...and I'm doing a bloody terrible job of it.


I'm playing as Gandhi. Got a nice start, 2 gems and marble in my BFC. Was able to get the Great Wall rather quickly (having reloaded after being creamed by Barbarians) and The Oracle shortly thereafter.

Only source of iron was to the north, mostly surrounded by desert. I put a rather useless city there, just for the iron, then Napoleon declared on me almost immediately and took that city. It was just after 500AD, and I'd only managed to build three cities. Napoleon somehow had nine cities by 1AD, Christ knows how they managed that, AND built an army AND worked the land AND built buildings and stuff. Even on Warlord level I never managed more than five cities by 1AD.

I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, really.

im a prince/noble player....can you tell us what map you play on, its size and the number of civs? they all have a big effect?
by the way, would i be right in suspecting you built two wonders in your capital and you had about 2 cities at that point?

im a prince/noble player....can you tell us what map you play on, its size and the number of civs? they all have a big effect?
Huge map, big/small with islands mixed in, ten civs.
by the way, would i be right in suspecting you built two wonders in your capital and you had about 2 cities at that point?
Uh...yes. You would be absolutely correct there.

I had to have the Wall, though, the Barbs annihilated me in an earlier attempt. I wouldn't normally have gone for two wonders so soon, but the marble made the Oracle nice and easy to get, and I really like the Oracle.

I thought I'd try starting with another settler. Here's my start:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/LJlucan/start.jpg

Huge map, big/small with islands mixed in, ten civs.

Uh...yes. You would be absolutely correct there.

I had to have the Wall, though, the Barbs annihilated me in an earlier attempt. I wouldn't normally have gone for two wonders so soon, but the marble made the Oracle nice and easy to get, and I really like the Oracle.

okie, u got a huge map with 10 civs...so the civs are pretty spread out, the map wont be too congested..
from my limited experience, and i think you know it too, you were facing a development bottleneck and hence got run over by the nearest AI...to me..wonders are like icing on the cake.....i know a lot of people play wonder-driven strategies and it works great for them..i dont...i build wonders from a position of strength, not under risk.....the key for me is getting up 2-3 cities up and running ASAP...
i was playing a multiplayer game with an opponent of mine who destroyed 4 human civs to achieve primacy on his continent....he had the most beautiful city structure....he built 2 cities asap 3 tiles away from the capital each....it was like a tight triangle, the speed in getting those cities up and running, the development he could engage in with his workers, allowed him to run over the nearest player next to him within about 75 turns of the game start(quick play of course)...
after he'd run over that civ, thats when he engaged in a mini bout of wonder building...that was in essence his consolidation phase...
now your facing barbs......the great wall is great to fight them off true..personally, i'd build me some axemen to fight off the barbarians...that would keep my power rating up, gain my axemen some limited experience, and keep my civ free of barbarians as good as the great wall...in any case, the great wall only protects against barbarians....with some fog busting, the barbarians wont appear in any case, and in a map such as big and small, i cant imagine the civs filling up the island pretty rapidly in any case, negating the need for the great wall to fight barbs......

now....the oracle.....its brilliant for grabbing a free tech yep, i'd go for that, if thats your playing style...but again, its about the situation, sometimes having one more settler and say two more workers is more worth it then a wonder...it'll give you more science beakers in the long run to have a city up and running earlier......especially since it will let you claim land in the crucial early phase of the game...
my strategy is very simple in the early game-----'where is my next city going to be'- what do i need to do to get it--what units need to defend the new city-what worker improvements can be performed at the new city-' thats about the only thing going through my head....sometimes if im feeling a bit malevelont, i'll be thinking....which AI capital do i want the most (they make incredible cities in the early game (theyre great in the middle/late game too for sure but in the early game they really stand out)

okay i've rambled enough for now...lol

is that a new game your playing mate??
i'd say grab them gems...a city 1w of the furthermost gems to the west might be an idea...i dont know what that area looks like but it might be a semi decent spot.....any ideas for a third city, where u'd want it?

I would have built the initial city one to the SW of where you did. The plains/hills tile would provide one additional production in your capitol. You would have both gems, the corn, and the marble all as workable tiles in your BFC. Being on the coast is not so important to give up the other benefits I mentioned. You can always build your next city on the coast.

I would have built the initial city one to the SW of where you did. The plains/hills tile would provide one additional production in your capitol. You would have both gems, the corn, and the marble all as workable tiles in your BFC. Being on the coast is not so important to give up the other benefits I mentioned. You can always build your next city on the coast.
If my current game craps out on me (not unlikely) than I'll definitely give that a go. I like this start, so I've saved it. :)

This time I built more cities more quickly. And this time, Nappies and I are mates. That might not last, though, because the filthy auld heretic has changed his religion.

I missed out on the Great Wall, but the Barbs weren't quite so vicious, and I had just enough military forces to handle them without suffering terrible damage this time.

is that a new game your playing mate??
i'd say grab them gems...a city 1w of the furthermost gems to the west might be an idea...i dont know what that area looks like but it might be a semi decent spot.....any ideas for a third city, where u'd want it?
Got the gems fairly quickly.

I'm not terribly good at actually planning where my cities are going to go. I tend to just build the settler, then have a wee look around at what's out there.

okie, u got a huge map with 10 civs...so the civs are pretty spread out, the map wont be too congested..
from my limited experience, and i think you know it too, you were facing a development bottleneck and hence got run over by the nearest AI...to me..wonders are like icing on the cake.....i know a lot of people play wonder-driven strategies and it works great for them..i dont...i build wonders from a position of strength, not under risk.....the key for me is getting up 2-3 cities up and running ASAP...
i was playing a multiplayer game with an opponent of mine who destroyed 4 human civs to achieve primacy on his continent....he had the most beautiful city structure....he built 2 cities asap 3 tiles away from the capital each....it was like a tight triangle, the speed in getting those cities up and running, the development he could engage in with his workers, allowed him to run over the nearest player next to him within about 75 turns of the game start(quick play of course)...
after he'd run over that civ, thats when he engaged in a mini bout of wonder building...that was in essence his consolidation phase...
now your facing barbs......the great wall is great to fight them off true..personally, i'd build me some axemen to fight off the barbarians...that would keep my power rating up, gain my axemen some limited experience, and keep my civ free of barbarians as good as the great wall...in any case, the great wall only protects against barbarians....with some fog busting, the barbarians wont appear in any case, and in a map such as big and small, i cant imagine the civs filling up the island pretty rapidly in any case, negating the need for the great wall to fight barbs......

now....the oracle.....its brilliant for grabbing a free tech yep, i'd go for that, if thats your playing style...but again, its about the situation, sometimes having one more settler and say two more workers is more worth it then a wonder...it'll give you more science beakers in the long run to have a city up and running earlier......especially since it will let you claim land in the crucial early phase of the game...
my strategy is very simple in the early game-----'where is my next city going to be'- what do i need to do to get it--what units need to defend the new city-what worker improvements can be performed at the new city-' thats about the only thing going through my head....sometimes if im feeling a bit malevelont, i'll be thinking....which AI capital do i want the most (they make incredible cities in the early game (theyre great in the middle/late game too for sure but in the early game they really stand out)

okay i've rambled enough for now...lol
The problem with axemen and the building thereof in this particular game is that I suffer from a dearth of iron and copper. In fact, there's no copper at all anywhere near me, and the only iron is up to the north near the French border, surrounded by desert.

I did put a city there, and am churning out swordsmen.

I see that the Commerce and production indicator for your tiles isn't turned on.

@ op: instead of building wonders, build axemen. Barb problem, solved. Napolean problem, solved.

The problem with axemen and the building thereof in this particular game is that I suffer from a dearth of iron and copper. In fact, there's no copper at all anywhere near me, and the only iron is up to the north near the French border, surrounded by desert.

I did put a city there, and am churning out swordsmen.

ah right, i didnt realise you were doing a replay of the same map =). I think the best way to deal with having little iron/bronze is to get animal husbandry asap and to spot the horses, its trickier to kill barbs with chariots, but it can be done...
another thing to do is........archer spam!! with a lot of judicious jumping around defensive tiles, one can make the enemy barb attack ur archer, and bam, problem solved.....even if worst comes to worst, u can try to get a unit out into the open, and suicide one archer onto it before another archer finishes it off (its worth it more than one may think since archers are considerably cheaper than axes/swords)...

good on you for getting more cities out! i know a lot of the better players construct 'dot maps'.. in essence, you look at the available map and plan out where you want your cities... a great tip for that is to look for the resource you want your new city to be near...food resources can make practically any otherwise inhospitable area practicable...flood plains etc are also good of course... i think the basic trick is to try to cram as many 'good' tiles into one city location as possible. the intermediate variation may be to let two cities share some tiles lol! stuff like this just comes from experience. The first 100 turns are probably the most important in the entire game. get that right and all of us will improve rather quickly. (i for one am still working on my early game)

once you get good at noble you'll be able to grab all the mid/late wonders in any case....i think from prince onwards, the wonders become much harder to get, especially monarch onwards.

You should have settled where you started. 2W if I'm not mistaken? Why would you willfully remove gems from your capital's workable tiles. The start they gave you was incredible.
I agree with Gwynja about the barbs. If no metals, chariots, or even archers will do fine against barbs. I can't imagine there are too many barbs on warlord setting.
As for city placement, you will have to post a save or more screenshots to get specific advice. I would say your current strategy of building settlers then wandering them around aimlessly has to go. Have units out fogbusting and scouting then use them to defend the settlers. Make sure you know where every settlers is going before he is built.

I don't have much in the ways of advice to offer you, but I hope I can encourage you by telling you how hard I had to smash my face against the wall before I could beat Noble. Warlord to Noble was such a massive jump, it took me ages to get it. Hang in there, victory will eventually come!

Also, the people nudging you towards a more aggressive/militarycentric play are correct. The AI is far more aggressive and opportunistic on Noble than it is on Warlords. You need to have a decent army even if it's only purpose is to dissuade your 'friends' from attacking. I had to put more emphasis on pointy sticks and all around tighten my gameplay to win at Noble, but I managed it. The jump from Noble to Prince is far less scary, and I'm now working on Monarch :O

Good luck!

You should have settled where you started. 2W if I'm not mistaken? Why would you willfully remove gems from your capital's workable tiles. The start they gave you was incredible.
Well, by the time I was able to mine the gems, my borders had expanded so that they were gettable.

I agree with Gwynja about the barbs. If no metals, chariots, or even archers will do fine against barbs. I can't imagine there are too many barbs on warlord setting.
I'm playing Noble now. I'm at that annoying stage where Warlord is too easy, but Noble kicks my arse every time.
As for city placement, you will have to post a save or more screenshots to get specific advice. I would say your current strategy of building settlers then wandering them around aimlessly has to go. Have units out fogbusting and scouting then use them to defend the settlers. Make sure you know where every settlers is going before he is built.
Well, I do usually have some idea. But I tend to make the final decision based on where the blue circles are when the settler starts out. That worked alright on Warlord, but it looks very much like this habit needs kicking for Noble.

I'm playing Noble now. I'm at that annoying stage where Warlord is too easy, but Noble kicks my arse every time.

That usually means abandoning "ooh, shiny!" and actually learning how to manipulate the strategic elements of the game.

But I tend to make the final decision based on where the blue circles are when the settler starts out. That worked alright on Warlord, but it looks very much like this habit needs kicking for Noble.

Well, it's worth keeping in mind that if you are going to beat the computer, having the computer doing your thinking for you isn't likely to help.

That said, the blue circles are necessarily wrong, but they occasionally aren't best - that's especially true if you have an idea of your own plans going forward. The game is only making general recommendations, not specific recommendations suited to your style of play.

That usually means abandoning "ooh, shiny!" and actually learning how to manipulate the strategic elements of the game.
Yes indeed! There's loads in this game to consider that I have simply never really considered before. The micro-managing of cities, specialists etc, for example, is something I really need to learn about.


Well, it's worth keeping in mind that if you are going to beat the computer, having the computer doing your thinking for you isn't likely to help.
Indeed, that makes several tons of sense. I don't always take the circles, but almost always I do. Like, about 95% of the time.

That said, the blue circles are necessarily wrong, but they occasionally aren't best - that's especially true if you have an idea of your own plans going forward. The game is only making general recommendations, not specific recommendations suited to your style of play.[/QUOTE]
I shall soon be able to say I have a playing style. Soon. :)