I tested this simple strategy and it works pretty well when playing as the Romans on Warlord level. It does require some micromanagement...

How is how it works:

1) Build your city on a tile that has access to 2 forest tiles.

2) On the city screen, immediately use custom worker management and place both workers to work the forest tiles. This produces 4 hammers/turn.

3) Change the city to produce settlers. A settler costs 20 hammers, so you will have a settler in 5 turns.

4) When the settler is ready, repeat steps 1-3. It's ok to build some of the cities on sites that don't have two forests.

5) A size 1 city can get back to size 2 very quickly, allowing you to produce settler from it again.

Using this method, you can have 6 or 8 cities up and running in no time. After that, you can either pursue the mega city (even two mega cities) strategy or just develop your empire normally.

This does mean you'll have less early exploration. From time to time, a warrior from another Civ or barb may move next to your city, but you should be able to rush a warrior or two in time (perhaps using money made from AI caravans or selling techs, or from barb camps).

Having more cities in CivRev is great because they have no maintenance cost and there are techs and great people that give bonus to all cities.

PS: This is not tested on higher levels or in multiplayer., or with another Civ.

Yeah, thats what I do, but keep it balanced production, slow but steady:]

I don't like this strategy at all. Against good opponents, it can be extremely difficult to hold onto so many cities, you simply can't produce the defenses fast enough. I personally like to stick with around 2 or 3 cities in the early game. Make them profitable, usually one gold, one science, and one producing. Maybe create a fourth as a settler pump after a few turns and share the settlers amongst the three. Settler pumps are worthless though I find unless you have code of laws/republic so they only cost one pop.

Interesting strategy. It is nice not to worry about feeding your population at 2 food per citizen in CivRev. Also since there doesn't seem to be maintenance costs associated with increased number of cities, the so-called ICS strategy seems to be one of the useful tools here.

Like previous poster mentioned though, I don't like this strategy myself. I also do not have the full version, so can't test this at higher levels, but I am mainly interested in playing my single player games as if I am playing multiplayer against other humans. Having too many cities will mean that it will be much more difficult to adequately defend your cities. Any aggressive minded opponents can easily build an army of legions and overrun one or two poorly defended cities, making the hammer investments put into settlers a complete waste.

I truly believe that scouting is extremely important in knowing where your rivals are, and it isn't necessarily due to finding villages or artifacts. This not only enables you to plan your city placement strategy early, counting the effectiveness of nearby resources which could dictate what techs to pursue.

In terms of the first core of cities, I am trying to see what I can do to start up 3 cities from the get go, one each dedicated to science, gold, and production, without having to rely on the settler pump strategy. I have a feeling that at low levels, settler pump strategy to create a mega city or two could work very well in single player games, but I hardly see that as a viable strategy in multiplayer games. It will be very nice to have a city that doesn't need to rely on settler spams to grow its population. That means possibly a city with a few plains tile which will lead me to pottery that opens up granary for more food in the early game. Possibilities are endless and that's why I love Civ games.

The way I build my cities fast is this:

1.) Once my first city is built, I build a worker right away. (Warrior first in multiplayer) While I'm doing that, I'm getting Bronze Working to cut forest.

2.) After building my first worker, I build another, using my first worker to cut forest to speed up production of the 2nd worker.

3.)After my 2nd worker is built, I build settler, using my two workers to cut the forest and increase production.

4.) Repeat Step 3.) 1-3 more times.

I've always been using this strategy in Monarch level and I generall get a good piece of land.

*Note, your score may be low at first, but then it will jump up ahead*

P.S. It helps to be imperialistic like Rome and Portugese.

Well, my best games on the demo were played using this strategy (Romans & Warlord level). The barbs and AI usually don't attack you much early in the game on that level and I can win domination victory pretty consistently with this strategy.

I do agreed this strategy would work poorly in multiplayer or with other Civs.

Ormylar: I think you are in the wrong forum. There is no worker unit and no forest chopping in Civilization Revolution. :)

Well, my best games on the demo were played using this strategy (Romans & Warlord level). The barbs and AI usually don't attack you much early in the game on that level and I can win domination victory pretty consistently with this strategy.

I do agreed this strategy would work poorly in multiplayer or with other Civs.

Ormylar: I think you are in the wrong forum. There is no worker unit and no forest chopping in Civilization Revolution. :)

Running this strategy in SP is different from running it in MP. Try that. Also if your going to run a Feeding Strat in MP, you might want to consider running a handi so the pace of the game increases.

Well, my best games on the demo were played using this strategy (Romans & Warlord level). The barbs and AI usually don't attack you much early in the game on that level and I can win domination victory pretty consistently with this strategy.

I do agreed this strategy would work poorly in multiplayer or with other Civs.

Ormylar: I think you are in the wrong forum. There is no worker unit and no forest chopping in Civilization Revolution. :)

Lol, I realized that after in another forum. My mistake. =S Sorry about that. I'm new to this site, so please forgive me. ;)

I tested this simple strategy and it works pretty well when playing as the Romans on Warlord level. It does require some micromanagement...

How is how it works:

1) Build your first city on a tile that has access to 2 forest tiles.

2) On the city screen, immediately use custom worker management and place both workers to work the forest tiles. This produces 4 hammers/turn.

3) Change the city to produce settlers. A settler costs 20 hammers, so you will have a settler in 5 turns.

4) When the settler is ready, repeat steps 1-3.

5) A size 1 city can get back to size 2 very quickly, allowing you to produce settler from it again.

Using this method, you can have 6 or 8 cities up and running in no time. After that, you can either pursue the mega city (even two mega cities) strategy or just develop your empire normally.

This does mean you need to forgo early exploration, but I think its worth it. From time to time, a warrior from another Civ or barb may move next to your city, but you should be able to rush a warrior or two in time (perhaps using money made from AI caravans or selling techs).

Having more cities in CivRev is great because they have no maintenance cost and there are techs and great people that give bonus to all cities.

PS: This is not tested on higher levels or in multiplayer.

1. Understand this wasnt tested on MP but FYI this Strategy blows on MP.
2. You lied to the whole Civ Rev Public. This isnt warlords tested I know for a fact because if you send a settler by its self and say a zulu warrior is near it he would threaten you for gold because youve left a settler unprotected and you wouldnt have any gold. That means you would automatically be at war. This would actually happen on the first settler and you would lose the game early. Ive tried this its completly useless.

1. Understand this wasnt tested on MP but FYI this Strategy blows on MP.
2. You lied to the whole Civ Rev Public. This isnt warlords tested I know for a fact because if you send a settler by its self and say a zulu warrior is near it he would threaten you for gold because youve left a settler unprotected and you wouldnt have any gold. That means you would automatically be at war. This would actually happen on the first settler and you would lose the game early. Ive tried this its completly useless.
For #1: Yes, don't even bother with testing in MP. Human players will seize any opportunity.
For #2: During the few games I tested using this strategy, I actually made some gold early because the Aztec sent a few caravans to my city. I spent most those money on roads. for some reason, I found that if I have 50 Gold, Zulu would demand money for the settler. However, if I have only few golds (say < 15), they didn't bother threatening me or attack the settler. Anyway, this strategy does take lots of risk. I did, however, had very successful games using this strategy on the demo playing as the Romans on Warlord level.

You can still use this strategy when you have explored most of the land surrounding your cities and found the area relatively safe, so you can build more cities quicker.

I tested this simple strategy and it works pretty well when playing as the Romans on Warlord level. It does require some micromanagement...

How is how it works:

1) Build your first city on a tile that has access to 2 forest tiles.

2) On the city screen, immediately use custom worker management and place both workers to work the forest tiles. This produces 4 hammers/turn.

3) Change the city to produce settlers. A settler costs 20 hammers, so you will have a settler in 5 turns.

4) When the settler is ready, repeat steps 1-3.

5) A size 1 city can get back to size 2 very quickly, allowing you to produce settler from it again.

Using this method, you can have 6 or 8 cities up and running in no time. After that, you can either pursue the mega city (even two mega cities) strategy or just develop your empire normally.

This does mean you need to forgo early exploration, but I think its worth it. From time to time, a warrior from another Civ or barb may move next to your city, but you should be able to rush a warrior or two in time (perhaps using money made from AI caravans or selling techs).

Having more cities in CivRev is great because they have no maintenance cost and there are techs and great people that give bonus to all cities.

PS: This is not tested on higher levels or in multiplayer.

This is if you want to do it the slow way and take extra turns to produce them. You always want to have ur 2 workers on a 2H(Hammer=forest) & 2F(F=food). This way they will produce one turn slower, but the problem with doing it the way that your saying is that especially when you play in SP which shows nothing to how the strat really works in MP is partial. The reason you wouldn't want to put both your workers on H tiles ODB(off-da-bat) is because when your first settler unit is made, you will have to wait 5 turns to get your city back up to 2 pop. So hence you wasting pretty much a whole another time to pump out your next settler.

Bro if you going to post strats, then please make sure you test them in MP before you post them. Because it doesn't mean anything to run SP and test strats out when that won't be the type of enviroment you will be playing in when it comes to MP.

The way I build my cities fast is this:

1.) Once my first city is built, I build a worker right away. (Warrior first in multiplayer) While I'm doing that, I'm getting Bronze Working to cut forest.

2.) After building my first worker, I build another, using my first worker to cut forest to speed up production of the 2nd worker.

3.)After my 2nd worker is built, I build settler, using my two workers to cut the forest and increase production.

4.) Repeat Step 3.) 1-3 more times.

I've always been using this strategy in Monarch level and I generall get a good piece of land.

*Note, your score may be low at first, but then it will jump up ahead*

P.S. It helps to be imperialistic like Rome and Portugese.

The way you are doing it is the slow way though bro. You never want to only focus on settler production ODB. Because you will take almost the same amount of turns to get another settler unit out as it will to take you to get back to 2 pop. You never should put your two workers on Hammer Squares. Poor microing.

My responses are in bold.

1. Understand this wasnt tested on MP but FYI this Strategy blows on MP.

Actually if you can have an early defense while running a feeding strat then it works out pretty well. Even though some people try and do horseman rushes and think their bomb at the game. But their dooke.
2. You lied to the whole Civ Rev Public.

How? Why do make broad statements? Can you be specific and actually support evidence to back up your claim please?(and i'm not protecting him at all, i'm just saying this due to the fact that you like most others on forums just don't know how to properly post/debate)

This isnt warlords tested I know for a fact because if you send a settler by its self and say a zulu warrior is near it he would threaten you for gold because youve left a settler unprotected and you wouldnt have any gold. That means you would automatically be at war. This would actually happen on the first settler and you would lose the game early. Ive tried this its completly useless.

First off when your running a Feeding strat, you only send settlers by themselves in the beginning to establish your MC's(Mega Cities) and FC's(Feeding Cities). Irregardless of another AI warning him when a settler is made, does not affect the overall strategy at all because he can just make peace with him or decline and then make peace right after and nothing will happen.

My responses are in bold.

For #1: Yes, don't even bother with testing in MP. Human players will seize any opportunity.

Actually most of them won't because their all trying to get far along the tech tree as well, or go for another sort of victory. But you won't see a lot of players going for early Dom Vics at all. Unless your Miz Is Here using his lil Horseman rush strat to beat the other human within 20 turns. MP is the only way to test whatever it is your trying to do. Or test it on King difficutly when full game comes out. But don't think because you can play on Diety and win makes you pro at this game, cuz it honestly doesn't.(the last sentence was just an in general statement if you didn't pick up on that)

For #2: During the few games I tested using this strategy, I actually made some gold early because the Aztec sent a few caravans to my city. I spent most those money on roads. for some reason, I found that if I have 50 Gold, Zulu would demand money for the settler. However, if I have only few golds (say < 15), they didn't bother threatening me or attack the settler. Anyway, this strategy does take lots of risk. I did, however, had very successful games using this strategy on the demo playing as the Romans on Warlord level.

Well your playing on Warlord. Cheiftan & Warlord=No Risk & Pure sucess in whatever your really trying to do. This is exactly why it's utterly pointless due to the fact that this will not prepare you for what the MP enviroment is at all. Pretty much playing SP should only be for Tutorial purposes only if you eventually want to play MP. Then don't take SP seriously enough to test out strats in it.

You can still use this strategy when you have explored most of the land surrounding your cities and found the area relatively safe, so you can build more cities quicker.

You don't have to explore most of the land, you honestly want to try and keep your cities as close as possible, so then it won't cost as much gold to connect them all, hence saving you more money overall in the early game.


Next time i'll read more and then just multi quote.lol...

Boss Nasti, you are very wrong.

Avoiding growth to population three is very strong in this game because of the rapidly increasing food cost for each successive population level. If you plan things right, you will always be able to work exactly two tiles in your settler farms and be able to pump out settlers much quicker than any other method. If you allow growth to population three, the food cost is prohibitive and forces many extra turns on a food tile just to recoup your investment.

Best for settler production is to work a food and hammer tile until you are in danger of growing to population three, then to work two hammer tiles. When the settler is built, you will already be back to population two with half of your food bar filled and will take minimal time to repeat the cycle.

Why are we all talking as if settlers only cost one pop? They cost 2 unless you have republic.

My responses are in bold.

Boss Nasti, you are very wrong.

Avoiding growth to population three is very strong in this game because of the rapidly increasing food cost for each successive population level.

So what about going to pop 3?

If you plan things right, you will always be able to work exactly two tiles in your settler farms and be able to pump out settlers much quicker than any other method. If you allow growth to population three, the food cost is prohibitive and forces many extra turns on a food tile just to recoup your investment.

I did not get anything about what you just said here. It's like jumbled up code bro, can you explain it again for me. When you say two tiles(you should say squares it makes more sense)are referring to having 1 worker on 1 square and another unit on another square? Can you be more specific please.

Best for settler production is to work a food and hammer tile until you are in danger of growing to population three, then to work two hammer tiles. When the settler is built, you will already be back to population two with half of your food bar filled and will take minimal time to repeat the cycle.

Dude have you read anything i've written fully or do you just skim through things? I've been saying that you should always have a 2H and 2F production giong on in your Feeding cities. What are you talking about when you say "in danger of growing to pop 3?" This makes no sense. Can you clarify?

Why are we all talking as if settlers only cost one pop? They cost 2 unless you have republic.

Were referring to if you have a republic. At least this is what i'm referring to but vale did not specify, so I could be wrong.

@Boss Nasti

I haven't crunched the numbers exactly, but a rough approximation is that it costs twice as much food to grow from population 1 to population 2 as it does to grow from population 2 to population 3.

A settler costs 20 production and 1 population (under Republic obviously).

The food cost of 1 population is approximately half as much if you work at population 1 and 2 as opposed to working at population 2 and 3. This is a significant savings. So by growing to population 3 you are (approximately) doubling the food cost of the settler. The tradeoff is that you get some turns where you can work three tiles. This sounds like a great deal, but in a standard early situation where you have only tiles yielding two food and two production available, the few extra turns on extra tiles is mitigated by the increased food cost of each settler.

Even in situations where operating at population 2-3 would show slight long term improvements over operating at population 1-2, the short term of getting the first couple of settlers out quicker becomes a major consideration.

What I have found to be by far the most effective method for farming settlers out of a city is the following:

1. Work a food and hammer tile until I am 2 or 3 turns away from growth. The game has a nasty tendency to jump from 2 turns to growth to growing for no apparent reason so I stop early to avoid that situation.
2. Switch to two hammer tiles to complete the settler.
3. When the settler is built, because I had enough food banked to grow from population 1 to population 2, my city is already population 2 again despite the population cost of the settler. Repeat from step 1 until no more settlers are necessary.

This minimizes the time that you have to waste working food tiles in your settler farm(s).

I have read what you said.

And what you are saying is that you should "always work a food and hammer tile". And for best efficiency, I am telling you that is not true.

Here are some rough numbers. Again, because of the interface, I don't have precise food costs for growth so these are estimates:

Growing from pop 1 to pop 2 costs approximately 10 food
Growing from pop 2 to pop 3 costs approximately 20 food
Growing from pop 3 to pop 4 costs approximately 30 food

So a settler produced at population 3 costs 20 production and 20 food while a settler produced at population 2 costs 20 production and 10 food. That is, the settler produced at population 2 costs 10 food less than its counterpart produced at population 3.

10 food is 5 turns on a basic food tile. So unless you are spending at least 5 turns at population 3 during the production of each settler, the extra tile turns are not recouping your investment.

How about some examples:

Simplest settler farm:

Needs two forests and a grassland. Follows the plan I mentioned above. Completes a settler about once every 7 1/2 turns after the first one is out.

Max efficiency pop 3 settler farm:

Needs two forests and two grasslands. Basic plan is to work a combination of tiles to produce 20 food and 20 hammers while building a settler and to always maintain the ability to work 3 tiles. Completes a settler about once every 6 2/3 turns after the first one is out.

Looks pretty bad for the 2 pop settler farm as it loses 5/6 of a turn during the production of each settler? Yes, but you are ignoring the very important words in each of those "after the first one is out".

The very simple fact is that the first settler will be out significantly earlier in the 2 pop farm than the 3 pop farm for the simple reason that to set up for the best efficiency of 6 2/3 turns between settlers, the 3 pop farm will need to come up with a significant amount of food before the "first" settler to achieve that efficiency.

To be precise:

The 2 pop farm can produce its first settler at 10/20 food (population 2) and achieve maximum efficiency for its type.

The 3 pop farm can produce its first settler at 20/30 food (population 3) and achieve maximum efficiency for its type.

That is 30 extra food required to set up the "efficiency" the 3 pop farm allows.

How much time does that cost? Well the 2 pop farm produces its first settler in five turns from 10/20 food with no invested hammers.

The planned 3 pop farm spends 3 turns working 2 grasslands to bring itself 2/30 food (population 3) still with no hammers invested. It can then work any combination of tiles (micromanaged) that will bring it 18 food and 20 hammers over time with the caveat that the food has to be finished no later than the hammers. That will take 6 1/3 turns. So it doesn't get its first settler out for 9 1/3 turns, which is 4 1/3 turns after the 2 pop farm could have done it. And it requires a more constraining location (needs an extra grassland).

Those 4 1/3 turns will be made up over time by the increased efficiency, but it will be behind the 2 pop farm until it produces its 6th settler which is a very long time.

Wait hold on... The point is you cant send settlers with out protection because anything over cheiftan means your neighbors are going to ask for money and if you dont pay that means war. Also btw you wouldnt be prepared for war because you wouldnt have money or warriors.

I have a strat but i cant give it up yet. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

@Boss Nasti

I haven't crunched the numbers exactly, but a rough approximation is that it costs twice as much food to grow from population 1 to population 2 as it does to grow from population 2 to population 3.

A settler costs 20 production and 1 population (under Republic obviously).

The food cost of 1 population is approximately half as much if you work at population 1 and 2 as opposed to working at population 2 and 3. This is a significant savings. So by growing to population 3 you are (approximately) doubling the food cost of the settler. The tradeoff is that you get some turns where you can work three tiles. This sounds like a great deal, but in a standard early situation where you have only tiles yielding two food and two production available, the few extra turns on extra tiles is mitigated by the increased food cost of each settler.

Even in situations where operating at population 2-3 would show slight long term improvements over operating at population 1-2, the short term of getting the first couple of settlers out quicker becomes a major consideration.

What I have found to be by far the most effective method for farming settlers out of a city is the following:

1. Work a food and hammer tile until I am 2 or 3 turns away from growth. The game has a nasty tendency to jump from 2 turns to growth to growing for no apparent reason so I stop early to avoid that situation.
2. Switch to two hammer tiles to complete the settler.
3. When the settler is built, because I had enough food banked to grow from population 1 to population 2, my city is already population 2 again despite the population cost of the settler. Repeat from step 1 until no more settlers are necessary.

This minimizes the time that you have to waste working food tiles in your settler farm(s).

First off all I got from what you said, because you jibberished it up so much and couldn't just explain it simple lamen terms for me that'd be great. But pretty much what I did get out of that is that you think all I do is just put my guys on 1FT & 1HT(T=Tiles), but if you actually did read my posts correctlyl, they did say whether it was here or on another thread, they did say that players will have to adapt and learn their own strats and tactics to improve it and make it more efficient. But Starting out like this is the best basic way to start off doing a Feeding strat. Now obviously i'm not going to come out and tell everyone what I do, because dat's just not me.

Now since you say your strat is obviously supperior to mine. Better yet, when the fastest you've been able to finish the tech tree? I've finished it at 850 A.D.(but this was when I focusing more on gold than science. So I haven't actually been able to test out how fast I can really do it)

My responses are in bold.

I have read what you said.

And what you are saying is that you should "always work a food and hammer tile". And for best efficiency, I am telling you that is not true.

Because it is true. Now I did not state or say in any way, shape, form that this is the way you should do it all the time. I said this is the best basic set-up to start ODB, but players should learn to adapt and tweak it to achieve max efficiency.

Here are some rough numbers. Again, because of the interface, I don't have precise food costs for growth so these are estimates:

Growing from pop 1 to pop 2 costs approximately 10 food
Growing from pop 2 to pop 3 costs approximately 20 food
Growing from pop 3 to pop 4 costs approximately 30 food

These #'s are for those people who don't run with a handi. This is for most of the players who run with a 40% handi like I do. Because running with a 40% handi is the only way to get anywhere in this game on MP.
Pop 1-2 is 5 food
Pop 2-3 is 10 food
Pop 3-4 is 15 food
They go up by 5's.

So a settler produced at population 3 costs 20 production and 20 food while a settler produced at population 2 costs 20 production and 10 food. That is, the settler produced at population 2 costs 10 food less than its counterpart produced at population 3.

10 food is 5 turns on a basic food tile. So unless you are spending at least 5 turns at population 3 during the production of each settler, the extra tile turns are not recouping your investment.

How about some examples:

Simplest settler farm:

Needs two forests and a grassland. Follows the plan I mentioned above. Completes a settler about once every 7 1/2 turns after the first one is out.

Max efficiency pop 3 settler farm:

Needs two forests and two grasslands. Basic plan is to work a combination of tiles to produce 20 food and 20 hammers while building a settler and to always maintain the ability to work 3 tiles. Completes a settler about once every 6 2/3 turns after the first one is out.

Looks pretty bad for the 2 pop settler farm as it loses 5/6 of a turn during the production of each settler? Yes, but you are ignoring the very important words in each of those "after the first one is out".

The very simple fact is that the first settler will be out significantly earlier in the 2 pop farm than the 3 pop farm for the simple reason that to set up for the best efficiency of 6 2/3 turns between settlers, the 3 pop farm will need to come up with a significant amount of food before the "first" settler to achieve that efficiency.

To be precise:

The 2 pop farm can produce its first settler at 10/20 food (population 2) and achieve maximum efficiency for its type.

The 3 pop farm can produce its first settler at 20/30 food (population 3) and achieve maximum efficiency for its type.

That is 30 extra food required to set up the "efficiency" the 3 pop farm allows.

How much time does that cost? Well the 2 pop farm produces its first settler in five turns from 10/20 food with no invested hammers.

The planned 3 pop farm spends 3 turns working 2 grasslands to bring itself 2/30 food (population 3) still with no hammers invested. It can then work any combination of tiles (micromanaged) that will bring it 18 food and 20 hammers over time with the caveat that the food has to be finished no later than the hammers. That will take 6 1/3 turns. So it doesn't get its first settler out for 9 1/3 turns, which is 4 1/3 turns after the 2 pop farm could have done it. And it requires a more constraining location (needs an extra grassland).

Those 4 1/3 turns will be made up over time by the increased efficiency, but it will be behind the 2 pop farm until it produces its 6th settler which is a very long time.

But see were talking about two different scenario's. Were not on the same page, because you talking about your strat for No Handi and i'm talkin about my basic strat for a 40% Handi.

Sure, if the food cost for population growth is half what it normally is perhaps growing to population 3 is the way to go. I have never seen this in the game though. If the food cost were half though, everything happens much faster. Research obviously will be much quicker if you can grow twice as fast.

I don't have the full game yet, but in the demo I had a cultural victory in 800 AD where I had researched the entire available tech tree (including 4 locked techs thanks to Atlantis and Oxford). I also built every wonder except stonehenge which the Egyptians got for free. This included the Military Industrial Complex. This was with normal food costs using the method I described before.

I have some screenshots that I took. I'll see if I can find them and upload them.

Turn before victory. There are two screenshots here because I didn't have a single screenshot that showed the UN build and the date. Notice the Military Industrial Complex build in the side city:

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t218/CivVale/DSCN0973.jpg

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t218/CivVale/DSCN0975.jpg

Yea well I used to run the same strat that your speaking of now that I kinda got what your saying a little more now and thought about it for a sec. But the reason I like to run with a 40% handi is just overall it allows the full game to open up more quickly and everything becomes more efficient to do, so everything will happen at a faster pace. It is possible to do everything as well with no handi, it's just that most players don't want to go thru the time of having to figure that out I guess or maybe they just like the 40% handi features.

This Strat is too unstable and basic. I understand that people are finishing techin like in 500 AD but that because YOUR USING ROMANS. They are a god tier Civ and what you can do with them you cant do with any other civ. I think when we talk strats we gotta leave the romans out because no civ has the advantage that they have. When i was playing as Romans in the demo i had 3-4 megacities But when i was Egyptians i couldnt even finish one. But than again i mastered the general idea of the Roman strat but the egyptians or any other civ just cant achieve that sort of superiorty.

Agreed. I refuse to play as rome because I know they are going to get gimped sooner or later and playing them in their current condition feels like cheating.

I love an overpowered factor to any game because you can have fun but when you wanna be serious its always good to have that kinda of challenge.

If i win as the russians against the Romans it feels good lol

Honeslty I've been able to max out my MC's with using the egyptians, I can run the same Feeding strat using the Egyptians it just takes more turns to get your Republic established. But honestly the good thing about my using the Romans is that since I use them more than the egyptians. I've came up with a grip of counter strats depending on who i'm playing against. Now obviously I don't have real-time counters for the other civs that are in the full game due to me only having the demo. But i've been able to stop a Horseman rush when someone when using the egyptians on me and he actually did it pretty good to. But I was able to defend him and win while implementing my Feeding strat. I was still like +15 techs ahead of him by the time I decided to counter him and almost win. I was a turn or two away from taking his last city.

But it's all about being able to adapt your strat to the challenge of playing other civs who might rush you ODB. That's exactly why I make up different tech paths that I like to take depending on what I plan on doing ODB, due to whomever i'm playing against. While still being able to implement my Feeding strat. Of course this has taken me a good amount of time to think about and experiment with. And while I am still always thinking of new strats and tactics to use in my gameplay. I always experiment. I just can't wait for this game to come out in 2 days though.

The 2 pop farm can produce its first settler at 10/20 food (population 2) and achieve maximum efficiency for its type.

The 3 pop farm can produce its first settler at 20/30 food (population 3) and achieve maximum efficiency for its type.

That is 30 extra food required to set up the "efficiency" the 3 pop farm allows.This is a very helpful analysis. I did not understand the meaning of "10/20 food" and the total of "30 extra food". I would appreciate if you could explain further.

I would like to compute this for a different civilization than Rome. Have you done any work on that?

By 10/20 food I mean when you have produced 10 food (apples) out of 20 food needed to grow at population 2. If you produce a settler at the right food level, you instantly regrow to population 2 as the Settler is produced. This allows the constant working of 2 tiles as opposed to turns spent working only one tile. Now my 10-20-30-pop growth estimate is just an estimate.

So in practice, I tend to do it a little more conservatively to make sure I regrow immediately. Typically I switch from food+production to just production when the city screen says 4 turns to growth.

By 30 extra food to get set up, I mean that to get from the 10/20 food level to the 20/30 food level, you need to first produce 10 food to grow to population 3 and bring you to 0/30, then produce 20 more food to bring you to 20/30 food. This is a total of 30 extra food to get the farm established which is quite a prohibitive cost in general.

This analysis would apply to any civ running Republic, not just the Romans. I've done some numbers on doing this under other governments but it gets a little messier because you have to account for more factors during regrowth. Again though if you are trying to farm settlers out of a city, a good general approach would be to try to do so at the lowest population possible (population 3). Just try to time your builds so that the food bar is very close to being filled when the settler is completed.

If you are running some sort of handicap (I wouldn't suggest it) then the analysis breaks down because apparently (I haven't tested yet because I am against handicaps after finding out what they do) everything you do is cheaper and faster. So the food costs are lower, the production costs are lower, the research costs are lower.

This is a very helpful analysis. I did not understand the meaning of "10/20 food" and the total of "30 extra food". I would appreciate if you could explain further.

I would like to compute this for a different civilization than Rome. Have you done any work on that?

You will still need COL in order to take advantage of this information though, unless you plan on using another strat besides that of Feeding.

If you are running some sort of handicap (I wouldn't suggest it) then the analysis breaks down because apparently (I haven't tested yet because I am against handicaps after finding out what they do) everything you do is cheaper and faster. So the food costs are lower, the production costs are lower, the research costs are lower.

Aight first off bra, please don't talk about stuff which you know nothing about, cuz it just makes you look like another person who's giving false information. Bra the whole point of running a Handi is so the game can be played at a more efficient pace. So the game can get started off quicker and faster than it normally would so were not sitting their waiting as long to get everything started and out. That's just kinda the point of a Handi is to speed up food by 1/3 and cuts building cost/hammers in about Half.

But it doesn't lower the cost of research. It doesn't do anything to techs bro. Please stop giving out false information when you have done no research as you clearly stated in your full post that you haven't tested it out yet in Handi. So how would you know what goes on or how it works? You wouldn't, your most likely going off what someone else told you or your read about thinking that they were right.

I believe if both players are running handi then it makes the AIs lag behind. That hardly sounds like a complete game of civ. So its not quite as simple as just increasing the speed of the game. If the AI got the bonus as well then it would be equivalent to a speed-hike.

I believe if both players are running handi then it makes the AIs lag behind. That hardly sounds like a complete game of civ. So its not quite as simple as just increasing the speed of the game. If the AI got the bonus as well then it would be equivalent to a speed-hike.

Bra your trying to make it sound like were cheating out the AI when the AI is just simply put in their for you to take advantage over them. I mean sure you have to worry about them sometimes in the early game, but who are you really playing against? The other human/humans, the AI were just put in their to just make the game a little more interesting, but seeing as how everyone already rapes the AI, it really doesn't matter. Your trying to make it sound like I should give the AI a chance to win, why?

Not saying that they might not have feelings or what not even though it's just the computer. But the point that I really feel you drifting away from is that in the MP your not focusing on the AI, your focusing on the other player/s. Also since you claim that it would make the AI's lag behind, can you please provide some evidence to back up your claim, sine you obviously haven't provided any at all?

Well, can you provide proof that they don't lag behind. Common sense tells me that if you apply 40% handi to yourself, and your opponent provides 40% to himself and the AI doesn't get a chance to apply a handicap then it would only make sense that they don't get the handicap.

For asking for so much proof, you sure fail to provide some of your own. You might want to work on that :)

Well, can you provide proof that they don't lag behind. Common sense tells me that if you apply 40% handi to yourself, and your opponent provides 40% to himself and the AI doesn't get a chance to apply a handicap then it would only make sense that they don't get the handicap.

For asking for so much proof, you sure fail to provide some of your own. You might want to work on that :)

Bro why are you so indenile of that your wrong, I mean did even read what you just wrote? You pretty much just said that you want me to go and provide information for you, for a point that I wasn't even trying to prove in the first place, you were pimp. So I think i'm not going to go waste my time finding info for you. Ok why are you contradicting what we already know. It's like your trying to point out common sense itself.

Obviously the AI can't use a Handi Inspector Gadget due to them having no feature for us to add on to them. Thanx for pointing out the most obvious thing in the game, that had no need to be pointed out. Pimp you need to work on re-reading what you post, or maybe you should just not post without doing research first, because you really are not sounding knowledgable at all right now. Go read a book and attain some knowledge.

*sigh* Why do I bother . . .

Also since you claim that it would make the AI's lag behind, can you please provide some evidence to back up your claim, sine you obviously haven't provided any at all?

Followed by my post stating that if the AI doesn't have 40% handicap then they are going to be 40% slower in building everything including settlers and military units. So I believe that because they are slower at doing these actions it will make them lag behind. That makes sense, right? :)

*sigh* Why do I bother . . .



Followed by my post stating that if the AI doesn't have 40% handicap then they are going to be 40% slower in building everything including settlers and military units. So I believe that because they are slower at doing these actions it will make them lag behind. That makes sense, right? :)

Your making a the most obvious claim in the world bro. Obviously they would be slower due at making buildings or producing units. But what's your point? You state facts that everyone who runs a Handi already knows. So what are you getting at? Because all your doing is stating a fact.

So what your saying is that due to this fact, it's wrong of players to run a 40% Handi because it's not fair to the Artificial Intelligence, even though the AI was put in place for you to bluntly take advantage of them? Is this what your really trying to say?

Fine.

If handicap doesn't lower research costs, I stand corrected.

I also refuse to use it though because it is cheap and it cheapens the meaning of any accomplishments you get.

And if you can't see how a handicap gimps the AI further, lets consider:

You grow faster than normal.
You build faster than normal.
You expand faster than normal.

and

The AI gets none of these benefits (unless you have some ability to set a handicap for them).

If all the humans have a handicap, then the AI is gimped even more.

The point of a handicap is not to "make things more efficient". The point of a handicap is for players of different skill to be able to play with each other on a relatively balanced playing field. That is it. Look up the word handicap.

What a handicap is doing for you is allowing you to get away with unsound practices (like letting settler farms grow to pop 3) with no penalty. You then think you have some very efficient strategy, when in reality the main power of your strategy is in sliding that handicap up to 40% at the start. If you really believe that king + 40% handicap is "harder" than Chieftain, then you are totally ignoring how powerful the cheapened growth and production are.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer. I was just responding to the portion of your post that said "Also since you claim that it would make the AI's lag behind, can you please provide some evidence to back up your claim, sine you obviously haven't provided any at all?"

But anyway, I didn't say it was wrong at all. Its not my place to tell people how to play their game of civ. Read through my posts again, and read the portion of your post I was replying to. Hopefully it'll make sense.

The point of a handicap is not to "make things more efficient". The point of a handicap is for players of different skill to be able to play with each other on a relatively balanced playing field. That is it. Look up the word handicap.My understanding of the purpose of handicap agrees with yours. Hopefully, the scoring system in the full game will automatically generate the appropriate handicaps based on actual demonstrated skill. That's how we do it in golf, and the handicap makes it more fun for everyone.

I find the single player demo is very easy to beat. I enjoy playing the MP demo more, even if there are no human players available, since the AI is more skilled than the Warlord AI in single player. But even the MP vs all AI players is still pretty easy to beat.

Maybe I will change my mind when I get the full game, but for now, I will not play handicap. I find the game progresses fast enough for my tastes without decreasing the competition.

But, certainly everyone should be allowed to enjoy the game as they see fit. I'm sure there will be some that want to play the lower difficulty, with handicaps for everyone except the AI players.

Boss Nasti, you are 110% in the wrong here.

First, let's look at the definition of a handicap as it applies to something of a competitive form. Like sports, or a video game.
"a race or other contest in which certain disadvantages or advantages of weight, distance, time, etc., are placed upon competitors to equalize their chances of winning."
In horse races that are handicaps, the worst horses carry significantly less weight than the best horses to increase their chances of competing, thus making it more exciting for bettors and spectators. Similarly, the real purpose of a handicap in this game is to allow players of differing skill levels to have a fairly competitive round. The purpose is not to"speed up the game." If that was the case they would have given you multiple speed seetings, as in Civ 4, where everyone can be on a quicker, but equal playing field that has the amount of turns balanced to how fast things happen. By giving yourself the largest handicap possible in the game, or any handicap at all for that matter, you are admitting that you are the worst horse in the race, unable to compete on fair terms with anyone actually playing the game properly. Your 'accomplishments' are negated, and possibly of less worth than accomplishments on SP Chieftain.

Your strategy is obviosly deluded. Vale has provided the numbers to back this up. And playing with your handicap, with your supposed better strategy, you should get done 40% faster, plus however much better you claim your strat to be. 500 AD to 850 AD is not close to that.

Your very poor grammar and spelling also show us to take little stock in your comments. Nobody needs to have perfectly mistake free posts, I don't, and I don't expect people to consult a dictionary and grammar textbook on any questionable points. However, if you cannot correctly spell basic words, form complete sentences, and use proper punctuation, I can already tell your posts aren't worth reading. On top of that, your needless use of words like "bra," "pimp," "dude," and other things you do trying to make yourself sound like a gangster are completely out of place.

I don't claim to be a great Civ player. I'm just average, I come here to listen to good, sound advice and strats from guys like Vale, and to provide help with simple things where I can.

Don't try to argue with Vale on the strategy that HE CAME UP WITH, he knows what he's talking about, and is obviously a far better poster and far more experienced Civ player than you.

Don't claim that Multiplayer is the only important part of this game. Its cool, but the Civ series always has been and always will be based on Single Player. There's a reason the truly elite spend their time on things like GOTW, because SP is how Civ was originally meant to be played.

These boards have always been really good, not too many guys like you who claim to know what they're talking about, but use handicaps in cheap ways and claim that they're totally fair, and cannot seem to create a readable post.

Off what I can make out, Boss Nasti's posts are pretty much not worth reading. He always thinks he is right, and everyone elses opinion is worthless to him. I was posting on a thread (can't remember which one) and all he would say is that SP is useless, and this game should only be played as MP. He would not take my opinion that people can play it how they like, he was only interested in imprting his own opinion on me, and not listening to anyone elses.

btw, with the handicap, you change the game in more ways than just speeding it up. In addition to the AI falling behind, new techs will be researched faster (due to city growth being sped up). This means that troop movement is slowed down compared to building up military (new military techs plus faster build times), and domination gets A LOT harder.

Bottom line what you accomplish on Romans at 40% no civ can accomplish.
1. Starts with Republic
2. Half price roads

If you have half a brain you would know that these advantages are immensly powerful. If you can figure it out Romans can make a feeding strat totally safe and im talking about MP.

When I get the game tomorrow im using the Egyptians first, Aztecs 2nd, Arabs 3rd.

Ok, let's not turn this thread into a Boss Nasti bashing thread. No personal attacks are allowed here. Please get back to the topic.

Well said mod, sorry

Sheesh, and I thought this was going to be my 'relaxing' time with my consoles...Too much COD4 gets me all worked up, so I figured I'd chill with this neat little strategy game, that reminded me of Risk and AAA...

THEN, I read all this mess about math, and producing food, and pop, and settlers, I'm sort of afraid to plug this bad boy into my PS3 now...:crazyeye:

Here's to hoping that Civopedia really works!

Cheers,

Mark