Strategy for the learning process itself

So, I've climbed from Noble to Emperor in two months or so using all the fantastic guides and tips on this site. There are huge amounts on information on WHAT you need to learn to be successful, and less on HOW to learn it. I thought I share my experience and ideas on this and would find it interesting to hear about your learning processes.

Civ4 learning basically consists of different concepts that one must master in order to climb in levels. On Noble and below, it is quite possible to win without ever really grasping these concepts in detail. At least I did...
I have listed some of the concepts and strategies that I have learned in depth(!) on my journey from Noble to Emperor below:

Chopping, Whipping, City specialization (science/commerce/production/GP/GTdraft), Cottage/hybrid economy, drafting, beelining Liberalism and other techs as well as tech priorities, unit promotions, optimal civics usage, espionage, prioritized wonders, etc.

It's hard to make a list like that, but the point is that there are lots of things a beginner must learn to become a better player. It's not easy integrating these concepts into game strategies, as it must be an automatic process to some extent. What I mean with that is simply that one must consider LOTS of things each turn in order to be successful. If you have to make a list of things to remember for each turn, it would be very tedious gaming. So what's the best way to make all these strategies natural (in the sense that you automatically use them)?

After having read the war academy guides and strategy articles, I realized that there was no way I would be able to learn all of this at once. I had to come up with a way to effectively learn each and different concept to the degree where it would become a natural process in my gaming. I would assume each beginner stands before this problem.

What I did was to categorically choose a group of concepts that I would focus on, until I it had become a natural thing for me.
Some of the concept categories could be learnt in the early ages, some in the middle, and some in the late ages.

Here are some examples of the "categories".
* Chopping / whipping / unit and building priorities
* REXing / Consider the purpose of each city site and how it would be specialized, based on tiles and resources.
* Specialize the cities into science/commerce/production/GP farms/GT draft cities via worker activities, GP, buildings
* Economy: cottages, GPs, hybrid, religion, etc.
* Techs: How to prioritize, what to beeline, what the AI trades for, etc

I started with all the categories that could be learnt in the early stage of the game, as that seems quite natural from an optimal learning point of view.
I also actively stopped using any previous strategy I had, in order to improve my gaming from scratch.

After doing this, I started a game (on Prince back then) and played it over and over again (reloaded from start) to develop my skills of a particular concept category. I obviously made lots of mistakes in the beginning, but by replaying the same map each time, it was very easy to track my progress and see where I'd gone wrong. I saved the game every 10 turn or so and kept each game instance in separate folders for later comparison. After a while of playing like this, the strategy for a certain group of concepts really becomes a natural part of your game style.
Once I had mastered the first concept, I moved on to a new map and the next concept and applied it on top of the previous strategy I just learned. I usually played each map 3-5 times until I felt that I had focused enough on that sole concept and it could only be further developed parallell with other concepts.

Since many of the concepts are related to different stages in the game, as previously mentioned, I stopped playing at a certain point where I felt that moving on would not be relevant for that concept. However, once I had gone through all the "early stage" concepts, I used the most succesful save and played on to learn the concepts that were more relevant to middle and later stages. For example, choosing city sites and how to specialize them is really only relevant in the expansion phase of the game where you settle new cities. Just like optimizing your science city with GL/Oxford and using drafting is relevant in the middle/late stages of the game. Some concept, like teching, is of course relevant through the whole game.

I used a random leader on Pangae during this first process, but once I had gone through all the concepts it was time to integrate all of this and learn to adapt the strategies for different settings (leaders, maps, AIs, etc). So I basically started playing lots of maps with random leaders and random maps to be succesful in adapting my strategies to the settings. Lots of replays here as well, but seldom from 4000BC . Once its too easy on a level, its just a matter of climbing the levels and tune your strategies to be survive in a more competetive environment.

So in conclusion, I feel that replaying the same map several times is very effective in the learning stage, although not intensively fun perhaps. But then again, once you master the concepts, you are a much better player and the game is soooo much more fun .

How did you go about to master Civ4 and its huge range of concepts? Would be interesting to know what the most effective way or learning is, since most of us still have a long way to go before we have reached perfection .

I came from a history of Civ I, II and III before starting on this game. I can't say that it was hard for me to learn the game and it's concepts as the thing I've always loved about Civ is the need for micromanagement it offers. As such, I was always more than happy to test out every part of the game and then decide what works for me and what doesn't.

I started the game on Monarch and early on I'd always play industrious leaders and like most people, I liked Huayna Capac a lot because playing with him is like giving a handicap to all your enemies early on. I'd Quechua rush up to three of my closest enemies and be set for the game. I'd follow this by the early stone wonder triad (Henge, Mids, Gwall) to further boost my game. I'd always use Representation so it wouldn't matter if I tanked my economy with the quechuas.

And I did this again and again. And again. And again. Huayna is a really strong leader and I tried different approaches beyond the start but my start was almost always the same. I tried using settled GPs, cottage spam, financial boundaries of early expansion and I would also ALWAYS run 2 scientists in all of my cities to maintain a strong research and to thwart their growth at either size 4 or 5. To be frank, my game was really bland and every game would be like the other. I think it should also be mentioned that I never won through domination or conquest but would rather go for a cultural win or space race.

Well, I then realized that winning with HC isn't winning at all because it's too easy so I started varying it up. I'd play random leaders on the level I had mastered and see how well I did. With no box solution to every game made me approach the game differently and seek alternate paths to victory. I'd start busting fog to prevent barbarians (later learned that you don't actually need to see every tile in order to bust it), ceased relying on Pyramids and became a fan of HR instead. (Don't get me wrong, if I get a good chance on the Mids, I'll go for it and run Rep like an addict) HR allowed me to get a larger number of large cities instead of a few really powerful ones and I also realized that since it's probably the most popular favorite civic, it offered me considerable diplomatic benefits. I found that you don't need mids in order to run specialists (I always knew I didn't need to, but I always considered the 3 beakers per scientist too weak for me to care for).

I then started advancing difficulty levels and while I'd always approach a new level with HC or some other strong leader I'd always start randomizing or playing on a whim rather than planning my games out from the get go and always using the same plan. I started winning by domination or conquest, settle-block more aggressively and not rely on early rushing except when I deemed it necessary for the long run. Soon I'd find myself playing on Emperor with JC, vanquishing up to 4 enemies with just praets and keeping 1-2 cities from each of them and surviving it economically and realizing that I was on to something. I'd struggle to get CoL and Currency but always knew my boundaries and when it would pay off for me to attack and when not to.

Moved to Immortal which is the level I play on nowadays. It's not a level I win every time but I get the best games out of it. I find that the harder the level, the more I push myself and as a result play better. It's not uncommon for me to have up to 200 beakers on Immortal by 1 AD while I never reach this level on Monarch and very rarely on Emperor. On Immortal I find myself settling the spots that are most necessary, spawnbusting where I need to be, setting up a decent military force to repel the BC attack and settling enough cities that each serve a specific purpose to survive.

I've also played deity (albeit co-op with my friend against AI teams) with success but I don't consider myself a deity level player. We did get a total of 650 beakers by 1 AD and won by a landslide one time but it's by no means guaranteed. Still good fun though.

There are still parts of the game I don't consider my own. For one, I've never used the Globe Theatre for drafting purposes. I rarely even build the thing since I don't feel the need for it. I know that Nationalism would be a strong civic in it's own right but I never find myself needing it. Another part of the game would be Espionage. I rarely use spies but I did try a Cuirassier war with spies bringing down city walls and did get no less than 4 cities down in the first turn of war so I suppose there's something to espionage as well.

The best thing about this game is that it doesn't get old. There's ALWAYS a different approach you can pursue or atleast die trying.

I agree that the beauty of this game is its depth and many flavors, which allows each game to be truly unique, whether its because you play a new leader, different map, new difficulty or just trying out completely new strategies.

I use a wide variety of strategies nowdays, since I've learned to adapt to to the current game settings, but I certainly did not as a beginner. I did not have your history with previous civ games though, (I did play Civ3, but never evolved much).
I too was hooked on the Incas with HC (on Noble) actually . I wonder-spammed a lot and thought life was good since I had tanks when the AI had Rifles, but I only used a small fraction of what this game has to offer.

I do however think that there are basic concepts that one must learn in order to be succesful, independently of strategy, which leader you play and so on. Once you know those, its much easier to find your own path with certain leaders, maps and so on.

Thank you for posting this thread. I've been stuck on Monarch for ... a couple of years now. My game has definitely been in a rut. I like the idea of replaying the same start over and over as a training method. I'm going to give that a try.

A way to get some insight into alternate strategies, tactics and techniques other that replaying is to check out some of the forum games.

In the ALC you can see all the different ideas that people have concerning a particular game element. In things like the IU and EC you can look at periodic saves of different players and see how they handled everything from city management and placement to larger macro concepts. And of course there are the succession games.

I've learned a lot from these sources.

dorkynorky said:

A way to get some insight into alternate strategies, tactics and techniques other that replaying is to check out some of the forum games.

In the ALC you can see all the different ideas that people have concerning a particular game element. In things like the IU and EC you can look at periodic saves of different players and see how they handled everything from city management and placement to larger macro concepts. And of course there are the succession games.

I've learned a lot from these sources.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That's a very good idea too. Its a great way to get a sense of other players strategies and get some tips on how to enhance your own...

One thing that really made it easier for me to play better was to start taking notes. Especially if you go random and aren't coming to the game with a pre-designed goal it helps a lot if you pause in the very beggining and do a bit of brainstorming on what you short-term and long-term goals should be.

For example playing Sumeria and researching Priesthood late only to be reminded then that it gives you access to your UB courthouse at cheap prices. How many times have I simple forgotten, in the process of trying to play a perfect start, that I'm playing a creative leader so writing gives me cheap libraries, I'm playing an Org leader so CoL wins over getting Metal Casting from Oracle, etc etc etc.

So now when I start a game I take notes. I draw a rough line of early teching as soon as I see the map. It usually includes your worker techs, a religion if you go that way and BW. I note down things that are synergetic with my leader so I don't forget. Creative? Go for writing sooner and ignore Stonehenge. Organized? Think about expanding a bit in the beggining and go for CoL and chop Courthouses everywhere quick etc etc.

Another crucial moment that I need to note down what to do is when I decide what is the type of win I'm trying for, in case that wasn't obvious from the beggining. The end game can be really mesmerizing sometimes making you forget what your aim should be. So I note down what type of win I'm going for and how I should proceed about it.

I have replayed some starts too to get a better feel of how I should play and I found that if I didn't note down what I should do I kept forgetting.

My own worse enemy when playing Civ is sloppiness. I can play very good starts but as the game gets bigger I start to get sloppy and run by turns. Taking notes of what you should be doing helps keeping focus.

Yes ALC's are a great place to learn. They helped me move up all the way from chieftan to warlord

The ALCs and other articles on here are fantastic. The game walk-throughs have by far been the most enlightening for me. Getting to see different thoughts on priorities at different stages of the game was really interesting.

I'm still messing around on Noble, figuring out how best to apply the different strategies, but I went from getting my butt routinely kicked on Warlord to Noble just by managing my workers better (er...actually managing my workers instead of automating ).

There's a HUGE difference in my games from before and after discovering this forum. The game went from fun game for beating up civs to wow - so much more to this game!.

I don't know that I'd have the patience to play the same map multiple times, but I can - and do - play the same civ/leader/map type multiple times while focusing on the same thing. I think it might get a bit too tedious to play the same map each time. Plus I wouldn't be able to replay a map without considering what I found out in later turns of an earlier game; for example, I don't want to be settling cities based on resources that I technically haven't discovered yet, or explore in a certain direction because I know what's there, because that's not normally how it works.

Adria said:

The ALCs and other articles on here are fantastic. The game walk-throughs have by far been the most enlightening for me. Getting to see different thoughts on priorities at different stages of the game was really interesting.

I'm still messing around on Noble, figuring out how best to apply the different strategies, but I went from getting my butt routinely kicked on Warlord to Noble just by managing my workers better (er...actually managing my workers instead of automating ).

There's a HUGE difference in my games from before and after discovering this forum. The game went from fun game for beating up civs to wow - so much more to this game!.

I don't know that I'd have the patience to play the same map multiple times, but I can - and do - play the same civ/leader/map type multiple times while focusing on the same thing. I think it might get a bit too tedious to play the same map each time. Plus I wouldn't be able to replay a map without considering what I found out in later turns of an earlier game; for example, I don't want to be settling cities based on resources that I technically haven't discovered yet, or explore in a certain direction because I know what's there, because that's not normally how it works.

Click to expand...

Yes, it can be a bit tedious to replay the same map, but I try to see those sessions as pure practice instead of playing for fun. Depending on which concept you are working with, I would settle the cities at the same spots since its impossible to track the progress otherwise. Unless I'm working on REXing and city specialization of course

Automated workers is of course a big no no..especially in the early game.