What do you mean you arn't sure? Take it off from the AI's strategy list. It doesn't work.
Inca are Early-game, Game-breaking Psychopaths
- Thread starter basta
- Start date
Since the discussion in this thread seems to be on tactics and strategy anyways, I would like to ask you a question: Is there any point annexing or puppeting cities? I play on King at the moment (because I have never played a higher diff than Monarch on Civ4, it felt so rushed... ^^) and my "strategy" is to a) spam cities tightly by the ton, b) neglect production, c) keep upkeeps low and maximize GPT to buy/upgrade units. Cities generally build (Circus), Colosseum, Library first, basically only Happy-buildings.
My problems with conquered citis are: They are built to far apart, have stupid buildings in them and cost me 4 friggin GPT for the Courthouse. Wouldn't it be much more efficient to raze everything you conquer and build new cities?
I hope I managed to draw a picture of how I play the game...
My problems with conquered citis are: They are built to far apart, have stupid buildings in them and cost me 4 friggin GPT for the Courthouse. Wouldn't it be much more efficient to raze everything you conquer and build new cities?
I hope I managed to draw a picture of how I play the game...
builer680
eats too much Taco Bell
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 525
I assumed you meant that you wanted to remove rushing as a tactic at all, even for human players. This is what I'm not sure how to achieve, aside from making cities impossible to attack with Warriors or Spearmen... or even if it's something worth achieving. I don't really think so. It might be nice to delay fighting until everyone had some semblance of an empire built, but honestly you can do exactly this by using later start dates. Voila, everyone has somewhat of an empire right from the beginning.
If all you do is tell the AI not to rush, without changing anything else, all you achieve is the exposure of the AI to (more) human exploitation... by the human rushing. Maybe you wouldn't do it, but many would, and it would make the AI even more of a pushover. What would the point of that be? If you wanted to take rushing out of the game, you'd have to create a system that didn't reward it, or in fact even punished it.
As I said, I don't really believe it's worth that. I may hate being rushed, but it's not like it's unrealistic. In fact, however, the lower levels do pretty much exactly this, preventing the AI from being able to rush at all because of production handicaps and such. So I suppose if you want to avoid being rushed by the AI, play lower levels?
Edit: Replying to the last part of your statement, "It doesn't work." I'd say that depends on the rush. Frequently it DOES work, especially in MP. It works for a decent human player vs the AI. And it apparently worked for the AI in the game this thread is about. Not to mention, it probably has a reasonable measure of success in AI vs AI wars, though not so much success when the AI rushes against an experienced human player.
The computer could benefit, however, from being able to more accurately recognize its chances of defeat sooner... and perhaps learn how to make a tactical retreat before it loses the majority of its army. Or even pull back its attack before it starts once it sees you have at least some measure of defense against its rush. But to a point, I believe it already does this, inasmuch as it weighs your current army size before declaring war. Perhaps making another check of your army size after war is declared and right before it attacks would be a good idea.
builer680
eats too much Taco Bell
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 525
Shrug. Maybe... if the AI mills about outside your city like it tends to do sometimes.
I wouldn't say "any" invasion, sometimes it comes pretty strong and pretty direct early. Besides, the early Warrior building is just as much for your own offense, after you've dealt with the inevitable initial AI rush.
You're not likely to "outsettle" the AI because of the production bonuses they get. Typically it's easier to just let them have their fun while you're building your army, then burn/puppet everything they've created. It's not always the most fun thing, but it works.
ICanHasName?
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 272
You shouldn't have given all your gold to spain (buy walls or warriors instead), you should have a couple more military units, you shouldn't loose the whole war to 6 units that had to spend a quarter of the game so far marching through the fog to get you.
Go for military techs immediately, keep enough gold to buy emergency fortifications, keep an eye on anyone who begins to lean toward disliking you.
Go for military techs immediately, keep enough gold to buy emergency fortifications, keep an eye on anyone who begins to lean toward disliking you.
He has a point.
It looks like you pushed expansion at the expense of military. Early DoWs are almost always the result of the player's lack of military, and the easiest way to anger the AI away from expansion and into a military build-up is to rapidly expand this early.
It worked well enough on the OP.
bryanw1995
Emperor
try that game over again based upon the advice that you got in this thread. you should be able to win that start 95% + of the time.
Arsenic Steel
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 155
That is odd since I just got clobbered by Hiawatha in early BC after building 4 cities which had 4 slingers in each one along 3 Warriors taking out barbs on Immortal. Of course in the span of time it took me to build those units Hiawatha had 5 cities, 3 Mohawks, 8 Warriors, 1 Spearman, and 3 Archers.
BC wars on anything higher than Emperor are ugly for the player.
wurstburst
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 301
Just start a new thread with your question - you'll get plenty of answers. Your question is off-topic in this thread.
lordsurya08
class-A procrastinator
Your useless comments are not welcome here.
Moderator Action: Use the report post button, don't call other people's comments useless.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Guardian_PL
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,231
Why? Harsh truth is harsh. Deal with that.
jacyp
Winter Lover
Harsh truth is harsh and, in this case, useless.
If the guy is doing something wrong, a useful post is one that teaches him how to do it right.
But how about a game forcing you to do the same thing over and over again, like so many people described here? Yes, people come here all superior talking about their "winning strategy" that it's all the same and don't realize what this means.
It means the game has a "recipe" about how you should play it, if you don't follow it you are a "noob that got pwnd" and that means another major failure in Civ 5 account.
So to all of you who think in themselves as big-pro-master-players, thanks for showing one more reason to think that this game is a failure. You're not special, you're just following a ridiculous recipe to win. It's the same as playing a RPG game knowing what answers you have to chose to get what you want. Big deal.
Edit: and builer680, don't think that my reply includes you. You're one of the few person in this thread interested in analizing, discussing and providing actual strategy to overcome the problem of the OP.
builer680
eats too much Taco Bell
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 525
I appreciate the comment you make at the end, but the following is true nonetheless.
Not everyone here is trying to be condescending. The fact is, you can't just do whatever you want and expect to win on the (artificially, I agree) higher levels.
The OP is complaining that the game is somehow "bugged" because it attacked him with lots of units, very early. We're illustrating that this is quite normal, and some things he can do better next time. He says he plays Immortal only, but I have a hard time believing that... given the shock he shows at being the target of an early rush. That happens in nearly every game, why would this be so surprising?
Like it or not, early rushes are part of the so-called "challenge" of these levels. You are behind in everything from turn 1, because that's the only way the developers know how to make the game harder. They can't make significantly better AI, so we basically have to settle for this as our challenge.
One more reason why i prefer Archipelago (or small Continents) to anything else for whatever levels... i may just be the lonely owner of enough space to do a solid "build-up" of Cities+Offensive_Units and to prevent most AIs into trying such an early conquest rush on me.
Call me the prudent but wise type.
And, if it so happens that some Major (be it Inca or not, btw) is really tooooo close nearby even if ON the same continent or island as me -- they certainly get the strike treatment eventually from my stock_shock troops to prevent (as much as possible!) their usual badly_algorithmic_design_tricks like silly runaway expansion (ICS, etc) to pile up population driven techs.
Call me the wise but "Behavior is often necessary to Win" type.
Call me the prudent but wise type.
And, if it so happens that some Major (be it Inca or not, btw) is really tooooo close nearby even if ON the same continent or island as me -- they certainly get the strike treatment eventually from my stock_shock troops to prevent (as much as possible!) their usual badly_algorithmic_design_tricks like silly runaway expansion (ICS, etc) to pile up population driven techs.
Call me the wise but "Behavior is often necessary to Win" type.
ryantherenegade
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 28
lol got moderator action.
Everyone else is calling the OP a noob also, I just condensed it down to leet.
Apologies.
Anyways, I'm currently getting my behind handed to by russia as Japan - they're in the future era and I'm still industrial.
Level - King = I am a noob also.
Everyone else is calling the OP a noob also, I just condensed it down to leet.
Apologies.
Anyways, I'm currently getting my behind handed to by russia as Japan - they're in the future era and I'm still industrial.
Level - King = I am a noob also.
Similar threads
