Am I doing something wrong in Civ4?

[TheTacticalApe]

Everytime i achieve a victory, it always ranks me at "Dan Quayle." I mean, come on. I always used to play as the Incans before i got BTS/warlords, then they changed his traits so now i play as Tokugawa. Are those bad leaders or something? Also I always try to build lots of wonders in my capital, and somehow I'm always super advanced. Maybe because I like to play on settler. I've been playing for a really long time, and i think settler is still sort of difficult with bts/warlords. And what civics are good to use? I usually have Monarchy, Nationhood, Emancipation, Free Market, and Organized religion. If I'm doing really, really, bad, or ok, tell me. I usually build alot of farms to support my population, which seems to grow like a weed. Also I try to build alot of cities in the very beginning. Also if you can, can someone upload a picture/save file of what a good civ should look like?

EDIT: Also i research every tech, and build every building in every city. Not wonder/national wonder buildings, but all the normal buildings in every city.

 

[Vox de Villainy]

Lower difficulties give lower rewards; win on Noble or Prince with a domination victory and you'll be near the top.

Building every building doesn't contribute anything to your score, and is a waste of hammers. Look up some articles on city specialisation.

Similaraly, population is worthless unless actively doing something like being a Scientist specialist, working a mine or inhabiting a cottage. If all your cities are simply farmland and little else, this is probably one of the reasons you find Settler a challenge.

 

[Derakon]

If I recall correctly, your score in-game is based largely on how big your empire is and how many techs you've researched. However, you get huge multipliers at the end for a) difficulty, and b) finishing early. Winning domination in 1000 AD is worth far more points than winning it in 2031 AD; waiting for a time victory (2050 AD) will really nuke your final score.

 

[lymond]

Try posting on the S&T forum

post saves and screenshots of your games

 

[CajNatalie]

I'm a relaxed player who regularly hits Augustus Caesar on Noble and below... not a veteran or challenge player... and here are my opinions...

Building lots of wonders in your capitol = Bad idea
You're wasting a hell of a lot of time and hammers. It's okay to build the occasional wonder once your civ is on its feet, but most wonders should be gained via conquest.
As for civics, the fact that you think Nationhood is good to keep, related to the fact you put farms everywhere, shows that you know nothing about the benefits of Towns.
Okay, Nationhood is good for war, but what I'm saying is, if you build cottages everywhere, and watch them grow in to towns, and use Universal Suffrage and Free Speech, you'll get 1 food 1 hammer and SEVEN commerce per tile in addition to the 1 food/hammer from grass/plains respectively. The only reason your research goes so fast is because Settler has tiny maintenance, and I think you get a 50% boost to everything... in Noble and above, knowing how to grow your commerce without handouts is a major key to the game.

One last thing... trying to build a lot of cities at the very beginning is a terrible idea, also. It cripples the economy to have a sprawl. Using workers is far more important than spewing out settlers. I've been keeping up with AIs twice my size in two of the last three games I've played, because I took it slow (until I suddenly decided to crush them under my heel... then I grew, but my economies were ready for it by then).
Of course, in maps with very little land to share amongst many civs, there are exceptions to this, and you'll want to rush in those cases.

P.S. Read the manual, it really helps.

 

[Akar]

If you want to claim land send out 3-4 settler and plop down cities one tile apart and form a wall to block enemy sttlers. Then you can claim that land for yourself later

 

[Bushface]

Oh really, Akar ! You can't put cities one tile apart on the same landmass, and spreading your early cities that way is terribly wasteful - distance maintenance will cripple you. Nor does a row of cities keep the opposition out of your hinterland unless you don't have Open Borders, in which case your trade income from foreign trade (more valuable than internal) is zero. Moreover, such a "wall" of cities would need to have a lot of them in order to enclose a useful area for your later cities, and that area would need to be totall enclosed. Three or four cities would not be enough.

 

[Spectrite]

If the game goes long enough that you are researching every tech, then your games are probably ending fairly late. And the later your games end, the lower your score.

Also, the lower your difficulty, the lower your score.

 

[Danelius90]

Do yourself a favour and jump up a few levels. Just go for noble and see how you do. I think playing on low levels too much gives you bad habits. Because you can get away with a lot. Even if you fail on higher levels, just adjust and keep going. Personally, I've only ever played noble and above. So I lost, lost, did ok, got better, now win consistently. Saturating at one level ain't no good