I want to go to higher levels and have been hearing that the only way to win is by using the AI, by taking their land. So basically I want to ask (Since I want to play regent soon to prove myself). Is it better to take land by force or by settling as much as possible?
Land grabbing, war or settler?
- Thread starter fephisto
- Start date
Chingis Khan
Scourge Of The World
You will never manage to keep up with the AI on Emporer and Diety in terms of settler production. For this reason, I let the AI spew out settlers and found cities while I build a military and take their new cities as fast as they produce them.
On Regent, you should be able to keep up with, or surpass the AI in settler production; so I guess it's up to you how you want to play it. My advice? Go to war ASAP and stay at war until you own the world (It's more fun) !!!
On Regent, you should be able to keep up with, or surpass the AI in settler production; so I guess it's up to you how you want to play it. My advice? Go to war ASAP and stay at war until you own the world (It's more fun) !!!
I have difficulty even surviving without land grabbing on the Monarch level. Sometimes Quantity is more important than Quality.
In a hard level the best thing to do is to get a good start, and land grabbing as much as you can.
In a hard level the best thing to do is to get a good start, and land grabbing as much as you can.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
This land-grabbing idiocy, called Settler Diarrhea, first of all is a cheat as the AI could never honestly build all those settlers and foot soldiers it pewks out, plus they often teleport themselves to open tiles they shouldn't even know exist, that as they arrogantly wander through my territory.
Invariably, AI towns are built in stupid places all over. I wait until I have a good civ, and maybe swordsmen or knights, and then attack them. They are impossible to defend well being so isolated, plus they produce little for their AI civ owing to crazy corruption. So Settler Diarrhea in the long run works against the AI, but it is dumb and annoying.
Invariably, AI towns are built in stupid places all over. I wait until I have a good civ, and maybe swordsmen or knights, and then attack them. They are impossible to defend well being so isolated, plus they produce little for their AI civ owing to crazy corruption. So Settler Diarrhea in the long run works against the AI, but it is dumb and annoying.
I did a test. Settlers vs wars. Both on warlord diffuctly (as to give the settlers a chance). I have found out that by 1500 BC my civ got quite an empire through wars (thanks to trusty despotism whip also). And as my settlers were in 500 AD still didn't have as much cities as my war countries. So let this be a lesson to us all, using the AI is better.
BTW on my war country I didn't build one settler
BTW on my war country I didn't build one settler
War is also more fun but sometimes, a mixture of the two can be just as effective. Personally I think creating a core set of productive cities and then use these to produce an army and then attk the surrounding civs till you occupy the entire island-continent is a good strat. I refuse to have neighbours. 
Similar threads
