first. Taj Mahal is also a nice boost.

I think one of the most important strategies to avoid that you're inadvertently encouraging is having no strategy. You can't just meander around, you need to do something with your first 20 turns. Often it's forest chops, often it's wonder rush, but sometimes it's not.


There are a number of reasons to not build stonehene, imo.

1) Civ is already creative.
2) You already plan on building libraries/temples/whatevers in every city and have the military to handle the slower border expansion.
3) A large number of your happiness resources require calendar.
4) You found a religion and are planning to capitalize w/ missionaries.
5) Shield-poor start.
6) Military-style strategy is superior.
7) Lonely start.

These are obviously weighed against the advantages of building stonehenge, for the culture, GP, and often just the opportunity.

The main problem with stonehenge is that calendar obsoletes it.

Which is still after you've popped a Great Prophet and built a shrine. All that for a couple of quick chops. It could go obsolete with Mathematics, and I'd still be happy.

Which is still after you've popped a Great Prophet and built a shrine. All that for a couple of quick chops. It could go obsolete with Mathematics, and I'd still be happy.

It's not like the choice is not to do the chops. The choice is to spend the resources on something else: a settler, a different wonder, more research (in various ways), more units. How many cities do you expect to build before Calendar? At reasonably high difficulty levels, it's just not all that many, and a few obilisks are going to be even cheaper than Stonehenge. And some of them may have no particular use for obilisks anyway (e.g., they are going to build libraries or temples instead).

Indeed, I think I'd usually rather have an extra 120 beakers than have Stonehenge. So building 95% of Stonehenge, and then waiting for someone else to build it so that your production is converted into gold (which then you convert into beakers by raising your research rate) is, in my view, usually going to be better than finishing the wonder.

ndthsmdy: I can't wait to see your thoughts on State Property. I personally feel it (like Stonehenge) is highly overrated although I can't really justify it...

Impressions:
1. By the time State Property would highly benefit my empire (Monarch level) I had almost won the game via domination.
2. S.P. gives the illusion that you're doing more research by letting you increase your research rate. However, Representaion+Mercantilism or even Free Market by itself...
3. Placing the Forbidden Palace and/or Versailles properly or relocating the capital, lessens the need for State Property. Said overrated civic just becomes a "cheap and easy way out" for people who do not feel the need to learn the proper placement of the Forbidden Palace.

Another downside to Stonehenge and Oracle (to me) is that you are gaining Great Prophet points which may be better allocated to getting that early Great Scientist. Academy > Shrine any day. Plus building a shrine ensures getting more Great Prophets in the future...

Sometimes if I ever get a prophet I just have to get the priest super specialist for +5 cpt without needing to do the missionary-building crap. +2 hammers a turn never hurts too.

darn, i was hoping that you would list the statue of liberty somewhere. i need help breaking that addiction...

Interesting to see that poprushing is not on the list. The OP must think that one is always good...

Also, I don't see anything difficult about getting the Oracle on Monarch level, nor even being in a position to grab a good tech from it. It won't always work, but then no-one has posted a strategy that always works. Playstyle has a lot to do with it too. Two players can take the same start, and the same strategy, and one player can make it work and the other can screw it up.

If the OP is making the point that there are many ways to play this thing, and there is no 'always right' solution, then yes, of course. Terrible thread title, though - it suggests that all these approaches suck, rather than just being options.

I actually agree with a lot of what the OP said so far, even if I have fallen into some of the bad habits listed. I am surprised that the Romans aren't on that list though. Over a period of abouit 5 games I only used them, and got far too used to having Praetorians that didn't have to worry about anything except axemen until the AI got longbowmen. Then I tried playing as a different civ on emperor and ended up moving back down to Monarch to learn how to play without such an overpowering early UU:blush:

Anyway, I'm looking forward to see what bad habits the Kremlin can get you into...

Anyway, I'm looking forward to see what bad habits the Kremlin can get you into...

Well, like relying on too much nearly-free stuff, basically!

I haven't been posting on this site long enough to know all the ins and outs--is there a way to change the title of this thread to "11 Wildly Popular Addictions To Avoid" or do I have to ask a mod to do it?

New additions forthcoming in a bit.

I haven't been posting on this site long enough to know all the ins and outs--is there a way to change the title of this thread to "11 Wildly Popular Addictions To Avoid" or do I have to ask a mod to do it?

New additions forthcoming in a bit.

No, you can't change the title of a thread. A mod might be able to, but I'm not sure.

Thread title is OK, but I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion about the thread title so...

As for the Kremlin, it's great, but only indispensable if it's part of your gameplan for the map you were playing on. To be specific, if you were doing the cottage spam and PLANNING to buy hordes of armies using the Kremlin ONLY then it will hurt a lot if an someone builds the Kremlin ahead of you. Then you will have to fall back to your backup plan OR buy 1/2 the armies you could've bought if you had the Kremlin. But if you were cottage spamming anyway, you should still be in the tech lead and be able to do something to remedy the lack of Kremlin.

In general, if a wonder is part of "A Strategy", or "Your Strategy", there should always be a backup plan if the wonder race is lost.

ndthsmdy: Wow, this article has really taken a turn in the last addition. It seems you've caved to public pressure; not only have you lost your bite, but you're barely arguing anymore! I didn't agree with everything you said in your first post, but at least it made me think about (and change) my strategy as I move into the higher levels. Now you're flimsy, agreeable, and a waste of time.

This has gone from one of the best "editorial" articles (that is, not dealing with graphs and charts) on this forum, to being a wet noodle.

1) The Incas

You correctly note that for early conquests, the Romans are superior.
However, the fact that the Quecha is not an uber-conqueror does not
make it useless. In fact, I generally view it as a DEFENSIVE unit.

The correct usage of the Quecha, I think, is to allow you to skip both
Hunting and Archery for a long time, letting you concentrate on other
more important technologies. Mysticism makes founding a religion
practical even at Emperor; a religion + Financial + shrine makes HC a fairly
good commerce leader even at high levels.

How do Quechas fare against an axeman rush?

How do Quechas fare against an axeman rush?

As well as anything else. Do you think researching two additional
technologies to get archers is any better? Whether you succumb to
an axeman rush or not has more to do with whether you're able to get
a good industrial base up quickly, or not. And that's easier to do if you
can fend off barbarians with quechas instead of having to research Archery.

Face it, if you can skip hunting and archery, it is more likely that other
players will be worrying about YOUR axeman rush, instead of you worrying
about theirs.

Well, archers do get that big city defense. Good point about your own axe rush, though.

I'm surprised that this addictive strategy was left out:

Choosing JC, research Iron Working asap, start creating Praetorians and dominate, dominate, dominate! I have tried this strategy several times on Noble with incredible success. I'm not sure how limiting this strategy is on higher levels though. The biggest weakness I've found to this is that without Iron, this strategy simply doesn't work.

I'm surprised that this addictive strategy was left out:

Choosing JC, research Iron Working asap, start creating Praetorians and dominate, dominate, dominate! I have tried this strategy several times on Noble with incredible success. I'm not sure how limiting this strategy is on higher levels though. The biggest weakness I've found to this is that without Iron, this strategy simply doesn't work.

It's fairly effective, even on Emperor. The Praetorian is simply that good.

ndthsmdy: Wow, this article has really taken a turn in the last addition. It seems you've caved to public pressure; not only have you lost your bite, but you're barely arguing anymore! I didn't agree with everything you said in your first post, but at least it made me think about (and change) my strategy as I move into the higher levels. Now you're flimsy, agreeable, and a waste of time.

This has gone from one of the best "editorial" articles (that is, not dealing with graphs and charts) on this forum, to being a wet noodle.

Well, maybe so. I would prefer to be integrative and incorporate good points that others have made to make the article better, but it gets harder to communicate the bite when I do that.

I don't think it's a matter of caving though--I just don't take anybody's (mine or somebody else's) opinions about this game that seriously. Ultimately, the vast majority doesn't understand this game yet and I'm in that category. I just have enough experience at Monarch and have read enough posts that I was pretty sure there were some people who were going to get their butts handed to them when they jumped up.

People are still dissecting their strategies though, and almost everyone who's tried to defend the uber-importance of one of these addictions has gotten several equally (if not more) valid counterarguments in reply. So I don't think this is a waste of time.

I'm surprised that this addictive strategy was left out:

Choosing JC, research Iron Working asap, start creating Praetorians and dominate, dominate, dominate! I have tried this strategy several times on Noble with incredible success. I'm not sure how limiting this strategy is on higher levels though. The biggest weakness I've found to this is that without Iron, this strategy simply doesn't work.

If you look at the Hall of Fame, that's what I understand Billator does to win on Immortal and Deity...

I think choosing your leader should be part of your strategy.

What if I pick "Random"? Does that mean I will not have a strategy for that game? ;)

IMO the Oracle is vital to a win on Monarch level. You simply cannot afford to fall too far behind on the tech tree. I research writing while building it. I choose code of laws as my free tech. I now have 2 established religions (Gandhi). I build monastaries in every city for the research boost. This always closes the the tech gap. I can trade code of laws for several lesser techs as well.

Originally Posted by Zombie69
I think choosing your leader should be part of your strategy.


What if I pick "Random"? Does that mean I will not have a strategy for that game?
__________________


I think it is a fun challenge to pick "random", then adopt the best strategy based on the assigned leader, your starting position, and surrounding terrain. It forces me to try to master a number of different strategies and win by a variety of means.

I think it is a fun challenge to pick "random", then adopt the best strategy based on the assigned leader, your starting position, and surrounding terrain. It forces me to try to master a number of different strategies and win by a variety of means.

I agree Bubba....I try to pick Random for all the settings available in Custom Game; however, I wish there was a random option for map type as well (IE: Continents, Great Plains, etc...).

I play regularly on Emperor/Immortal difficulty and I have to say from reading the SG articles that lots of people could benefit from reading ndthsmdy's article. Especially the religion-founding part. WAY overrated. Founding a religion on Immortal can get you killed.

State Property depends on the map, but I still say its in for a tweak in the next patch, if for no other reason than its historical inaccuracy (ask the tens of millions who starved in the collectivization purges how much food workshops should produce!)

:rolleyes:

...however, I wish there was a random option for map type as well (IE: Continents, Great Plains, etc...).

There is, but you need a mod to give you an option. Look in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3549525#post3549525)

IMO the Oracle is vital to a win on Monarch level.

I can assure you it's not. Just research other, better techs instead of going through the religious techs that you otherwise don't need/can trade for, and you'll find that the extra tech you get with Oracle won't put you that much ahead.

IMO the Oracle is vital to a win on Monarch level.

Wonder addiction is already a huge problem on these forums, we don't need you spreading it. Treating any wonder as "vital" to your victory handicaps you as a player. On Monarch out-teching the AI just takes two or three cottages in each city (yes, without Financial). The hammers are much better spent taking a few cities from the AI and giving yourself more room to expand.

ndthsmdy: Thank you for the polite reply. Let me remind you, that the title of the article is "11 Wildly Popular Strategies To Aviod". If you are going to change gears in such a way, perhaps you should rename it "11 Wildly Popular Strategies To Aviod, Unless, Um, Well Maybe They Work in Some Situations But Not All of Them, Uh, Well Actually, Yeah, You're Right They're Great Strategies."

This is a pretty good article ndtsmitty. Ijust graduated from noble to prince... and the mainstay strategies i used on noble simply do not always work like they did on noble. All the strategies you have listed will almost always work on noble. But on higher levels like you said they do not. What is the only strategy that will always work?
The ability to adapt to roadblocks that the ai is sure to throw your way.
When a player learns to adapt to any situation then he is sure to come out ahead. And you are right, to focus on one or two strategies every game is bound to come back and bite you. What happens when you dont get oracle and the ai beats you to it? Do you whine and restart? NO way man... you ADAPT reconfigure and kick the tar outta the little Bast@!#$ that beat you to it, or what have you. If you can't adapt to situations then go back to playing noble and winning all the time. :sad:
Once again... good article

I'm curious about State Property. I find that even when I expect State Property to be useless (ie FP and Versailles at opposite ends of the empire and Courthouses in every city) it still works wonders when I switch. I can set research high or I can set it low and rake in tons of cash to rush build the latest and greatest units for an offensive (demand a tech for peace and the rush practically pays for itself). Of course, this requires universal suffrage....

IMO the Oracle is vital to a win on Monarch level. You simply cannot afford to fall too far behind on the tech tree. I research writing while building it. I choose code of laws as my free tech. I now have 2 established religions (Gandhi). I build monastaries in every city for the research boost. This always closes the the tech gap. I can trade code of laws for several lesser techs as well.

Sounds like a touch of wonder addiction

I have chalked up 5 out of 5 wins on monarch level and I have never built the Oracle ever. I have also found myself 3 techs behind at times. No problem, I have still won and led on tech, commerce, production, military and points at the end of the game. It is simply wrong to say that any one tactic is essential to avoid a loss. That's what makes this game good IMO.

For example;
After warring on Alexander for a while he eventually sued for peace giving me 5 techs and a pot of gold to help ensure a lasting peace. Brute force and moderate research investment can still result in a tech lead. There are many paths to victory

ndthsmdy If you want the title of your thread changed, you just need to send a PM to one of the admins asking them to do it for you.

Hope you finish your article soon - it is good reading.

I'm curious about State Property. I find that even when I expect State Property to be useless (ie FP and Versailles at opposite ends of the empire and Courthouses in every city) it still works wonders when I switch. I can set research high or I can set it low and rake in tons of cash to rush build the latest and greatest units for an offensive (demand a tech for peace and the rush practically pays for itself). Of course, this requires universal suffrage....

State Property is a "no upkeep" civic, that's why. IMO, the "no upkeep" is far more important than eliminating the distance penalties. Even more so, now that v1.52 has increased the civic costs.

Increased food for workshops & watermills is an added bonus. Not critical, but nice to have. Food is power, comrade!

I very much enjoy starting each game as random as I can. I have restarted a game just because I got Roosevelt and I already played one as Roosevelt. I like having a random map size and not knowing how big the world actually is or how many other civilizations I will encounter; I think it is much more realistic this way. On one map I suddenly find it is a tiny world with only one other civilization: time for a new strategy. On another map I find that the world is vast and I need to watch much more carefully for barbarians: time for a new strategy.

I want to be forced to try new strategies, so I agreed with the original post to not get addicted to any particular leader or strategy.

"IMO the Oracle is vital to a win on Monarch level. You simply cannot afford to fall too far behind on the tech tree. I research writing while building it. I choose code of laws as my free tech. I now have 2 established religions (Gandhi). I build monastaries in every city for the research boost. This always closes the the tech gap. I can trade code of laws for several lesser techs as well."

Perhaps if you hadn't blown all those resources building the Oracle and chasing religions you wouldn't suffer a tech gap in the first place... :rolleyes:

This is a great article, ndthsmdy:goodjob: , if anything, for pointing out that every strategy has a flaw/trade-off. I especially like the part about the chop-rushing settlers. Chop-rushing like mad can work well on prince, but on monarch it's a different story. I found myself chopping out too many settlers and neglecting development in my monarch games. As a result, I was always hopelessly behind in tech.

It can't be stressed enough that Civ 4 emphasizes quality over quantity. 50 turns into the game, you can either have a bunch of chop-rushed , size 2 cities, or you can have half as many that are twice as big. That's the same total population points but the economies are completely different. Instead of having sacrificed growth for settlers, the capital could be near its happiness cap and have:
- The Palace +8C (easy to neglect this one)
- A library (+25% science)
- A monastery (+10% science)
- Halfway or more to an great scientist, which can make an academy (+50% science). Virtually a freebie.
Now that's a lot research.

Other benefits of reduced chop-rushing include:
1) Cottages get an earlier start because workers have more time to build them.
2) Health benefits from the forests.
3) Lumbermills later in the game are fanatastic.

I avoid chop rushing early in the game as I found it one of the best ways to rush wonders or buildings under organized religion. (I know there was a mention of the disadvantages to this in this thread:p but that's my own self-confessed addiction), but why get the bare minimum out of a tile already producing at least some hammers, when you can use it for those wonders that you deem important later on. Very useful if you're Industrious too!

Oh, BTW thanks for this thread, it's given me a lot to think about as I move up in difficulty.

I avoid chop rushing early in the game as I found it one of the best ways to rush wonders or buildings under organized religion. (I know there was a mention of the disadvantages to this in this thread:p but that's my own self-confessed addiction), but why get the bare minimum out of a tile already producing at least some hammers, when you can use it for those wonders that you deem important later on. Very useful if you're Industrious too!

Agreed, if you're Industious and building the Pyramids for example and you're hooked up to Stone with a quarry then the chopped forests are worth vastly more.

A modest defense of chop-rushing settlers:
1. As has been true since Civ 1, a strong starting lead in prodcution & territory can almost never be overcome by the AI. The first 50 turns are the most vital of the game; the choice is whether you have 3 cities of two or one city of 4. I'll take the 3 cities of 2 any day.
2. Unless your lucky enough to have copper, stone, and another vital strategic resource near your capital, you're going to want to connect to these ASAP. Chop-rushing a limited number of workers and settlers is the most effective way to do this at the start of the game.
3. Everything has it's limits. I like to leave 4-5 forest squares in my capital city radius for health, etc.... and generally avoid mass deforestation.
4. This strategy, and any strategy is strongly dependant on map type, leader style, etc. I never play the same leader twice in a row and almost never the same map size/style twice in a row just so I'm having to constantly learn new strategies.

It has been conclusively proven in the many strategy threads on chop-rushing will give you a stronger start than almost any other method.

If anyone wants to write a strategy thread on acheiving consistent monarch+ wins with no chop rushing in the beginning, I would be happy to read them!

A modest defense of chop-rushing settlers:
1. As has been true since Civ 1, a strong starting lead in prodcution & territory can almost never be overcome by the AI.


Played a space race against Mansa Musa yet?

Alcatraz: Barruk is right in saying that a lead in territory gives you an advantage for the rest of the game and, truly, can almost never be overcome by the AI as long as you maintain it. There are exceptions but as a general rule, it's true. I can attest to it on at least emperor, and probably immortal too although this level hasn't been fully tested yet.

See the following threads for proof:

One (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=155446)
Two (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=156299)

Played a space race against Mansa Musa yet?

Yes, on Monarch. Won Space Race with Caesar and with Qin. Mansa is tough and I have not progressed to Emporer yet, but on Emp I think he would kick my ass.

I also nailed him with a cultural victory on noble.

Mansa is a tough opponent though !!!

My point was that Mansa is capable of beating you even from a significant disadvantage in land mass and population. He's not a difficult opponent if you agressively block his growth and/or take him down early, but if he's still a viable civ in the later stages of the game, your early size lead is going to go down the drain.

Misunderstood - apologies.

In my last game against him an Monarch he had a quality, well defended civ in the later stages of the game. I kept a close eye on his progress with a spy but I still beat him comfortably to the Space Race. My main advantage was owning a huge territory that I took from first Alexander and then Washington.
Though Mansa was still pretty strong my civ was an unstoppable juganaut by the late game. Additionally Mansa was lacking aluminium, a vital resource for SR victory

My point was that Mansa is capable of beating you even from a significant disadvantage in land mass and population. He's not a difficult opponent if you agressively block his growth and/or take him down early, but if he's still a viable civ in the later stages of the game, your early size lead is going to go down the drain.

As my previous post and its corresponding links demonstrate, this is completely wrong.

sorry, dupe.

For practice with land-grabbing, I've been playing a terra map, monarch, normal speed, 7 civs, where at some points, besides chopping out settlers, I chopped out a barracks, some archers, and even a library or two in the border cities just so I could get some immediate culture going and room to breath.

I didn't have any iron but I had horses and bronze so I chopped a few horse archers and took one of Ceasar's cities before he had a chance to build praetorians. Then I beelined to construction and took a couple more of Ceasar's cities with cats and axemen and picked up his iron mine. But by then none of these were chopped. Luis declared on me and failed an attack so I turned around and took one of his cities, switched to his religion, and now we're pals. I boxed Mansa in and he's half my size but ahead in tech as usual.

Now am in the lead with land area - larger than Elizabeth who's #1 overall and has been quietly developing on the sidelines. Half her cities are coastal - luckily someone beat her to the Colossus - and it looks like she's getting ready to colonize the new continent...

Anyway, chopping isn't a good or bad strategy. It depends on your terrain. If your land is half forest and you have 5 neighbors, chop like mad and expand. Still, in the short-term, e.g., during a war, I'd rather be the one who has a few size 4 cities than twice as many size 2 cities - they're working the same number of tiles but produce more quickly, cost less to maintain, and are easier to defend. Then I'd leverage that advantage to take a couple of those smaller cities :)

This is on monarch, which is still a struggle for me more often than not.

Goraemon I checked out the REX pages - interesting - especially the second one with the roman saved game. How many units did you go through to get there?

Since there's been a bit of talk about the pros and cons of Stonehenge, I thought I'd chip in with a personal experience from a recent game. If you intend to go the religious route, Stonehenge could still serve you well despite having the religion for your borderexpansions. My problem was that even though I founded three religions (hinduism, judaism and taoism), I didn't have a Great Prophet untill 1000-something AD. Having built a few other wonders meant my Great People were all different sorts, and I didn't get the gold boost I had been counting on from the Shrines until very late in the game.

Being Financial on an Islands map, I had plenty of commerce that allowed me to compensate and switch gears midgame, but on a different map it would have been a crippling setback. An Academy doesn't work nearly as well when you are forced to run 20% science.

Oh, and thus came my first post on the forum. Yay.

Heh. I am also anxious to see a strat for Emperor/Inmortal, which would not include chop rushing first workers/settlers. The quality vs quantity isn't an issue, since if you have no early luxury resources, you are stuck to cities of size 3 until Monarchy. Or until you chop down the Pyramids and switch to Representation for +3 happy.

So the choice is real simple: either you limit to 1 or two cities of size 3 (capital is 4), or you expand enough to get 4 or 5 cities, working cottages exclusively, otherwise the maintenance costs kill you. In the latter case, if you want some production as well, you MUST chop forests.

The higher you go in difficulty level, however, the more HC becomes a jack-of-all-trades-but-king-of-none

I've won with various leaders and settings, including deity. In single-player games the incas are as good as caesar on higher levels for several reasons. At monarch and above, you will see only archers and rarely any warriors from the AI. The quechua rush will give you a huge and early advantage in expansion well before any axes appear. The Incas are by far the easiest civ to win with on higher levels, and actually are not quite as good on lower settings. They especially thrive in crowded maps. Caesar will have to spend his initial turns doing his own expansion while the incas can start stealing workers and cities, and he will be unable to use his unique unit without iron (though that's not usually a problem). Even with the latest patch, caesar's traits are not as good for warmongering. Financial/Aggressive is an excellent combination, definitely better than Exp/Org for almost any situation. Caesar's main advantage is that praetorians will not become obsolete nearly as fast as quechuas. And you mentioned Tokugawa as being better than the incas for a domination/conquest win? Not even close. The samurai are a mediocre UU, while both quechuas and praetorians are among the most useful because of their early impact. Tokugawas traits are better than caesar's, but not the incas. Financial is generally better than organized IMO, though the gap was narrowed in the latest patch. The incas are definitely in the top three for domination/conquest wins, if not number 1, and the jack of all the other types of wins.

Not sure what you could say about state property. If you have a huge empire you should use it, if you have a compact empire then free market is probably better. That's all there is to it, and you can determine which would be better by counting your distance costs, civic upkeep difference, value of trade routes, number/distribution of watermills, and number/distribution of workshops. So if your point is, "Consider your situation and goals rather than dogmatically do what has worked in other situations," then I'd agree with you on everything except the incas. (:

I wonder why he dislikes State Property? I don't what's wrong with state property. Stonehenge is decent as long as you aren't Creative, so I can see why he has that.

State Property's free distance maintenance costs seem to be highly lucrative. However, it is possible (not saying always, but definatly in some cases) to get more return out of Free Market.

Getting to Civil Service before the AI on Noble can be handy, but doing it on Deity can be a game saver.

Erm, umm, care to explain how you build The Oracle on Deity? Let alone in time to use it on ....nvm, explain how you build it in the first place, then worry about what you use it on, or how you survive relatively crippled for having beelined to it and devoted that much early production to it.

There are a number of reasons to not build stonehene, imo.

Reason #1 (and the only one necessary): You can whip Obelisks for 1 pop.

For the record, you can easily edit the thread title by heading to the Go Advanced options in the lower right corner of the post when editing it.

If I have Stone, I'll go for Pyramids over Stonehenge.

If I don't have Stone, I'll go for Henge and Oracle, forget Masonry, use prophet for CS and Oracle for Metal Casting.

That delays war but if your production and science is that good, you can easily war at that point (specially bc you'll have maces in a few seconds).

Stonehenge doesn't seem to have a downside. It is cheap, gives great border expansion and culture in all cities, and it lets you know how you face up in the world. It's seems to be always worth a shot.

Indeed, it is cheap, easy to get against AI and is very powerful. The culture boost to the building city is excellent, the +2 points for Priest is just the thing to get Theology ahead of the A.I so you've got a religion should you want one of your own.

I don't bother with the Pyramids as at the Immortal it just ain't happening when I'd rather be building swordsmen.

In my first few games, I couldn't understand why you would ever consider passing on Stonehenge.

Now, it's not so much that I think it's "bad," I jut don't think it's always the best option. You either have to take a break from your other production really early (at the most critical point in the game), or by the time you finish it it's not long off from being obsolete. It's pretty much always the first wonder to go obsolete, and when it does, you're left with a big, useless set of rocks.

Centering the map can be useful, but rarely do I find it has much of an impact before I pick up calendar anyway. On an islands map, for instance, it will probably come in pretty handy as you're building early galleys and such. On most other maps, you're exploration tends to be limited to one landmass anyway; it doesn't matter at that stage where that landmass is in relation to everything else.

It does, of course, have it's uses. If you're going for a cultural victory, for instance, it lets you stockpile a hefty amount of culture in the city that builds it. The 100 or so culture (tops) you'll pile up in your other cities is pretty useless, but Stonehenge itself will continue to provide a significant culture boost throughout the game to the city that built it. And compounded over all those turns (since it comes so early), that's nothing to shake a stick at.
I can think of two reasons why you would want to pass on Stonehenge:

1. You are Creative. Stonehenge basically is a "Ghetto" version of Creative trait, and it is not that useful if you already have means of generating culture in newly founded cities.

2. You are playing Multiplayer - for the reasons you gave, almost everybody will try to get Stonehenge, so your chance of actually getting it are slim.

Reason #1 (and the only one necessary): You can whip Obelisks for 1 pop.
This reason looks good on "paper" but in practice, if you found your second/third city, the best solution is usually to build a worker there - which delays the possibility of Obelisk/Monument rush significantly. If your city is also placed in such a way that it has a strategic/important resource in its fat cross, but not in any of the tiles adjacent to the city, this may mean a significant delay.

Since in Warlords I usually play as Ramses (his traits fit my play style a lot, and the War Chariot is nothing to scoff at), so it is usually a no-brainer for me to build Stonehenge as soon as possible (usually in my capital after building the first settler leaves my capital). Ramses is Industrious, is not Creative, and on top of that, Stonehenge grants me the Egyptian unique building in every city (in fact I would probably build Stonehenge for the same reason even if I played as Hatshepsut who is Creative).