I'm still adjusting to Civ IV after being an avid Civ III player for so long. I think my biggest problem is expanding too fast.

Here is the question: How do you fight the urge? If I am about equal or a little behind in tech, my mind wants to say to build an army and take over your neighbor - that way you'll have more cities which should equal more beakers. I know I have to build courthouses and the FP to reduce maintinance, but even after this is done, I seem to be in the same or even worse position than if I hadn't started the war.

Often I say I'll just raze a couple cities and then sue for peace just to weaken my neighbor - but when I see more weak cities within, I can't help myself but to keep going until I run out of units and overrun my enemies.

If expansion is out, how do you ever get the upper hand in high-difficulty games? I only play on Monarch now, and I have a difficult time in winning because some guy halfway around the world sits there and beats me to the space race. In Civ III the larger empire generally was the tech leader - Civ IV seems to be the oppostie. If war is not the answer, how do you get an advantage?

Take that urge to crush the enemy and run with it. Raze all those cities and chase down his settlers. DESTROY. Then keep destroying. Settle the devastated area when you financially can.

Here is the question: How do you fight the urge?

Count to ten.

Take that urge to crush the enemy and run with it. Raze all those cities and chase down his settlers. DESTROY. Then keep destroying. Settle the devastated area when you financially can.

...but if you financially can't now, watch your other neighbors settle there first. This is the part that sucks and makes me not want to raze ALL their cities... I'll just have to fight for the same locations twice. :(

Don't feel that you have to completely destroy an enemy the first time. A crippled AI can do next to nothing. So, when fighting an early war (before CoL and Currency) limit yourself to six or max eight cities (standard size). This scales with map size. So, fight your opponent for 2 or 3 of the choice cities instead of keeping 3-4 cities that aren't paying for themselves. Don't capture a city that you wouldn't settle yourself at that time. That being said, when your economy is pulled up by infrasturcture, have fun finishing off that pesky rival.;)

you fight the urge by not razing the cities, and realizing you lost the game because of it. Do that about 5 times and you'll learn.

I play on standard maps, and even on immortal i've never needed more (or less) than six decent cities, three of which i've selected from my neighbors. this includes easy space race victories.

It just sort of happens by itself, when I realize I'm 0% science and 200 turns to Code of Laws.

It just sort of happens by itself, when I realize I'm 0% science and 200 turns to Code of Laws.

:lol:

Same here.

you fight the urge by not razing the cities, and realizing you lost the game because of it. Do that about 5 times and you'll learn.

I play on standard maps, and even on immortal i've never needed more (or less) than six decent cities, three of which i've selected from my neighbors. this includes easy space race victories.

I know this is a very broad question and sorta the point of this entire message board, but how do you out-research the AI with only six cities?? Just great city specialization or what?

Here is the current game I am playing for everyone to scrutinize... I'm Rome and just finished off the Mongals and Chinese. Now I control nearly 1/3 of the world and am ages behind the tech leader (Ghandi)! I must be doing something terribly wrong.

To save this game, should I just build units and raze everyone in site, or should I hope to catch up in tech? (Note: the Space Race victory has been turned off for this game. I wanted to "play" with the more advanced units a bit. :) )

Here is the current game I am playing for everyone to scrutinize... I'm Rome and just finished off the Mongals and Chinese. Now I control nearly 1/3 of the world and am ages behind the tech leader (Ghandi)! I must be doing something terribly wrong.

To save this game, should I just build units and raze everyone in site, or should I hope to catch up in tech? (Note: the Space Race victory has been turned off for this game. I wanted to "play" with the more advanced units a bit. :) )


Why are you building a monestary in a city producing 4 beakers and Sci Method is right around the corner?

Why are you building a temple in a city 18 happy faces from its' happiness limit? Ditto for all the colosseums...

Did you auto your workers? Your cities are way too small for this point in the game. Where are your windmills? I see a bunch of mines that can't be worked because there isn't enough food.

Heroic epic should have been built a thousand years ago. Rome and Guangzhou both produce more hammers than Beijing so why are you building it there?

Your science rate is too high. You should have expanded a long time ago. Rome is Organized. Use the trait to your advantage.

Cyrus and Isabella only combine for 8 cities. She has the Jew shrine as well. Take them out. Stop building unnecessary crap and build some units.

Why did you attach a GG to a maceman with a cover promotion? What a waste... Trebuchets should get CR prmotions. Build them out and Cyrus is history. He has elephants so I really don't understand why you are building knights.

Tons of other problems but I'm too lazy to go through them all.

Why are you building a monestary in a city producing 4 beakers and Sci Method is right around the corner?

Why are you building a temple in a city 18 happy faces from its' happiness limit? Ditto for all the colosseums...

Did you auto your workers? Your cities are way too small for this point in the game. Where are your windmills? I see a bunch of mines that can't be worked because there isn't enough food.

Heroic epic should have been built a thousand years ago. Rome and Guangzhou both produce more hammers than Beijing so why are you building it there?

Your science rate is too high. You should have expanded a long time ago. Rome is Organized. Use the trait to your advantage.

Cyrus and Isabella only combine for 8 cities. She has the Jew shrine as well. Take them out. Stop building unnecessary crap and build some units.

Why did you attach a GG to a maceman with a cover promotion? What a waste... Trebuchets should get CR prmotions. Build them out and Cyrus is history. He has elephants so I really don't understand why you are building knights.

Tons of other problems but I'm too lazy to go through them all.

Wow, that is what I need to hear. I really do appreciate it.

I guess I am stuck in the rut that I feel like a city should have all/most of the improvements available before building too many units (especially when not at war). I always say, "if a temple is five turns and adds culture, then why not?", but I guess this is the wrong thinking.

I'll start building units and razing away. Good call on the elephants... another problem of mine thinking that there is always one "best" unit, but another flaw of mine.

I appreciate your comments. More are welcome.

Don't fight the urge, play as normal. When your research starts to grind to a halt, you'll then focus on recovering. I too tend to have the "Oh crap, I am behind, I need to expand in order to catch up" attitude. Personally, that strategy still works. It's just that now it isn't the only strategy. If you expand, you'll be constantly balancing the cashflow until mid way through the tech tree. Then you will have captured Shrines and other wonders that open up the gold, which in turn, helps you to compensate for your expansion.

I play on Noble but I once played on Monarch and I went with the need to expand in order to survive (heh, I panicked and relied on what I know from previous games). I kept going and going and eventually caught up with everyone else. Mind you, I was attacking Musketmen and Grenaiders with Cats and Samurai and hovering at around -20 to -40 gold per turn deficit, but I got there. Expansion saved me :) Got 79K domination victory as well :)

Im trying to go cold turkey by playing as Monty. Instead of searching for missing buildings, I try to ask myself at every production choice, "Whats the worst that will happen if I dont build this building? And how is this going to help me accomplish my goals?". Its difficult, but its slowly weaning me away from buildings and wonders.

you're at 60% research and backwards?
can't open the save right now but that sounds like:
- no tech trading on your part, loads of tech trader among the AIs
- lack of cottages (probably lack of workers?)
- wrong tech path?

Anyway, you're rome, don't bother about building, just crush them all :lol:

Well, I stayed up too late last night (probably the most common thing to happen to all Civ players :) ) and quit building buildings and switched to building basically all units. I then invaded Persia and the Aztecs to the north and crushed them both in a series of three wars. Now it is just America and Spain left on my continent who only have eight cities between the two of them (I have about 20). I am controlling 47% of the world's population (~42% needed for victory) and 41% of the land area (~60% needed for victory). I'm going to freshen up my Cavalry groups and finish them all off!

I think my biggest problem is that I'm too much of a builder (as Pete2006 pointed out). I build unecessary building just so each city has all buildings. I need to focus on what I need, not having each city jammed with all buildings!

Thanks again for the advice everyone.

I very much disliked the idea that you needed to expand, expand, expand in civ3. Even in civ3 I had to kick myself in the ass to do so when I didn't want to. So I honestly have no trouble with it in civ4. If anything I still want to expand less than I should in Civ4.

Civ4 is great because I know that even on Immortal, I can win with 6 cities. Expansion in Civ2/3 was so necessary that micromanagement became un-fun. Now I can micro manage my workers on marathon speed and I never really mind so much.

Oh, to answer your question, I tend to be a builder too. Really look at your happiness/health prior to building any buildings that provide one or the other. Otherwise they should be spent building research potential or units. Your worker should only be working a growth turn ahead of your city or providing resources/roads, so if you have 5 worked tiles and the next two are already improved, move on to the next city. It's ok to leave half of the fat cross unimproved in the early to mid game, especially if you can save your forests.

I usually have one really big city of production, and that becomes a wonder city. Because I play on marathon I have the benefit of scouting prior to any major growth. My second city is 95% of the time a place where I have stone or marble. If I have stone, I build pyramids and get representation, then speed my way to hanging gardens by doing math immediataly prior to alphabet. If I have marble, I get bronze and immediately path to polytheism and get parthanon. The reason is simple. If you have the opportunity to get wonders, and build them in one monster production city, you'll get a nice infusion of help that you need at the higher skill levels. And great people are fun.

Course, it's easier for a person like elizabeth for that strat, because cottages are the real and only reason you get away with it, and the extra 100% to GPP makes the strat viable.

So does it make sense to keeping pumping out units instead of building something like an Aqueduct (before you need one) even though you'll eventually need one (even if it isn't for another 1,000 years)?

I guess I feel my army gets to a point where I don't need more units so I switch to building buildings in all my cities. Or should I just be at war or close to war ALL the time and razing my neighbor's cities?

I expand in big bursts. Not by force, though. I try to cut off my enemies from areas with good resources by settling down with three/four cities in good strategic positions. I have to take a economical penalty for about 200 years, but that's ok. Usually I'm far ahead in the year 1 AD.

It just sort of happens by itself, when I realize I'm 0% science and 200 turns to Code of Laws.
You should be running a SE (specialist economy). You can be at 0% and still have the beakers pouring in.

Wodan

So does it make sense to keeping pumping out units instead of building something like an Aqueduct (before you need one) even though you'll eventually need one (even if it isn't for another 1,000 years)?

I guess I feel my army gets to a point where I don't need more units so I switch to building buildings in all my cities. Or should I just be at war or close to war ALL the time and razing my neighbor's cities?


that depends. If you NEED units (i.e. you'll get destroyed if anyone declares war on you), then build units. However, if you've already researched metal casing, get a forge and get an aqueduct to counter balance the health problems, if necessary. Many times i'll have the aqueduct built in the city where I want a colossus, see below:

When I have marble and a 2nd city to get oracle, I use the free tech on Metal casing and get a free colossus out of it (including a VERY valuable tech to trade once you get alphabet), because if you have copper it'll be a long time before any other civ gets the tech, gets a forge built, and then has enough hammers to compete with you. And just so you know, with the research path I take, I dont have writing yet, so the Code of Laws tech isn't available yet, and I find that in many situations Metal casing is a very valuable free early tech.

Krozman

You should be running a SE (specialist economy). You can be at 0% and still have the beakers pouring in.

Wodan

This is also true. Another alternative is to get currency and sell your non valuable techs for their lump sum gold. When I get literature and i'm lucky enough to have a great engineer waiting for me to use on great library, I sell literature for 300-900 gold (on marathon), whatever they have. I focus on literature because when I get literature I go for the great artist on music (and also a head start on notre dame, if I want it). When you have such a big research time, like from literature to music, you're unable to acquire more techs to trade with the AI, and since literature cannot trade for anything the AI has straight up, (i.e. calender, monarchy) selling the tech to everyone, gettting the 1000+ gold from everyone, and running research at 100% at minus 20 per turn still allows for research while ignoring costs and not running a specialist economy. Plus, now that everyone has literature, you can trade a very valuable music for everything you're missing, which shouldn't be much even on Immortal difficulty.

Plus, some of our games we're unable to get pyramids early enough for representation, and I dont think it's feasible to do an early specalist economy without pyramids.

Man, after reading these posts I gotta get back into peaceful games. I rarely if ever build wonders or bother with culture (unless I have to) or religion. Don't get me wrong, I do build everything and end up with all the wonders, but I initially start with my war machine and once it's built, I tend to domestic affairs. But, my focus is always the war machine and expansion.

I might have to get back into a peaceful wonder/culture/gp/religion building game. Sounds like fun! My problem is as always: If you have an annoying neighbour, then there's only one permanant way of solving that and so I alway end up moving into a military/conquest type of game. A strong military solves all neighbour/diplomatic disputes :)

I think my biggest problem is that I'm too much of a builder (as Pete2006 pointed out). I build unecessary building just so each city has all buildings. I need to focus on what I need, not having each city jammed with all buildings!

Thanks again for the advice everyone.



I had the same problem and corrected it.

I am the type of player that likes to run at 100% science when i can (and if I can). I used religion to supply me with all the gold I needed.

So the problem I was having... I was building marketplaces and banks in all my cities... even though most of them were generating no gold (due to 100% science). The only city that was generating gold was my holy city. So i only built the "gold" improvements there. I would also send all my great merchants and prophets there to act as super specialists since both of those gave gold and it was easier to have one "money specialized city".

So I improved my game. Instead of building unncessary banks and marketplaces... i built units and improved my 'warmonging' skills. :D


Other example used.... built many unnecessary colliseums when I had way more happy people than angry. Real dumb.

In one of my recent Monarch games, I expanded slowly (no early chop rush even, because I went for a religion) and around 0 AD I only built one city but took over a neighbor's 2 cities and destroyed the rest of his cities (making a total of 4 cities in my empire). For some reason, I'm still at the top of the scoreboard, ahead in tech, and still making money at 70% science.

EDIT: I seem to suck at peaceful games. Especially if I build more than the wonders I need, I always lose.

I also fall into the trap of building unnecessary buildings, so I've been thinking: how much that Library's +25% beakers will get me in a size 2-3 city. Apparently the bonuses aren't too great, and building 4 archers or 2 axes in place of that lib may have been better... unless the lib is for a much needed cultural expansion to take resources (when a religion or monument or theater isn't available).

some buildings have a specific value regardless of the % bonus they give.
- Granary is needed almost everywhere (only exception is a late game captured city), because growth = power
- markets, forges give % bonus, right but they also give happiness bonus with the right ressources + you need 6 forges to build iron works
- theaters are the cheapest culture buildings for creative leader + happiness bonus for everyone+ you need 6 to build globe theater.
- library : when you don't have mysticism or when you already know calendar, the library is the first culture building available (no need to wait for a religion)+it is required for universities, and you need 6 universities for oxford

My point is not to say that you need a market, a forge, a library, a theater everywhere. It's to show that there are different reasons to build some of them, and going into no building mode can be almost as bad as too many building (not quite as bad, since you die from building too many = not enough units)

One thing that's being overlooked is that militaries cost money too, especially when you have few cities to support your units. If over-expansion doesn't stifle my economy, unit support usually will. So whether I expand or build more units my economy will suffer. The only option left is to build city improvements, which are often not needed (and there often aren't very many to build in the early game.)

So I guess the main question for me is: what's the fastest way to get your economy humming in the early game? (I play on Monarch.) Pottery is always a high priority tech for me, and I spam cottages in every game; but it's not enough. Getting CoL and raising a few Courthouses always seems like a daunting task; my non-core cities take forever to build them. And it's really the period prior to Courthouses that gives me the most trouble; my cottages aren't developed and city maintenance prevents more expansion.

The only other option I see to jump-start your early economy is to found a religion and get a Great Prophet ASAP. Any other suggestions besides this and cottage spam (which isn't getting me very far)?

Seeing all of you peaceful people is making me think. I usually get bored of the game after my neighbours and at least on Civ on the other continent is dead, and I usually have 100 or so years before my cities grow enough for the population(I'm well over land). I never go for conquest, though. I get lonely :( I need some builder practice...

One thing that's being overlooked is that militaries cost money too, especially when you have few cities to support your units. If over-expansion doesn't stifle my economy, unit support usually will. So whether I expand or build more units my economy will suffer. The only option left is to build city improvements, which are often not needed (and there often aren't very many to build in the early game.)


The other option is to use your military :lol:

The other option is to use your military :lol:

That's not gonna transform my economy from deficit to surplus. The income from pillaging and razing is pretty small in the early game.... And I'm certainly not going to take more cities; that would just make the problem worse.

Here's a different scenario, although common: I'm playing a monarch huge fractal game, 14 civs, as Elizabeth, going for a cultural victory, space race and diplo vics turned off. Basically, as far as I can tell, the whole thing is fracked. I've been at war for almost 1000 years straight, and it's now 1675. Every civ but four have declared war on me. Most of my production that would have gone toward culture or cultural buildings has been focused on units. I've finally acquired rifling, but at least half the other civs are four or five techs ahead of me. Now I have to run at 0% science and culture until my maces and pikes are upgraded. Any advice on what to do to pull this one out of the hole? I'd post a save file were I at the computer I on which I play the game, but how do I stop these constant wars?

Here's a different scenario, although common: I'm playing a monarch huge fractal game, 14 civs, as Elizabeth, going for a cultural victory, space race and diplo vics turned off. Basically, as far as I can tell, the whole thing is fracked. I've been at war for almost 1000 years straight, and it's now 1675. Every civ but four have declared war on me. Most of my production that would have gone toward culture or cultural buildings has been focused on units. I've finally acquired rifling, but at least half the other civs are four or five techs ahead of me. Now I have to run at 0% science and culture until my maces and pikes are upgraded. Any advice on what to do to pull this one out of the hole? I'd post a save file were I at the computer I on which I play the game, but how do I stop these constant wars?
It shouldn't be too difficult to get a timed victory, if you're halfway pursuing a cultural you should have a pretty good score.

Wodan

i want to complain that the AIs understanding of loyality is a wicked one. (at least on monarch & epic)

in the earlier ages you dont want to be rushed by every civ because they have their crazy archers ready to crush your - 2 archer and one warrior and maybe one axeman - government so you should obey their stupid tributes.
after you did so many times, one could think you are best buddies?
no of course not.

that is because some lunatic civ ( alex monty toku or crazy french ) declares war to you, in the fights you have bad luck and one or two units die, the power graph drops for you and suddenly you are an easy treasure for the other civs.

so the consequence is not only that you have very stressy 2 or 3 guys picking on you, no, but i also noticed that all my heroic "giveaways" and "cooperation" to cancel deals with other civs that give you +1 in the diplo are away ! and the best thing is that i didnt even declare the war myself !

so whenever you are in war with another civ you can quite forget getting their votes in a diplo victory. the only "good" thing is that you dont get the -1 penalty "you declared war on our friend". probably you will have many -1 already because of "blabla didnt help in wartimes"

and about the topic with the expansion urge: i cant help myself i have to keep cities that are at my cultural border! i feel like it wont take whole 4 turns and suddenly a foreign settler pops up and builds a stinky city which will annoy you sometime and/or overlap your precious resources. nono, you must keep the city and if its because of the reason that another one doesnt get this nice-looking place.

Somewhat along the lines of this thread, the demographics screen has information on your approval rating and population lifespan, which I assume corresponds roughly to happy faces and health. Do either of these values factor at all for your score (final or current), or are they just more or less throw-away stats? If they do count, would it then make sense to work at building, for example, every temple in a city to increase happiness and therefore your score? (There is probably already a thread on this somewhere, but I never seem to be able to use the search function in this forum; it returns 10000 results from civ 2/3).

Do either of these values factor at all for your score (final or current), or are they just more or less throw-away stats?
They play no part in the game's scoring whatsoever. Moreover, they are some of the more meaningless stats provided by the game. High approval ratings or lifespan simply indicate that your cities have a lot of room to grow.

That's not gonna transform my economy from deficit to surplus. The income from pillaging and razing is pretty small in the early game.... And I'm certainly not going to take more cities; that would just make the problem worse.

razing a city provides good money + room for later expansion + cripples an AI
3 good reasons to raze a few...

until now nobody even tried to pick out what i said, instead we get hints about the early game - everybody plays in a different way so somebody will take archery and somebody wont need it.

i am more into the later games when things get more complex.

until now nobody even tried to pick out what i said, instead we get hints about the early game - everybody plays in a different way so somebody will take archery and somebody wont need it.

i am more into the later games when things get more complex.

the OP asked about the early game, so...
What's your point, about later? Later, you'll have mature cottages everywhere, the ability to use mercantilism or numerous trade routes...
There is no problem with late expansion, you'll be able to fund it.
If it wasn't your question, i'm sorry, but you didn't state clearly what you expect.:confused:

Thanks for all the input people... this helps a great deal.

In my current game I started small for some time (five cities) and was right up there in the tech lead the whole game... but as I've weakend my neighbors and kept about half of what I captured, I now have eight or nine cities... but I have so many resources/luxuries in return that I am making something like +40 GPT from the AI so I'm not in the red while at 70% science rate.

The downside is that no one wants to trade with me anymore... razing cities seems to double the attitude modifier against me and the rest of the world hates me as well... I never give tribute and never help the AI in war time.... and I founded a religion that I share only with my neighbors (the ones I've been at war with :) ) so everyone else thinks I'm a heathen.

That's one of the downsides to choosing a religion. Civs not of your religion will have issues with you, some more than others... *coughIsabellacough*. For one particular diplomatic game, I had founded three religions (I don't usually found more than one or two the way I play) and chosen to NOT make any of them my state religion just to avoid the negative modifiers with everyone outside of my neighborhood. Since all of my close neighbors also had my religions, they were the hated enemies to the rest of the world instead of me ;) . It was easy to take them out with no diplomatic penalties applied to anyone else. I was even once asked into the war with an enemy by a more distant Civ that I was trying to get friendly with. That plus modifier for helping out with a "Mutual Struggle" sticks around after the war sometimes.

stolen rutters is right!
if you care for diplomacy (will have to at emperor+ levels), you need to play carefully with 2 objects :
- war
- religion

In the SG forum, look for mongol hordes (is it RB 21?). Sulla gave a very detailled analysis of high level diplomacy for this specific game (the way of thinking can be used to any game, though)

stolen rutters is right!
if you care for diplomacy (will have to at emperor+ levels), you need to play carefully with 2 objects :
- war
- religion

In the SG forum, look for mongol hordes (is it RB 21?). Sulla gave a very detailled analysis of high level diplomacy for this specific game (the way of thinking can be used to any game, though)

What is the "SG forum"? Is "mongol hordes" the topic? What is "RB 21"?

Sorry for all the questions, just curious about what you are referencing.

SG = Succession Game

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=179354

SG = Succession Game

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=179354
thanks diamond
Sulla's point on diplomacy is on 3rd or 4th page, but you need to read through the rest to have an idea of why he says that and then to read the rest to see how it exactly went the way he said.

What's your point, about later? Later, you'll have mature cottages everywhere, the ability to use mercantilism or numerous trade routes...
There is no problem with late expansion, you'll be able to fund it.

of course some things get easier when you have trebs and maces!
but when you have won your 30th game in conquest or domination style you ask yourself: is that really all?

the next logical step is that you try a diplo or cultural win.

i guess a diplo win is the easier than cultural, because when you have stalin as your opponent you can forget wonders.

ergo diplo wins are more interesting because of the crazy modifiers : D

sorry pukii, i don't see your point.
I did win diplomatic, cultural, domination, time, space race, conquest victories.
I have more cultural and domination wins than other though.
I still think it's easy to fund a large empire later, with markets and courthouses + a few shrines or settled great people (GArtist, GProphet, GMerchant give gpt).

it is not exactely easy to have more units - you must command a certain stack to attack city no.1 and another city no.2 - maybe you have a big stack in the behind of your empire and it would take 15 turns to get to the enemy. or you dont have any defences when suddenly napoleon pops up with some knights and trebuchets.

i think everybody knows what i am talking about. and i also think that everybody has experiences with the AI's reaction to all your actions.

in the end i think we should return to the topic.

it was all about fighting the expansion urge we all feel from civ2 and civ3.
this expansion urge is quite non-existent when you know that you can't support your big empire in the early state of the game.

but when the game gets more developed we all ask ourselves - isnt it better to build gallons to conquer the new world? and others think: isnt it better to take moscow with 5 wonders ?

its not that easy to be in the late game.