I knew those utilities existed. I'm always reluctant to use 3rd party software like that. Though I suppose if any of those had some sort of virus or something in them, it would have been discovered long ago. I may give in and try some of those programs.
Advice For First Warlord Attempt
- Thread starter CrashHydrogen
- Start date
I knew those utilities existed. I'm always reluctant to use 3rd party software like that. Though I suppose if any of those had some sort of virus or something in them, it would have been discovered long ago. I may give in and try some of those programs.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
I'm leary of 3rd party things, too. When I do download something 'new' I scan it for viruses before I try to open it.
Both programs are good helps and great time savers. They can be 'spoilerish' but you have to select that.
This might sound boring, but if your not done expanding, focus on expanding, once your done expanding then build up a army,I usually wait till I get marketplaces in my core cities then I go to Monarchy and build knights but if your fighting a early war do this, In the cities close to your enemys build Swords, in the ones far away from the enemy build horsemen so they can get their quicker, Always fortify all of your troops in a border city then move them in stacks, If I have 3 swordsmen and I attack all at once I have a better than than 1 swords men evry turn for 3 turns. I personally dont like early wars because It usually interfers with my expanding and the wars are so slow because theres no roads or anything, and once you capture a city there are no roads and no pupulation.
True early wars rarely destroy one civ or the other (but slow both) the advantage though at warlord level of gaining a luxury or resource by having lets say a 3 or 4 turn war (and then possibly a tech or gold in exchange for peace) means its well worth building a few horsemen to go grab that city 5 squares away from your border as your slower units take their border town. Just don’t go starting a war with your victims again until 20 turns are up if they trade you anything for the peace deal.
Keeping light on your military while focusing on expanding can be a risky proposition. Once you start expanding beyond your core, each additional town you settle is going to have less and less commerce and production value to you (because of corruption). As long as your military looks weak to your opponents, you are an attractive target for attack. They may come at you with something slow that gives you a chance to react, by pulling your defenders in place and forming some alliances. Or they may come at you with a quick stack of death and overwhelm you at your core.
I have the urge myself to keep expanding as fast as possible. But I have found it is better if, when I get that core going, I need to start having a military force to discourage invasion and defend myself if it happens. I can still keep expanding by turning out settlers at perhaps my two best settler-producers. If the AI gets to that fringe territory before I do, no big deal, I will either culture flip it (I like the Religious trait), or I will capture it once I have a sufficient military and nothing better to do with that military. Getting those fringe settlements can wait; losing a settlement or three at my core to attack is devastating.
I have the urge myself to keep expanding as fast as possible. But I have found it is better if, when I get that core going, I need to start having a military force to discourage invasion and defend myself if it happens. I can still keep expanding by turning out settlers at perhaps my two best settler-producers. If the AI gets to that fringe territory before I do, no big deal, I will either culture flip it (I like the Religious trait), or I will capture it once I have a sufficient military and nothing better to do with that military. Getting those fringe settlements can wait; losing a settlement or three at my core to attack is devastating.
CrashHydrogen
Chieftain
Thanks for the advice, right now I'm basically collecting advice since I've been involved with 2 other games, one of them being Civ2 MGE, the other isn't a Civ game. I thought about the micro-management, it really doesn't seem as overwhelming as it sounds, I'm more worried about accidentally skipping a city during it, anyone know of any utilities that have like a city check list for micro-management?
del62
Deity
One thing that may not have been mentioned here is your tech path specifically for the ancient age.
On warlord if you do not know pottery, I would probably research that first, then alphabet if you do not know that, then writing, code of laws, philosophy and (if this is Conquests) choose republic next to pick it up for free. (You will almost certainly be first to philosophy on this level), trade for the other techs.
Obviously if playing an expansionist CIV and have huts on, you may go a different stratergy.
The more CIVs you know the better trading is possible, so say you know two civs who dont have a tech, you can trade it to both picking up 2 techs, not letting them trade on the other tech to the other. n warlord due to tech prices this isnt to much of a worry though,
On warlord if you do not know pottery, I would probably research that first, then alphabet if you do not know that, then writing, code of laws, philosophy and (if this is Conquests) choose republic next to pick it up for free. (You will almost certainly be first to philosophy on this level), trade for the other techs.
Obviously if playing an expansionist CIV and have huts on, you may go a different stratergy.
The more CIVs you know the better trading is possible, so say you know two civs who dont have a tech, you can trade it to both picking up 2 techs, not letting them trade on the other tech to the other. n warlord due to tech prices this isnt to much of a worry though,
del62
Deity
As far as micro managing, I find CIV assist is a big help, it can be set to pop up a warning when a city grows (and for other stuff), I find is nothing else knowing wen a city has grown is the most important thing.
What I find helpful is identyfying high food intake city possibilities and building a granary in these cities, then they can be used to produce workers and settlers, allowing you other cities to concentrate on military.
del62
Deity
On warlord you probably want cities in peace deals aswell
CrashHydrogen
Chieftain
So today, I won my first war on Warlord difficulty, I kept all of the advice everyone gave me in mind.
darski
Regent in Training
Speaking as a wussy warlord player I would suggest that you skip warlord and go to Regent right away. At Regent you begin to become a good player. Warlord tends to engender bad habits- and trust me I know this one fer shure.
Take all the advice and move on dear boy.
Take all the advice and move on dear boy.
CrashHydrogen
Chieftain
No. I will not move up too high too soon.
Congrats! 
The move from Warlord to Regent isn't much of a shock. The AI production penalty is elimintated (they had a 20% penalty at Warlord) but one of the biggest shocks is having one less citizen content (3 at Warlord, 2 at Regent). That means keeping an eye on your citizens a little earlier (and more often) than at Warlord.
However, at Regent will need to start paying attention to worker moves and start Micro Managing your empire rather than using the Governor. It is still possible to win with the Governor on, but it is easier to win if you know how to MM.
Finally, the AI's increased (or more to the point, equal) production means you will need to pay attention to warring, but not obessively. You need to kill more units than you lose. If you keep the ratio up, winning is assured.
This is the stage where you need to start 'working' at the game. So if that is not your idea of fun, then moving up becomes daunting (and boring). To each their own! Good luck!
The move from Warlord to Regent isn't much of a shock. The AI production penalty is elimintated (they had a 20% penalty at Warlord) but one of the biggest shocks is having one less citizen content (3 at Warlord, 2 at Regent). That means keeping an eye on your citizens a little earlier (and more often) than at Warlord.
However, at Regent will need to start paying attention to worker moves and start Micro Managing your empire rather than using the Governor. It is still possible to win with the Governor on, but it is easier to win if you know how to MM.
Finally, the AI's increased (or more to the point, equal) production means you will need to pay attention to warring, but not obessively. You need to kill more units than you lose. If you keep the ratio up, winning is assured.
This is the stage where you need to start 'working' at the game. So if that is not your idea of fun, then moving up becomes daunting (and boring). To each their own! Good luck!
Verarde
Pondering Wearing A Hat
Very nice job!
Like Raliuven said, you must pay more attention to what's going on around you if you move up to Regent. Checking in with the AI more often for trading opportunities, deciding what is the most time-effective way for this worker to spend his time, deciding your government, city locations etc. As you move up, the time spent there becomes increased.
Like Raliuven said, you must pay more attention to what's going on around you if you move up to Regent. Checking in with the AI more often for trading opportunities, deciding what is the most time-effective way for this worker to spend his time, deciding your government, city locations etc. As you move up, the time spent there becomes increased.
tR1cKy
taking over the world
I wouldn't call moving to Regent "too high too soon", probably because i actually started on Regent (and got pwned a few times before learning how to avoid the most basic mistakes). Fact is, if you want to be a better player, you have to face challenges. Sticking to an easy level just won't do.
CommandoBob
AbstractArt
Don't sell yourself short. It can be done. I jumped from Chieftian to Monarch; the nitty-gritty ugly details of my second game are detailed in Chieftain to Monarch: Game Two. This was done in Play the World, not Conquests, so somethings won't apply to you. But my point is that if you are careful and take your time and plan then it can be done.
When I started that game I decided to play it like a Succession Game. That is, take notes, play 10 turns, stop and analyze. It made the game play much slower than normal, but that was okay. I wanted to learn. I logged just about everything, going so far as to name each and every unit, which I don't do now. In my writeups I used a lot of images, too and those took time to create and edit. I started in September 2005 and finished in February 2007, because the posting and analysis took a lot more time than I expected. In addition, real life kept creeping into my civ time.
Bottom line: if you are careful, ask for advice and listen to it, you should do fine.
Utilities
Others have talked about periodicly checking on trading opportunities with other civs. That is tedious and time consuming. Instead, use one (or both) of these fine, forum created utility programs, MapStat (part of CrpSuite) and CivAssistII.
These programs will let you know when new trading is possible. They will also alert you to when cities are about to riot, calculate flip chances and other things. I use MapStat mostly, since I can Alt+Tab out of it into NotePad more easily than CivAssistII. However, CivAssistII gives a better breakdown of current trades than MapStat; I just don't use that feature much.
Similar threads
