Okay, i basically need help in everything. I need to give myself an advanced start with afew more techs than everyone else only on warlord to win (by allot), but if i dont give myself this slight advance, i an just rubbish, so

1. I build lots of cottages, but how many should i build to sustain a rather rapid growth rate?

2. How can i specialise cities?

3. What wonders should/not i bother with?

4. Should i bother with forts?

5. To what aproximate ratio should i have my war units?

6. What should come first? (religion, war, economy, etc)

7. And anything else would be good

Thanks for the help in advance!

Best way might be to post a game and see how others handle it, to give you a comparison base, because almost everything is map and competing civ dependent, but some thoughts on your points:

1. I like to shoot for about 1 out of every 3 cities to be a cottage city, but it depends on the land. I often prioritize production, since I war quite often, but cottaging 1-2 early cities should be plenty to sustain you on lower levels.

2. Look at the land to help you specialize - lots of flood plains or river grassland tiles means a good cottage site. Hills with food (or plains & hills with food) can be a good production site, and lots of food with little production can be a great person farm (for me, these are often coastal sites).

3. Try a game with no wonders and see how it goes. You don't need to build wonders to win, and in fact, they can sometimes be a waste of hammers. Depending on the map, I'll often prioritize a few wonders (GLH or colossus if a lot of good coastal/island sites, great library is often a priority, and taj mahal & kremlin), but some games I'll build very few if any world wonders and try to take them in war.

4. Forts aren't necessary, but can be useful in somewhat rare circumstances (as a chokepoint for defense, or to unlock a strategic resource like oil faster).

5. War units can vary wildly. If you're isolated with tons of happiness resources and you've built great wall, one unit per city is fine. If you're on pangaea with Shaka and Monty as neighbors, you'll need a much more diverse and mobile army. Also, if you run hereditary rule, you might need a number of units to maintain happiness while you grow. Very map-dependent.

6. On warlord, I would suggest starting with the key worker techs - you don't need early religion to thrive (although for some civs it might make sense). If you have wheat or corn, tech agriculture while building a worker - you'll immediately see good growth from your first city. If you have a bunch of hills, consider mining/BW early to find out where copper is and to get mines built for production. Again, this might be helpful to see you play out a save.

Remember, we all started this game out at low levels (or at least most of us did), so most of us have been in your exact situation - I know I have.

1) depends on the terrain. if there's loads of flood plains build loads there, if its mainly plainse build fewer.
2) play to your cities strength. if it's able to work lots of plains use it as a hammer city/military pump, if it has loads of floodplains/riverside grassland/other high commerce tile build loads of cottages and commerce multipliers. play the map
3) depends. if you plan to run loads of specialists the 'mids will be very helpful (if not required), if not they wont be so helpful. 'henge is useful if you plan to build loads of cities (it'll save you hamers of you build more than 5 or so cities) but if you're creative it's not very useful.
4) no.
5) there is no set ratio, just have at least 1 unit per city (and under HR a few more to raise the happy cap), and other than that just build what you think you'll need to deal with any invasions/invade yourself.
6) economy > war > religion. dont bother with religion.
7) stop giving yourself advantages, and just win using your own skill (or learn from your mistakes) also search the articles in the strategy articles section and the war academy for more hints.

An other advice could be to try to learn the game mechanics while playing in chieftain
or settlers mode.
There's very good strategy guide for beginners in this forums, you could learn
a lot with those guides while playing at lower difficulties.
(and, at least, you won't need to give you a tech advantage)

my 2 cents.

@ tuc

You may want to check out the articles in the War Academy. I suggest a good start is Sisiutil's Strategy Guide for Beginners (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/sisiutil.php) that will give you a good explanation of the basics. Don't worry too much about some of the details now-just play some games and experiment.

Welcome to CFC :goodjob:

@ tuc

You may want to check out the articles in the War Academy. I suggest a good start is Sisiutil's Strategy Guide for Beginners (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/sisiutil.php) that will give you a good explanation of the basics. Don't worry too much about some of the details now-just play some games and experiment.

Welcome to CFC :goodjob:

^^^^ That.

But if you do get hopelessly stuck feel free to post pics and saves on the forum and ask for help :D

thanks for everything so far, but what is the advantage of specialising cities?
i'll definately take a look at the beginners guide. The embarrasing thing is is that i have had it for years (although it is only until a few days ago when i decided to become less dependant on automation and make my own choices more than i had)

The advantage of specializing cities is that you get the most out of them. Consider in the early game, if you have 3 cities: a capital, a production / military city and a cottage city. It makes the most sense to put the barracks in the military city and just build units. Later, it makes sense to only build the market, grocer, etc... in the cottage city.

If you look at the city demographics screen, you can see the research, production and commerce yields from each city, it makes sense to build the buildings in those cities that best use what they have available. Your empire will do much better by prioritizing the right buildings in the right cities rather than building every building in every city. Plus you'll be able to maintain a decent army at the same time.

Every empire will have a best science city, usually the capital, it makes sense to capitalize research buildings on that city. Try to get the great library in that city, and a science academy, and the Oxford. Try to make a money maker city, put the Wall Street there, etc....

Later, it makes sense to only build the market, grocer, etc... in the cottage city.

This might not be the best advice, in many cases a library in your cottage city is much better, in some markets will do absolutely nothing. It all depends on your tax slide, high :science: rate build libraries in your cottage cities, high :gold: rate then markets.

Too much emphasis on specialization like Oxford, Wall Street and Beauracracy will likely lead to dodgey advice and confuse the issue until tuc learns the game a bit.

The advantage of specializing cities is that you get the most out of them. Consider in the early game, if you have 3 cities: a capital, a production / military city and a cottage city. It makes the most sense to put the barracks in the military city and just build units. Later, it makes sense to only build the market, grocer, etc... in the cottage city.

If you look at the city demographics screen, you can see the research, production and commerce yields from each city, it makes sense to build the buildings in those cities that best use what they have available. Your empire will do much better by prioritizing the right buildings in the right cities rather than building every building in every city. Plus you'll be able to maintain a decent army at the same time.

Every empire will have a best science city, usually the capital, it makes sense to capitalize research buildings on that city. Try to get the great library in that city, and a science academy, and the Oxford. Try to make a money maker city, put the Wall Street there, etc....


But what harm can come from putting market/grocer etc everywhere instead of specialised cities? It's not like those sort of buildings do any harm...

but what's the point? if your hammer cities are making no more commerce than the sum of their trade routes and city square adding a market isnt going to do very much. it's far better for it to spend those hammers on a forge or a military.

But what harm can come from putting market/grocer etc everywhere instead of specialised cities? It's not like those sort of buildings do any harm...

It waste :hammers: and time allowing your rivals to get further ahead in all areas.
Don't dwell on it too much yet though.

But what harm can come from putting market/grocer etc everywhere instead of specialised cities? It's not like those sort of buildings do any harm...

as above^^ plus it also adds to matinence(maybe? not up on all the mechanics) mixed bag citys tend to be below average at everything rather than average. btw it sounds like you want balanced city's your capital tends to be good for all the bulidings but all your other city's should focus on ONE thing

as above^^ plus it also adds to matinence(maybe? not up on all the mechanics) mixed bag citys tend to be below average at everything rather than average. btw it sounds like you want balanced city's your capital tends to be good for all the bulidings but all your other city's should focus on ONE thing

It doesn't add to maintenance, only city distance to palace, number of cities and that city's population affect that.

cheers did not even need to look it up